Pharmacology

Two drugs have emerged as the optimal medications for treating insomnia based on the “best-available evidence,” but there are caveats.

In a comprehensive comparative-effectiveness analysis, lemborexant and eszopiclone showed the best efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability for acute and long-term insomnia treatment.

However, eszopiclone may cause substantial side effects – and safety data on lemborexant were inconclusive, the researchers note.

Not surprisingly, short-acting, intermediate-acting, and long-acting benzodiazepines were effective in the acute treatment of insomnia, but they have unfavorable tolerability and safety profiles, and there are no long-term data on these issues.

For many insomnia medications, there is a “striking” and “appalling” lack of long-term data, study investigator Andrea Cipriani, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry, University of Oxford, United Kingdom, noted during a press briefing.

“This is a call for regulators to raise the bar and ask for long-term data when companies submit an application for licensing insomnia drugs,” Dr. Cipriani said.

The findings were published online  in The Lancet.
 

Prevalent, debilitating

Insomnia is highly prevalent, affecting up to 1 in 5 adults, and can have a profound impact on health, well-being, and productivity.

Sleep hygiene and cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) are recommended first-line treatments, but they are often unavailable, which often leads patients and clinicians to turn to medications.

However, “insomnia drugs are not all created equal. Even within the same drug class there are differences,” Dr. Cipriani said.

In a large-scale systematic review and network meta-analysis, the researchers analyzed data from 154 double-blind, randomized controlled trials of medications (licensed or not) used for acute and long-term treatment of insomnia in 44,089 adults (mean age, 51.7 years; 63% women).

Results showed, for the acute treatment of insomnia, benzodiazepines, doxylamine, eszopiclone, lemborexant, seltorexant, zolpidem, and zopiclone were more effective than placebo (standardized mean difference range, 0.36-0.83; high-to-moderate certainty of evidence).

In addition, benzodiazepines, eszopiclone, zolpidem, and zopiclone were more effective than melatonin, ramelteon, and zaleplon (SMD, 0.27-0.71; moderate-to-very low certainty of evidence).

“Our results show that the melatonergic drugs melatonin and ramelteon are not really effective. The data do not support the regular use of these drugs,” co-investigator Phil Cowen, PhD, professor of psychopharmacology, University of Oxford, said at the briefing.
 

Best available evidence

What little long-term data is available suggest eszopiclone and lemborexant are more effective than placebo. Plus, eszopiclone is more effective than ramelteon and zolpidem but with “very low” certainty of evidence, the researchers report.

“There was insufficient evidence to support the prescription of benzodiazepines and zolpidem in long-term treatment,” they write.

Another problem was lack of data on other important outcomes, they add.  

“We wanted to look at hangover effects, daytime sleepiness, [and] rebound effect, but often there was no data reported in trials. We need to collect data about these outcomes because they matter to clinicians and patients,” Dr. Cipriani said.

Summing up, the researchers note the current findings represent the “best available evidence base to guide the choice about pharmacological treatment for insomnia disorder in adults and will assist in shared decisionmaking between patients, carers, and their clinicians, as well as policy makers.”

They caution, however, that all statements comparing the merits of one drug with another “should be tempered by the potential limitations of the current analysis, the quality of the available evidence, the characteristics of the patient populations, and the uncertainties that might result from choice of dose or treatment setting.”

In addition, it is important to also consider nonpharmacologic treatments for insomnia disorder, as they are supported by “high-quality evidence and recommended as first-line treatment by guidelines,” the investigator write.
 

Shared decisionmaking

In an accompanying editorial, Myrto Samara, MD, University of Thessaly, Larissa, Greece, agrees with the researchers that discussion with patients is key.  

“For insomnia treatment, patient-physician shared decisionmaking is crucial to decide when a pharmacological intervention is deemed necessary and which drug [is] to be given by considering the trade-offs for efficacy and side effects,” Dr. Samara writes.  

The study was funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Health Biomedical Research Center. Dr. Cipriani has received research and consultancy fees from the Italian Network for Pediatric Trials, CARIPLO Foundation, and Angelini Pharma, and is the chief and principal investigator of two trials of seltorexant in depression that are sponsored by Janssen. Dr. Samara has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Two drugs have emerged as the optimal medications for treating insomnia based on the “best-available evidence,” but there are caveats.

In a comprehensive comparative-effectiveness analysis, lemborexant and eszopiclone showed the best efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability for acute and long-term insomnia treatment.

However, eszopiclone may cause substantial side effects – and safety data on lemborexant were inconclusive, the researchers note.

Not surprisingly, short-acting, intermediate-acting, and long-acting benzodiazepines were effective in the acute treatment of insomnia, but they have unfavorable tolerability and safety profiles, and there are no long-term data on these issues.

For many insomnia medications, there is a “striking” and “appalling” lack of long-term data, study investigator Andrea Cipriani, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry, University of Oxford, United Kingdom, noted during a press briefing.

“This is a call for regulators to raise the bar and ask for long-term data when companies submit an application for licensing insomnia drugs,” Dr. Cipriani said.

The findings were published online  in The Lancet.
 

Prevalent, debilitating

Insomnia is highly prevalent, affecting up to 1 in 5 adults, and can have a profound impact on health, well-being, and productivity.

Sleep hygiene and cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) are recommended first-line treatments, but they are often unavailable, which often leads patients and clinicians to turn to medications.

However, “insomnia drugs are not all created equal. Even within the same drug class there are differences,” Dr. Cipriani said.

In a large-scale systematic review and network meta-analysis, the researchers analyzed data from 154 double-blind, randomized controlled trials of medications (licensed or not) used for acute and long-term treatment of insomnia in 44,089 adults (mean age, 51.7 years; 63% women).

Results showed, for the acute treatment of insomnia, benzodiazepines, doxylamine, eszopiclone, lemborexant, seltorexant, zolpidem, and zopiclone were more effective than placebo (standardized mean difference range, 0.36-0.83; high-to-moderate certainty of evidence).

In addition, benzodiazepines, eszopiclone, zolpidem, and zopiclone were more effective than melatonin, ramelteon, and zaleplon (SMD, 0.27-0.71; moderate-to-very low certainty of evidence).

“Our results show that the melatonergic drugs melatonin and ramelteon are not really effective. The data do not support the regular use of these drugs,” co-investigator Phil Cowen, PhD, professor of psychopharmacology, University of Oxford, said at the briefing.
 

Best available evidence

What little long-term data is available suggest eszopiclone and lemborexant are more effective than placebo. Plus, eszopiclone is more effective than ramelteon and zolpidem but with “very low” certainty of evidence, the researchers report.

“There was insufficient evidence to support the prescription of benzodiazepines and zolpidem in long-term treatment,” they write.

Another problem was lack of data on other important outcomes, they add.  

“We wanted to look at hangover effects, daytime sleepiness, [and] rebound effect, but often there was no data reported in trials. We need to collect data about these outcomes because they matter to clinicians and patients,” Dr. Cipriani said.

Summing up, the researchers note the current findings represent the “best available evidence base to guide the choice about pharmacological treatment for insomnia disorder in adults and will assist in shared decisionmaking between patients, carers, and their clinicians, as well as policy makers.”

They caution, however, that all statements comparing the merits of one drug with another “should be tempered by the potential limitations of the current analysis, the quality of the available evidence, the characteristics of the patient populations, and the uncertainties that might result from choice of dose or treatment setting.”

In addition, it is important to also consider nonpharmacologic treatments for insomnia disorder, as they are supported by “high-quality evidence and recommended as first-line treatment by guidelines,” the investigator write.
 

Shared decisionmaking

In an accompanying editorial, Myrto Samara, MD, University of Thessaly, Larissa, Greece, agrees with the researchers that discussion with patients is key.  

“For insomnia treatment, patient-physician shared decisionmaking is crucial to decide when a pharmacological intervention is deemed necessary and which drug [is] to be given by considering the trade-offs for efficacy and side effects,” Dr. Samara writes.  

The study was funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Health Biomedical Research Center. Dr. Cipriani has received research and consultancy fees from the Italian Network for Pediatric Trials, CARIPLO Foundation, and Angelini Pharma, and is the chief and principal investigator of two trials of seltorexant in depression that are sponsored by Janssen. Dr. Samara has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Two drugs have emerged as the optimal medications for treating insomnia based on the “best-available evidence,” but there are caveats.

In a comprehensive comparative-effectiveness analysis, lemborexant and eszopiclone showed the best efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability for acute and long-term insomnia treatment.

However, eszopiclone may cause substantial side effects – and safety data on lemborexant were inconclusive, the researchers note.

Not surprisingly, short-acting, intermediate-acting, and long-acting benzodiazepines were effective in the acute treatment of insomnia, but they have unfavorable tolerability and safety profiles, and there are no long-term data on these issues.

For many insomnia medications, there is a “striking” and “appalling” lack of long-term data, study investigator Andrea Cipriani, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry, University of Oxford, United Kingdom, noted during a press briefing.

“This is a call for regulators to raise the bar and ask for long-term data when companies submit an application for licensing insomnia drugs,” Dr. Cipriani said.

The findings were published online  in The Lancet.
 

Prevalent, debilitating

Insomnia is highly prevalent, affecting up to 1 in 5 adults, and can have a profound impact on health, well-being, and productivity.

Sleep hygiene and cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) are recommended first-line treatments, but they are often unavailable, which often leads patients and clinicians to turn to medications.

However, “insomnia drugs are not all created equal. Even within the same drug class there are differences,” Dr. Cipriani said.

In a large-scale systematic review and network meta-analysis, the researchers analyzed data from 154 double-blind, randomized controlled trials of medications (licensed or not) used for acute and long-term treatment of insomnia in 44,089 adults (mean age, 51.7 years; 63% women).

Results showed, for the acute treatment of insomnia, benzodiazepines, doxylamine, eszopiclone, lemborexant, seltorexant, zolpidem, and zopiclone were more effective than placebo (standardized mean difference range, 0.36-0.83; high-to-moderate certainty of evidence).

In addition, benzodiazepines, eszopiclone, zolpidem, and zopiclone were more effective than melatonin, ramelteon, and zaleplon (SMD, 0.27-0.71; moderate-to-very low certainty of evidence).

“Our results show that the melatonergic drugs melatonin and ramelteon are not really effective. The data do not support the regular use of these drugs,” co-investigator Phil Cowen, PhD, professor of psychopharmacology, University of Oxford, said at the briefing.
 

Best available evidence

What little long-term data is available suggest eszopiclone and lemborexant are more effective than placebo. Plus, eszopiclone is more effective than ramelteon and zolpidem but with “very low” certainty of evidence, the researchers report.

“There was insufficient evidence to support the prescription of benzodiazepines and zolpidem in long-term treatment,” they write.

Another problem was lack of data on other important outcomes, they add.  

“We wanted to look at hangover effects, daytime sleepiness, [and] rebound effect, but often there was no data reported in trials. We need to collect data about these outcomes because they matter to clinicians and patients,” Dr. Cipriani said.

Summing up, the researchers note the current findings represent the “best available evidence base to guide the choice about pharmacological treatment for insomnia disorder in adults and will assist in shared decisionmaking between patients, carers, and their clinicians, as well as policy makers.”

They caution, however, that all statements comparing the merits of one drug with another “should be tempered by the potential limitations of the current analysis, the quality of the available evidence, the characteristics of the patient populations, and the uncertainties that might result from choice of dose or treatment setting.”

In addition, it is important to also consider nonpharmacologic treatments for insomnia disorder, as they are supported by “high-quality evidence and recommended as first-line treatment by guidelines,” the investigator write.
 

Shared decisionmaking

In an accompanying editorial, Myrto Samara, MD, University of Thessaly, Larissa, Greece, agrees with the researchers that discussion with patients is key.  

“For insomnia treatment, patient-physician shared decisionmaking is crucial to decide when a pharmacological intervention is deemed necessary and which drug [is] to be given by considering the trade-offs for efficacy and side effects,” Dr. Samara writes.  

The study was funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Health Biomedical Research Center. Dr. Cipriani has received research and consultancy fees from the Italian Network for Pediatric Trials, CARIPLO Foundation, and Angelini Pharma, and is the chief and principal investigator of two trials of seltorexant in depression that are sponsored by Janssen. Dr. Samara has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Only about 6% of cancer drugs tested in a phase 1 study in 2015 were ultimately approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration by 2021, a new analysis suggests.

The researchers also found that about 8% of approved agents were subsequently taken off the market.

“The 6% is not a big surprise to us, since a few other studies using different methodologies and foci have estimated similar percentages,” Alyson Haslam, PhD, University of California, San Francisco, told this news organization. “When you look at drug development, it makes sense that you have to test a lot of drugs to get one that works, but sometimes it is nice to quantify the actual percentage in order to fully appreciate the process.”

The fact that 8% were withdrawn, however, “elicits the question of how the approval process can be improved to avoid ineffective or harmful drugs from coming onto the market,” Dr. Haslam added.

The study was published online  in the International Journal of Cancer.
 

More desirable features?

Monitoring trends over time helps oncologists assess whether more drugs are making it to market and if certain factors make some drugs more likely to get approved.

Prior published estimates put the likelihood of approval between 6.7% and 13.4%, but these estimates were for drugs tested more than a decade ago.

To provide updated estimates, the researchers searched the literature for all oncology drugs tested in phase 1 studies during 2015 and evaluated their fate in subsequent phase 2/3 studies through FDA clearance.

Overall, the team found 803 phase 1 studies that met initial inclusion criteria; 48 trials that included only Japanese participants were excluded because these studies often evaluated drugs already approved in the United States, leaving 755 studies for the analysis.

The most common tumor types were solid/multiple tumors (24.2%), leukemias (12.8%), and lung cancer (8.5%). Just under half (47%) of the trials tested a drug as monotherapy; 43% were combination trials with one dose-escalated drug; and about 10% were combination trials with both drugs dose-escalated.

The FDA approved 51 drugs during the study period. Four (7.8%) were subsequently withdrawn: nivolumab (Opdivo) and pembrolizumab (Keytruda) for small cell lung cancer, olaratumab (Lartruvo) for soft tissue sarcoma, and melflufen (Pepaxto) for multiple myeloma. These four were not counted in the overall number of approvals.

“We really wanted to look at the end fate of drugs (within a reasonable time frame), which is why we did not include the four drugs that were initially approved but later withdrawn, although this had little impact on the main finding,” Dr. Haslam explained.

The estimated probability of any drug or drug combination tested in a phase 1 trial published in 2015 and approved that year was 1.7% and reached 6.2% by the end of 2021, the researchers found.

Monoclonal antibodies had a higher probability of being approved (15.3%), compared with inhibitors (5.1%) and chemotherapy drugs (4.2%).

The FDA was also more apt to green-light drugs tested as monotherapy, compared with drug combinations (odds ratio, 0.22). Drugs tested in monotherapy had a 9.4% probability of approval versus those tested in combination, which had a 5.6% probability of being approved when pairing a novel drug with one or more established agents, as well as when combining two novel drugs. The probability of approval was less than 1% for trials testing two established drug combinations.

Other factors that boosted the odds of FDA approval include having a response rate over 40% in phase 1 testing, demonstrating an overall survival benefit in phase 3 testing, and having the trial sponsored by a top-20 drug company, compared with a non–top-20 drug company.

Dr. Haslam found the last finding rather surprising, given the recent trend for bigger companies to invest in smaller companies who are developing promising drugs, rather than doing all of the development themselves. “In fact, a recent analysis found that only 25% of new drugs are sponsored by larger companies,” she noted.

Reached for comment, Jeff Allen, PhD, who wasn’t involved in the study, noted that “these types of landscape analyses are quite helpful in understanding the current state of oncology science and drug development.”

When looking at a 6.2% success rate for phase 1–tested oncology drugs, “it can be difficult holistically to determine all factors for which development didn’t continue,” said Dr. Allen, president and CEO of the nonprofit Friends of Cancer Research.

For instance, lack of approval may not signal the drug was a failure “but rather an artifact of circumstances such as resource limitations or reprioritization,” Dr. Allen said.

Plus, he commented, “I don’t think that we should expect all these early studies to lead to eventual approvals, but it’s clear from the authors’ findings that continued efforts to improve the overall success rate in developing new cancer medicines are greatly needed.”

The study was funded by Arnold Ventures. Dr. Haslam and Dr. Allen have no relevant disclosures. Study author Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH, receives royalties from Arnold Ventures.

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

Only about 6% of cancer drugs tested in a phase 1 study in 2015 were ultimately approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration by 2021, a new analysis suggests.

The researchers also found that about 8% of approved agents were subsequently taken off the market.

“The 6% is not a big surprise to us, since a few other studies using different methodologies and foci have estimated similar percentages,” Alyson Haslam, PhD, University of California, San Francisco, told this news organization. “When you look at drug development, it makes sense that you have to test a lot of drugs to get one that works, but sometimes it is nice to quantify the actual percentage in order to fully appreciate the process.”

The fact that 8% were withdrawn, however, “elicits the question of how the approval process can be improved to avoid ineffective or harmful drugs from coming onto the market,” Dr. Haslam added.

The study was published online  in the International Journal of Cancer.
 

More desirable features?

Monitoring trends over time helps oncologists assess whether more drugs are making it to market and if certain factors make some drugs more likely to get approved.

Prior published estimates put the likelihood of approval between 6.7% and 13.4%, but these estimates were for drugs tested more than a decade ago.

To provide updated estimates, the researchers searched the literature for all oncology drugs tested in phase 1 studies during 2015 and evaluated their fate in subsequent phase 2/3 studies through FDA clearance.

Overall, the team found 803 phase 1 studies that met initial inclusion criteria; 48 trials that included only Japanese participants were excluded because these studies often evaluated drugs already approved in the United States, leaving 755 studies for the analysis.

The most common tumor types were solid/multiple tumors (24.2%), leukemias (12.8%), and lung cancer (8.5%). Just under half (47%) of the trials tested a drug as monotherapy; 43% were combination trials with one dose-escalated drug; and about 10% were combination trials with both drugs dose-escalated.

The FDA approved 51 drugs during the study period. Four (7.8%) were subsequently withdrawn: nivolumab (Opdivo) and pembrolizumab (Keytruda) for small cell lung cancer, olaratumab (Lartruvo) for soft tissue sarcoma, and melflufen (Pepaxto) for multiple myeloma. These four were not counted in the overall number of approvals.

“We really wanted to look at the end fate of drugs (within a reasonable time frame), which is why we did not include the four drugs that were initially approved but later withdrawn, although this had little impact on the main finding,” Dr. Haslam explained.

The estimated probability of any drug or drug combination tested in a phase 1 trial published in 2015 and approved that year was 1.7% and reached 6.2% by the end of 2021, the researchers found.

Monoclonal antibodies had a higher probability of being approved (15.3%), compared with inhibitors (5.1%) and chemotherapy drugs (4.2%).

The FDA was also more apt to green-light drugs tested as monotherapy, compared with drug combinations (odds ratio, 0.22). Drugs tested in monotherapy had a 9.4% probability of approval versus those tested in combination, which had a 5.6% probability of being approved when pairing a novel drug with one or more established agents, as well as when combining two novel drugs. The probability of approval was less than 1% for trials testing two established drug combinations.

Other factors that boosted the odds of FDA approval include having a response rate over 40% in phase 1 testing, demonstrating an overall survival benefit in phase 3 testing, and having the trial sponsored by a top-20 drug company, compared with a non–top-20 drug company.

Dr. Haslam found the last finding rather surprising, given the recent trend for bigger companies to invest in smaller companies who are developing promising drugs, rather than doing all of the development themselves. “In fact, a recent analysis found that only 25% of new drugs are sponsored by larger companies,” she noted.

Reached for comment, Jeff Allen, PhD, who wasn’t involved in the study, noted that “these types of landscape analyses are quite helpful in understanding the current state of oncology science and drug development.”

When looking at a 6.2% success rate for phase 1–tested oncology drugs, “it can be difficult holistically to determine all factors for which development didn’t continue,” said Dr. Allen, president and CEO of the nonprofit Friends of Cancer Research.

For instance, lack of approval may not signal the drug was a failure “but rather an artifact of circumstances such as resource limitations or reprioritization,” Dr. Allen said.

Plus, he commented, “I don’t think that we should expect all these early studies to lead to eventual approvals, but it’s clear from the authors’ findings that continued efforts to improve the overall success rate in developing new cancer medicines are greatly needed.”

The study was funded by Arnold Ventures. Dr. Haslam and Dr. Allen have no relevant disclosures. Study author Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH, receives royalties from Arnold Ventures.

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

Only about 6% of cancer drugs tested in a phase 1 study in 2015 were ultimately approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration by 2021, a new analysis suggests.

The researchers also found that about 8% of approved agents were subsequently taken off the market.

“The 6% is not a big surprise to us, since a few other studies using different methodologies and foci have estimated similar percentages,” Alyson Haslam, PhD, University of California, San Francisco, told this news organization. “When you look at drug development, it makes sense that you have to test a lot of drugs to get one that works, but sometimes it is nice to quantify the actual percentage in order to fully appreciate the process.”

The fact that 8% were withdrawn, however, “elicits the question of how the approval process can be improved to avoid ineffective or harmful drugs from coming onto the market,” Dr. Haslam added.

The study was published online  in the International Journal of Cancer.
 

More desirable features?

Monitoring trends over time helps oncologists assess whether more drugs are making it to market and if certain factors make some drugs more likely to get approved.

Prior published estimates put the likelihood of approval between 6.7% and 13.4%, but these estimates were for drugs tested more than a decade ago.

To provide updated estimates, the researchers searched the literature for all oncology drugs tested in phase 1 studies during 2015 and evaluated their fate in subsequent phase 2/3 studies through FDA clearance.

Overall, the team found 803 phase 1 studies that met initial inclusion criteria; 48 trials that included only Japanese participants were excluded because these studies often evaluated drugs already approved in the United States, leaving 755 studies for the analysis.

The most common tumor types were solid/multiple tumors (24.2%), leukemias (12.8%), and lung cancer (8.5%). Just under half (47%) of the trials tested a drug as monotherapy; 43% were combination trials with one dose-escalated drug; and about 10% were combination trials with both drugs dose-escalated.

The FDA approved 51 drugs during the study period. Four (7.8%) were subsequently withdrawn: nivolumab (Opdivo) and pembrolizumab (Keytruda) for small cell lung cancer, olaratumab (Lartruvo) for soft tissue sarcoma, and melflufen (Pepaxto) for multiple myeloma. These four were not counted in the overall number of approvals.

“We really wanted to look at the end fate of drugs (within a reasonable time frame), which is why we did not include the four drugs that were initially approved but later withdrawn, although this had little impact on the main finding,” Dr. Haslam explained.

The estimated probability of any drug or drug combination tested in a phase 1 trial published in 2015 and approved that year was 1.7% and reached 6.2% by the end of 2021, the researchers found.

Monoclonal antibodies had a higher probability of being approved (15.3%), compared with inhibitors (5.1%) and chemotherapy drugs (4.2%).

The FDA was also more apt to green-light drugs tested as monotherapy, compared with drug combinations (odds ratio, 0.22). Drugs tested in monotherapy had a 9.4% probability of approval versus those tested in combination, which had a 5.6% probability of being approved when pairing a novel drug with one or more established agents, as well as when combining two novel drugs. The probability of approval was less than 1% for trials testing two established drug combinations.

Other factors that boosted the odds of FDA approval include having a response rate over 40% in phase 1 testing, demonstrating an overall survival benefit in phase 3 testing, and having the trial sponsored by a top-20 drug company, compared with a non–top-20 drug company.

Dr. Haslam found the last finding rather surprising, given the recent trend for bigger companies to invest in smaller companies who are developing promising drugs, rather than doing all of the development themselves. “In fact, a recent analysis found that only 25% of new drugs are sponsored by larger companies,” she noted.

Reached for comment, Jeff Allen, PhD, who wasn’t involved in the study, noted that “these types of landscape analyses are quite helpful in understanding the current state of oncology science and drug development.”

When looking at a 6.2% success rate for phase 1–tested oncology drugs, “it can be difficult holistically to determine all factors for which development didn’t continue,” said Dr. Allen, president and CEO of the nonprofit Friends of Cancer Research.

For instance, lack of approval may not signal the drug was a failure “but rather an artifact of circumstances such as resource limitations or reprioritization,” Dr. Allen said.

Plus, he commented, “I don’t think that we should expect all these early studies to lead to eventual approvals, but it’s clear from the authors’ findings that continued efforts to improve the overall success rate in developing new cancer medicines are greatly needed.”

The study was funded by Arnold Ventures. Dr. Haslam and Dr. Allen have no relevant disclosures. Study author Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH, receives royalties from Arnold Ventures.

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

CHICAGO – Pembrolizumab has shown promise as adjuvant therapy for stage IIB and IIC melanoma, shows the first interim analysis of the phase 3 KEYNOTE-716 study recently published in The Lancet.

The findings meet an unmet need as the recurrence risk in stage IIB and IIC melanoma is “underrecognized,” said author Georgina Long, MD, comedical director of the Melanoma Institute Australia, University of Sydney.

In fact, their risk of recurrence is similar to patients with stage IIIB disease, wrote David Killock, PhD, in a related commentary published in Nature Reviews.

The adjuvant treatment resulted in an 89% recurrence-free survival in patients who received pembrolizumab, compared with 83% of patients in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.65; P = .0066). These findings were used as the basis for Food and Drug Administration approval of pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) for this patient population in December 2021.

Despite the positive findings, Dr. Killock called for more research on distant metastasis-free survival, overall survival, and quality of life data to “establish the true clinical benefit of adjuvant pembrolizumab.”

At the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Dr. Long presented the third interim analysis which showed pembrolizumab reduced recurrence and distant metastases at 24 months, although the clinical benefit was relatively small at an approximately 8% improvement in recurrence-free survival and about a 6% improvement in distant metastasis-free survival. About 83% in the pembrolizumab group had treatment-related toxicities versus 64% in the placebo group. There were no deaths caused by treatment. About 90% of pembrolizumab-related endocrinopathies led to long-term hormone replacement.

In a discussion that followed the presentation at ASCO, Charlotte Eielson Ariyan, MD, PhD, said the results are bittersweet. Higher-risk stage IIC patients have a risk of recurrence of about 40%. “It’s high, but the absolute risk reduction is about 8%. This is a very personalized discussion with the patient and the physician in understanding their risk of toxicity is about 17% and higher than their absolute risk reduction with the treatment. For me, this is a bitter pill to swallow because you’re treating people longer and you’re not sure if you’re really helping them. Until we can further define who the highest-risk patients are, I think it’s hard to give it to everyone,” said Dr. Ariyan, who is a surgeon with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

In addition to weighing short-term benefits and toxicity, there are longer-term concerns. Toxicity experienced from PD-1 inhibitors in the adjuvant setting could impact future treatment decisions. “We’re very lucky here in melanoma to know that systemic therapies are effective and we can cure people who recur. I would argue this is why we probably will never really see a difference in the survival benefit in this group because people who cross over will probably do well,” Dr. Ariyan said.

During the Q&A session, Vernon Sondek, MD, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, encouraged physician colleagues to have an open mind about treatments. “Beware of dogma. We thought that adjuvant immunotherapy works much better in patients with ulcerated primary tumors. That’s a dogma in some parts of the world. Yet the T4a patients in KEYNOTE-716 dramatically outperformed the ulcerated T3b and T4b [patients]. We still don’t know what we don’t know.”
 

The study details

KEYNOTE-716 included 976 patients 12 years or older with newly diagnosed completely resected stage IIB or IIC melanoma with a negative sentinel lymph node. Patients were randomized to placebo or 200 mg pembrolizumab every 3 weeks, or 2 mg/kg in pediatric patients, over 17 cycles. Almost 40% of patients were age 65 or older. T3b and T4b were the most common melanoma subcategories at 41% and 35%, respectively.

The planned third interim analysis occurred after the occurrence of 146 distant metastases. After a median follow-up of 27.4 months, distant metastasis-free survival favored the pembrolizumab group (HR, 0.64; P = .0029). At 24 months, the pembrolizumab group had a higher distant metastasis-free survival at 88.1% versus 82.2% and a lower recurrence rate at 81.2% versus 72.8% (HR, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.50-0.84).

At 24 months, only the T4a patients had a statistically significant reduction in distant metastases at 58% (HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.19-0.96), although there were numerical reductions in T3a (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.41-1.22) and T4b (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.44-1.33) patients. Of patients experiencing a distant metastasis, 73% of the placebo group had a first distant metastasis to the lung compared with 49% of the pembrolizumab group.

Dr. Long has held consulting or advisory roles for Merck Sharpe & Dohme, which funded this study.

CHICAGO – Pembrolizumab has shown promise as adjuvant therapy for stage IIB and IIC melanoma, shows the first interim analysis of the phase 3 KEYNOTE-716 study recently published in The Lancet.

The findings meet an unmet need as the recurrence risk in stage IIB and IIC melanoma is “underrecognized,” said author Georgina Long, MD, comedical director of the Melanoma Institute Australia, University of Sydney.

In fact, their risk of recurrence is similar to patients with stage IIIB disease, wrote David Killock, PhD, in a related commentary published in Nature Reviews.

The adjuvant treatment resulted in an 89% recurrence-free survival in patients who received pembrolizumab, compared with 83% of patients in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.65; P = .0066). These findings were used as the basis for Food and Drug Administration approval of pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) for this patient population in December 2021.

Despite the positive findings, Dr. Killock called for more research on distant metastasis-free survival, overall survival, and quality of life data to “establish the true clinical benefit of adjuvant pembrolizumab.”

At the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Dr. Long presented the third interim analysis which showed pembrolizumab reduced recurrence and distant metastases at 24 months, although the clinical benefit was relatively small at an approximately 8% improvement in recurrence-free survival and about a 6% improvement in distant metastasis-free survival. About 83% in the pembrolizumab group had treatment-related toxicities versus 64% in the placebo group. There were no deaths caused by treatment. About 90% of pembrolizumab-related endocrinopathies led to long-term hormone replacement.

In a discussion that followed the presentation at ASCO, Charlotte Eielson Ariyan, MD, PhD, said the results are bittersweet. Higher-risk stage IIC patients have a risk of recurrence of about 40%. “It’s high, but the absolute risk reduction is about 8%. This is a very personalized discussion with the patient and the physician in understanding their risk of toxicity is about 17% and higher than their absolute risk reduction with the treatment. For me, this is a bitter pill to swallow because you’re treating people longer and you’re not sure if you’re really helping them. Until we can further define who the highest-risk patients are, I think it’s hard to give it to everyone,” said Dr. Ariyan, who is a surgeon with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

In addition to weighing short-term benefits and toxicity, there are longer-term concerns. Toxicity experienced from PD-1 inhibitors in the adjuvant setting could impact future treatment decisions. “We’re very lucky here in melanoma to know that systemic therapies are effective and we can cure people who recur. I would argue this is why we probably will never really see a difference in the survival benefit in this group because people who cross over will probably do well,” Dr. Ariyan said.

During the Q&A session, Vernon Sondek, MD, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, encouraged physician colleagues to have an open mind about treatments. “Beware of dogma. We thought that adjuvant immunotherapy works much better in patients with ulcerated primary tumors. That’s a dogma in some parts of the world. Yet the T4a patients in KEYNOTE-716 dramatically outperformed the ulcerated T3b and T4b [patients]. We still don’t know what we don’t know.”
 

The study details

KEYNOTE-716 included 976 patients 12 years or older with newly diagnosed completely resected stage IIB or IIC melanoma with a negative sentinel lymph node. Patients were randomized to placebo or 200 mg pembrolizumab every 3 weeks, or 2 mg/kg in pediatric patients, over 17 cycles. Almost 40% of patients were age 65 or older. T3b and T4b were the most common melanoma subcategories at 41% and 35%, respectively.

The planned third interim analysis occurred after the occurrence of 146 distant metastases. After a median follow-up of 27.4 months, distant metastasis-free survival favored the pembrolizumab group (HR, 0.64; P = .0029). At 24 months, the pembrolizumab group had a higher distant metastasis-free survival at 88.1% versus 82.2% and a lower recurrence rate at 81.2% versus 72.8% (HR, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.50-0.84).

At 24 months, only the T4a patients had a statistically significant reduction in distant metastases at 58% (HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.19-0.96), although there were numerical reductions in T3a (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.41-1.22) and T4b (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.44-1.33) patients. Of patients experiencing a distant metastasis, 73% of the placebo group had a first distant metastasis to the lung compared with 49% of the pembrolizumab group.

Dr. Long has held consulting or advisory roles for Merck Sharpe & Dohme, which funded this study.

CHICAGO – Pembrolizumab has shown promise as adjuvant therapy for stage IIB and IIC melanoma, shows the first interim analysis of the phase 3 KEYNOTE-716 study recently published in The Lancet.

The findings meet an unmet need as the recurrence risk in stage IIB and IIC melanoma is “underrecognized,” said author Georgina Long, MD, comedical director of the Melanoma Institute Australia, University of Sydney.

In fact, their risk of recurrence is similar to patients with stage IIIB disease, wrote David Killock, PhD, in a related commentary published in Nature Reviews.

The adjuvant treatment resulted in an 89% recurrence-free survival in patients who received pembrolizumab, compared with 83% of patients in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.65; P = .0066). These findings were used as the basis for Food and Drug Administration approval of pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) for this patient population in December 2021.

Despite the positive findings, Dr. Killock called for more research on distant metastasis-free survival, overall survival, and quality of life data to “establish the true clinical benefit of adjuvant pembrolizumab.”

At the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Dr. Long presented the third interim analysis which showed pembrolizumab reduced recurrence and distant metastases at 24 months, although the clinical benefit was relatively small at an approximately 8% improvement in recurrence-free survival and about a 6% improvement in distant metastasis-free survival. About 83% in the pembrolizumab group had treatment-related toxicities versus 64% in the placebo group. There were no deaths caused by treatment. About 90% of pembrolizumab-related endocrinopathies led to long-term hormone replacement.

In a discussion that followed the presentation at ASCO, Charlotte Eielson Ariyan, MD, PhD, said the results are bittersweet. Higher-risk stage IIC patients have a risk of recurrence of about 40%. “It’s high, but the absolute risk reduction is about 8%. This is a very personalized discussion with the patient and the physician in understanding their risk of toxicity is about 17% and higher than their absolute risk reduction with the treatment. For me, this is a bitter pill to swallow because you’re treating people longer and you’re not sure if you’re really helping them. Until we can further define who the highest-risk patients are, I think it’s hard to give it to everyone,” said Dr. Ariyan, who is a surgeon with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

In addition to weighing short-term benefits and toxicity, there are longer-term concerns. Toxicity experienced from PD-1 inhibitors in the adjuvant setting could impact future treatment decisions. “We’re very lucky here in melanoma to know that systemic therapies are effective and we can cure people who recur. I would argue this is why we probably will never really see a difference in the survival benefit in this group because people who cross over will probably do well,” Dr. Ariyan said.

During the Q&A session, Vernon Sondek, MD, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, encouraged physician colleagues to have an open mind about treatments. “Beware of dogma. We thought that adjuvant immunotherapy works much better in patients with ulcerated primary tumors. That’s a dogma in some parts of the world. Yet the T4a patients in KEYNOTE-716 dramatically outperformed the ulcerated T3b and T4b [patients]. We still don’t know what we don’t know.”
 

The study details

KEYNOTE-716 included 976 patients 12 years or older with newly diagnosed completely resected stage IIB or IIC melanoma with a negative sentinel lymph node. Patients were randomized to placebo or 200 mg pembrolizumab every 3 weeks, or 2 mg/kg in pediatric patients, over 17 cycles. Almost 40% of patients were age 65 or older. T3b and T4b were the most common melanoma subcategories at 41% and 35%, respectively.

The planned third interim analysis occurred after the occurrence of 146 distant metastases. After a median follow-up of 27.4 months, distant metastasis-free survival favored the pembrolizumab group (HR, 0.64; P = .0029). At 24 months, the pembrolizumab group had a higher distant metastasis-free survival at 88.1% versus 82.2% and a lower recurrence rate at 81.2% versus 72.8% (HR, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.50-0.84).

At 24 months, only the T4a patients had a statistically significant reduction in distant metastases at 58% (HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.19-0.96), although there were numerical reductions in T3a (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.41-1.22) and T4b (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.44-1.33) patients. Of patients experiencing a distant metastasis, 73% of the placebo group had a first distant metastasis to the lung compared with 49% of the pembrolizumab group.

Dr. Long has held consulting or advisory roles for Merck Sharpe & Dohme, which funded this study.

A commonly prescribed cancer and arthritis drug that is sometimes used as an oral abortifacient is facing prescription roadblocks in the wake of the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade.

The Court’s 5-4 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which halted abortion procedures across the country, also appears to be affecting certain drug regimens. Reports have emerged that pharmacies are denying access to methotrexate (MTX), a drug often used in patients with arthritis or cancer, as well as psoriasis and other skin diseases. In very high doses, MTX it is used to terminate an ectopic pregnancy after miscarriage. The drug can also lead to birth defects.

“It’s happening all over,” Donald Miller, PharmD, professor of pharmacy practice at North Dakota State University, Fargo, said in an interview. “Pharmacists are reluctant to dispense it, and rheumatologists are reluctant to prescribe it because they’re afraid of going to jail.”

Becky Schwartz, a patient who takes MTX for lupus, recently tweeted that her physician’s office stopped prescribing the drug because it is considered an abortifacient. “I had care that made my disabled life easier, and [the Supreme Court] took that from me,” Ms. Schwartz wrote.

Prior to the Supreme Court’s ruling, physicians were concerned about the impact an overturning of the 1973 law would have on patient access to MTX and other prescription medications with abortifacient properties. Doctors in general are becoming afraid of prescribing anything that’s a teratogen, said Dr. Miller.

MTX is used far more often for autoimmune disease than as an abortifacient, said rheumatologist Kristen Young, MD, clinical assistant professor at the University of Arizona College of Medicine, Phoenix. It’s a slippery slope if states reacting to the Supreme Court ruling start regulating oral abortifacients, she added. Specifically, this will have a significant impact on patients with rheumatic disease.
 

Texas pharmacies target two drugs

MTX denials have caught the attention of health care organizations. “Uncertainty in financial and criminal liability for health care professionals in certain state laws and regulations are possibly compromising continuity of care and access [to] medications proven to be safe and effective by the Food and Drug Administration for these indications,” warned the American Pharmacists Association (APhA) in a statement to this news organization.

The APhA said that it was monitoring this situation to assess the effect on patients and pharmacists.

The Arthritis Foundation was made aware of challenges from patients in accessing their MTX prescription for managing their arthritis and shared a statement on the Foundation’s website.

In Texas, pharmacists can refuse to fill scripts for misoprostol and MTX, a combination used for medical abortions. According to the foundation, “Already there are reports that people in Texas who miscarry or take methotrexate for arthritis [are] having trouble getting their prescriptions filled.”

MTX, approved by the FDA in 1985, “is the absolute cornerstone of rheumatoid arthritis. We cannot deny our patients this incredibly valuable drug,” said John Reveille, MD, vice-chair for the department of medicine at the University of Texas McGovern School of Medicine and a member of the Arthritis Foundation expert panel, in an interview.

“While it’s true that methotrexate can be lethal to the fetus, misoprostol is much more likely to cause a spontaneous abortion, and the combination is especially effective,” he said.

“If you look at Cochrane clinical studies, the dose of misoprostol contained in certain combinations with NSAIDs [nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs] can induce spontaneous abortions. It’s surprising that pharmacists are targeting methotrexate, an essential drug in arthritis treatment, when there are medications available that do not have this benefit that can by themselves cause loss of the fetus, such as mifepristone,” added Dr. Reveille.

The Dobbs ruling could also affect the ability of oncologists to provide lifesaving cancer care, according to Jason Westin, MD, an oncologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in the department of lymphoma and myeloma.

“We have heard of medications with multiple indications, such as methotrexate, not being dispensed by pharmacies due to confusion regarding the intended use and potential consequences for the health care team,” he said in an interview.
 

Conflicting laws pose challenges for physicians

In North Dakota, inconsistencies in several laws are making it difficult for physicians and pharmacists to make decisions. “Lots of confusion can result when people pass laws against abortion. There’s sometimes no insight into the ramifications of those laws,” said Dr. Miller.

North Dakota approved a trigger law several years ago that makes abortion illegal 30 days after an overturning of Roe. However, another law that regulates abortion conflicts with the trigger law. “Some of the language will need clarification in the next legislative session,” he said.

APhA and other pharmacy associations strongly favor not interfering with the doctor- or pharmacist-patient relationship. The law needs to defer to appropriate care between doctor and patient, said Dr. Miller. State pharmacy associations in North Dakota are working with legislatures to clarify any exceptions in the law, he added.

Arizona lawmakers are trying to reconcile two abortion laws on the books. One, based on an 1864 territorial law, deems abortion illegal. In addition, a newly approved law bans abortions after 15 weeks. The latter will go into effect in September 2022. In both laws, a risk to the mother’s life is the only exception for abortion, said Dr. Young.
 

Denials aren’t widespread

Not all doctors are seeing MTX denials, but they’re worried about the future. “To date, we have not encountered difficulty in obtaining methotrexate based upon state abortion restrictions but are concerned that this could occur and result in dangerous delays in care,” said Dr. Westin.

Dr. Reveille, who practices rheumatology in Houston, has not yet received any complaints from patients. Things may be different in more rural parts of Texas, where pharmacists could be denying prescriptions based on religious issues, he offered.

It’s a little soon to see what repercussions may result from the Supreme Court ruling and state actions, said Dr. Reveille. “In Texas, we’re a bit ahead of the tidal wave.”

Access problems also haven’t shown up at the university clinic where Dr. Young practices. “In Arizona, it’s unclear if there would be a legal basis to refuse a person methotrexate on the basis that it can be used as an abortifacient,” she said.

Specificity is key in writing Rx scripts

Physicians can make things easier for patients by writing the indication and dose for the drug on the prescription slip. For example, a 10-mg script for MTX is not going to be used for an abortion, said Dr. Miller.

Rheumatologists in Texas have been doing this for some time, even before the Supreme Court ruling, said Fehmida Zahabi, MD, FACR, president of the Society of Texas Association of Rheumatology. For MTX prescriptions in premenopausal women, “patients are told their doctor needs to call the pharmacist. In the small print, we are asked to give a diagnosis to make sure we aren’t using it to terminate pregnancies,” said Dr. Zahabi.

She further noted that if the diagnosis is already indicated on the script, pharmacies generally won’t give patients a hard time.

Patients can also ask their physicians for a letter of medical necessity that confirms a drug’s use for a specific medical condition.

Mail order is another option if a local pharmacy won’t fill a prescription, said Dr. Miller. “This is legal unless a state makes it illegal to send an abortifacient across state lines,” he added.

Many medications used in rheumatic diseases are harmful in pregnancy, and it’s important to routinely discuss pregnancy risk and planning in the rheumatology clinic, said Dr. Young. This should include a thorough discussion and referral for long-acting reversible contraception in most cases, she suggested.
 

Actions at the federal, state level 

President Joe Biden recently signed an executive order prompting federal regulators to protect access to medication abortions, among other steps to safeguard access to reproductive services.

In a statement on Twitter, the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) said that it was “ ... following this issue closely to determine if rheumatology providers and patients are experiencing any widespread difficulty accessing methotrexate or if any initial disruptions are potentially temporary and due to the independent actions of pharmacists trying to figure out what is and isn’t allowed where they practice.”

ACR has assembled a task force of medical and policy experts to determine the best course of action for patients.

The Arthritis Foundation also continues to monitor the situation, encouraging patients to call its hotline, said Steven Schultz, director of state legislative affairs, in an interview.

“We are analyzing how medication abortion could cause confusion on the part of providers or pharmacists dispensing the medication and what this means for specific patients,” said Mr. Schultz. Through a survey, the foundation hopes to get a better idea of what’s going on in the states at a macro level.

This may take some time, as states go through a process of lawsuits, injunctions, or coming into session to do something that may affect access to MTX, said Mr. Schultz.

Being involved in local advocacy is more important than ever, stressed Dr. Young. “Additionally, being plugged into what the ACR and other advocacy groups are doing on the national level is helpful as well to know the status of these medication access issues.”

Rheumatologists have a unique voice in this discussion, she added. “We guide our patients to stability for a safe pregnancy, and even with careful planning, we see patients who become critically ill during pregnancy and require lifesaving treatment, which at times can mean an abortion is necessary.”

Oncologists also advocate for their patients on a regular basis to make sure they have access to the care they need, said Dr. Westin. This situation with Roe is no different, he added. “We will continue to use our unique expertise to advocate for policies that assure access to high-quality, evidence-based care – and to help our patients overcome barriers that may interfere.”

Dr. Reveille participated on an advisory board with Eli Lilly in October 2021.

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

A commonly prescribed cancer and arthritis drug that is sometimes used as an oral abortifacient is facing prescription roadblocks in the wake of the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade.

The Court’s 5-4 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which halted abortion procedures across the country, also appears to be affecting certain drug regimens. Reports have emerged that pharmacies are denying access to methotrexate (MTX), a drug often used in patients with arthritis or cancer, as well as psoriasis and other skin diseases. In very high doses, MTX it is used to terminate an ectopic pregnancy after miscarriage. The drug can also lead to birth defects.

“It’s happening all over,” Donald Miller, PharmD, professor of pharmacy practice at North Dakota State University, Fargo, said in an interview. “Pharmacists are reluctant to dispense it, and rheumatologists are reluctant to prescribe it because they’re afraid of going to jail.”

Becky Schwartz, a patient who takes MTX for lupus, recently tweeted that her physician’s office stopped prescribing the drug because it is considered an abortifacient. “I had care that made my disabled life easier, and [the Supreme Court] took that from me,” Ms. Schwartz wrote.

Prior to the Supreme Court’s ruling, physicians were concerned about the impact an overturning of the 1973 law would have on patient access to MTX and other prescription medications with abortifacient properties. Doctors in general are becoming afraid of prescribing anything that’s a teratogen, said Dr. Miller.

MTX is used far more often for autoimmune disease than as an abortifacient, said rheumatologist Kristen Young, MD, clinical assistant professor at the University of Arizona College of Medicine, Phoenix. It’s a slippery slope if states reacting to the Supreme Court ruling start regulating oral abortifacients, she added. Specifically, this will have a significant impact on patients with rheumatic disease.
 

Texas pharmacies target two drugs

MTX denials have caught the attention of health care organizations. “Uncertainty in financial and criminal liability for health care professionals in certain state laws and regulations are possibly compromising continuity of care and access [to] medications proven to be safe and effective by the Food and Drug Administration for these indications,” warned the American Pharmacists Association (APhA) in a statement to this news organization.

The APhA said that it was monitoring this situation to assess the effect on patients and pharmacists.

The Arthritis Foundation was made aware of challenges from patients in accessing their MTX prescription for managing their arthritis and shared a statement on the Foundation’s website.

In Texas, pharmacists can refuse to fill scripts for misoprostol and MTX, a combination used for medical abortions. According to the foundation, “Already there are reports that people in Texas who miscarry or take methotrexate for arthritis [are] having trouble getting their prescriptions filled.”

MTX, approved by the FDA in 1985, “is the absolute cornerstone of rheumatoid arthritis. We cannot deny our patients this incredibly valuable drug,” said John Reveille, MD, vice-chair for the department of medicine at the University of Texas McGovern School of Medicine and a member of the Arthritis Foundation expert panel, in an interview.

“While it’s true that methotrexate can be lethal to the fetus, misoprostol is much more likely to cause a spontaneous abortion, and the combination is especially effective,” he said.

“If you look at Cochrane clinical studies, the dose of misoprostol contained in certain combinations with NSAIDs [nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs] can induce spontaneous abortions. It’s surprising that pharmacists are targeting methotrexate, an essential drug in arthritis treatment, when there are medications available that do not have this benefit that can by themselves cause loss of the fetus, such as mifepristone,” added Dr. Reveille.

The Dobbs ruling could also affect the ability of oncologists to provide lifesaving cancer care, according to Jason Westin, MD, an oncologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in the department of lymphoma and myeloma.

“We have heard of medications with multiple indications, such as methotrexate, not being dispensed by pharmacies due to confusion regarding the intended use and potential consequences for the health care team,” he said in an interview.
 

Conflicting laws pose challenges for physicians

In North Dakota, inconsistencies in several laws are making it difficult for physicians and pharmacists to make decisions. “Lots of confusion can result when people pass laws against abortion. There’s sometimes no insight into the ramifications of those laws,” said Dr. Miller.

North Dakota approved a trigger law several years ago that makes abortion illegal 30 days after an overturning of Roe. However, another law that regulates abortion conflicts with the trigger law. “Some of the language will need clarification in the next legislative session,” he said.

APhA and other pharmacy associations strongly favor not interfering with the doctor- or pharmacist-patient relationship. The law needs to defer to appropriate care between doctor and patient, said Dr. Miller. State pharmacy associations in North Dakota are working with legislatures to clarify any exceptions in the law, he added.

Arizona lawmakers are trying to reconcile two abortion laws on the books. One, based on an 1864 territorial law, deems abortion illegal. In addition, a newly approved law bans abortions after 15 weeks. The latter will go into effect in September 2022. In both laws, a risk to the mother’s life is the only exception for abortion, said Dr. Young.
 

Denials aren’t widespread

Not all doctors are seeing MTX denials, but they’re worried about the future. “To date, we have not encountered difficulty in obtaining methotrexate based upon state abortion restrictions but are concerned that this could occur and result in dangerous delays in care,” said Dr. Westin.

Dr. Reveille, who practices rheumatology in Houston, has not yet received any complaints from patients. Things may be different in more rural parts of Texas, where pharmacists could be denying prescriptions based on religious issues, he offered.

It’s a little soon to see what repercussions may result from the Supreme Court ruling and state actions, said Dr. Reveille. “In Texas, we’re a bit ahead of the tidal wave.”

Access problems also haven’t shown up at the university clinic where Dr. Young practices. “In Arizona, it’s unclear if there would be a legal basis to refuse a person methotrexate on the basis that it can be used as an abortifacient,” she said.

Specificity is key in writing Rx scripts

Physicians can make things easier for patients by writing the indication and dose for the drug on the prescription slip. For example, a 10-mg script for MTX is not going to be used for an abortion, said Dr. Miller.

Rheumatologists in Texas have been doing this for some time, even before the Supreme Court ruling, said Fehmida Zahabi, MD, FACR, president of the Society of Texas Association of Rheumatology. For MTX prescriptions in premenopausal women, “patients are told their doctor needs to call the pharmacist. In the small print, we are asked to give a diagnosis to make sure we aren’t using it to terminate pregnancies,” said Dr. Zahabi.

She further noted that if the diagnosis is already indicated on the script, pharmacies generally won’t give patients a hard time.

Patients can also ask their physicians for a letter of medical necessity that confirms a drug’s use for a specific medical condition.

Mail order is another option if a local pharmacy won’t fill a prescription, said Dr. Miller. “This is legal unless a state makes it illegal to send an abortifacient across state lines,” he added.

Many medications used in rheumatic diseases are harmful in pregnancy, and it’s important to routinely discuss pregnancy risk and planning in the rheumatology clinic, said Dr. Young. This should include a thorough discussion and referral for long-acting reversible contraception in most cases, she suggested.
 

Actions at the federal, state level 

President Joe Biden recently signed an executive order prompting federal regulators to protect access to medication abortions, among other steps to safeguard access to reproductive services.

In a statement on Twitter, the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) said that it was “ ... following this issue closely to determine if rheumatology providers and patients are experiencing any widespread difficulty accessing methotrexate or if any initial disruptions are potentially temporary and due to the independent actions of pharmacists trying to figure out what is and isn’t allowed where they practice.”

ACR has assembled a task force of medical and policy experts to determine the best course of action for patients.

The Arthritis Foundation also continues to monitor the situation, encouraging patients to call its hotline, said Steven Schultz, director of state legislative affairs, in an interview.

“We are analyzing how medication abortion could cause confusion on the part of providers or pharmacists dispensing the medication and what this means for specific patients,” said Mr. Schultz. Through a survey, the foundation hopes to get a better idea of what’s going on in the states at a macro level.

This may take some time, as states go through a process of lawsuits, injunctions, or coming into session to do something that may affect access to MTX, said Mr. Schultz.

Being involved in local advocacy is more important than ever, stressed Dr. Young. “Additionally, being plugged into what the ACR and other advocacy groups are doing on the national level is helpful as well to know the status of these medication access issues.”

Rheumatologists have a unique voice in this discussion, she added. “We guide our patients to stability for a safe pregnancy, and even with careful planning, we see patients who become critically ill during pregnancy and require lifesaving treatment, which at times can mean an abortion is necessary.”

Oncologists also advocate for their patients on a regular basis to make sure they have access to the care they need, said Dr. Westin. This situation with Roe is no different, he added. “We will continue to use our unique expertise to advocate for policies that assure access to high-quality, evidence-based care – and to help our patients overcome barriers that may interfere.”

Dr. Reveille participated on an advisory board with Eli Lilly in October 2021.

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

A commonly prescribed cancer and arthritis drug that is sometimes used as an oral abortifacient is facing prescription roadblocks in the wake of the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade.

The Court’s 5-4 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which halted abortion procedures across the country, also appears to be affecting certain drug regimens. Reports have emerged that pharmacies are denying access to methotrexate (MTX), a drug often used in patients with arthritis or cancer, as well as psoriasis and other skin diseases. In very high doses, MTX it is used to terminate an ectopic pregnancy after miscarriage. The drug can also lead to birth defects.

“It’s happening all over,” Donald Miller, PharmD, professor of pharmacy practice at North Dakota State University, Fargo, said in an interview. “Pharmacists are reluctant to dispense it, and rheumatologists are reluctant to prescribe it because they’re afraid of going to jail.”

Becky Schwartz, a patient who takes MTX for lupus, recently tweeted that her physician’s office stopped prescribing the drug because it is considered an abortifacient. “I had care that made my disabled life easier, and [the Supreme Court] took that from me,” Ms. Schwartz wrote.

Prior to the Supreme Court’s ruling, physicians were concerned about the impact an overturning of the 1973 law would have on patient access to MTX and other prescription medications with abortifacient properties. Doctors in general are becoming afraid of prescribing anything that’s a teratogen, said Dr. Miller.

MTX is used far more often for autoimmune disease than as an abortifacient, said rheumatologist Kristen Young, MD, clinical assistant professor at the University of Arizona College of Medicine, Phoenix. It’s a slippery slope if states reacting to the Supreme Court ruling start regulating oral abortifacients, she added. Specifically, this will have a significant impact on patients with rheumatic disease.
 

Texas pharmacies target two drugs

MTX denials have caught the attention of health care organizations. “Uncertainty in financial and criminal liability for health care professionals in certain state laws and regulations are possibly compromising continuity of care and access [to] medications proven to be safe and effective by the Food and Drug Administration for these indications,” warned the American Pharmacists Association (APhA) in a statement to this news organization.

The APhA said that it was monitoring this situation to assess the effect on patients and pharmacists.

The Arthritis Foundation was made aware of challenges from patients in accessing their MTX prescription for managing their arthritis and shared a statement on the Foundation’s website.

In Texas, pharmacists can refuse to fill scripts for misoprostol and MTX, a combination used for medical abortions. According to the foundation, “Already there are reports that people in Texas who miscarry or take methotrexate for arthritis [are] having trouble getting their prescriptions filled.”

MTX, approved by the FDA in 1985, “is the absolute cornerstone of rheumatoid arthritis. We cannot deny our patients this incredibly valuable drug,” said John Reveille, MD, vice-chair for the department of medicine at the University of Texas McGovern School of Medicine and a member of the Arthritis Foundation expert panel, in an interview.

“While it’s true that methotrexate can be lethal to the fetus, misoprostol is much more likely to cause a spontaneous abortion, and the combination is especially effective,” he said.

“If you look at Cochrane clinical studies, the dose of misoprostol contained in certain combinations with NSAIDs [nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs] can induce spontaneous abortions. It’s surprising that pharmacists are targeting methotrexate, an essential drug in arthritis treatment, when there are medications available that do not have this benefit that can by themselves cause loss of the fetus, such as mifepristone,” added Dr. Reveille.

The Dobbs ruling could also affect the ability of oncologists to provide lifesaving cancer care, according to Jason Westin, MD, an oncologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in the department of lymphoma and myeloma.

“We have heard of medications with multiple indications, such as methotrexate, not being dispensed by pharmacies due to confusion regarding the intended use and potential consequences for the health care team,” he said in an interview.
 

Conflicting laws pose challenges for physicians

In North Dakota, inconsistencies in several laws are making it difficult for physicians and pharmacists to make decisions. “Lots of confusion can result when people pass laws against abortion. There’s sometimes no insight into the ramifications of those laws,” said Dr. Miller.

North Dakota approved a trigger law several years ago that makes abortion illegal 30 days after an overturning of Roe. However, another law that regulates abortion conflicts with the trigger law. “Some of the language will need clarification in the next legislative session,” he said.

APhA and other pharmacy associations strongly favor not interfering with the doctor- or pharmacist-patient relationship. The law needs to defer to appropriate care between doctor and patient, said Dr. Miller. State pharmacy associations in North Dakota are working with legislatures to clarify any exceptions in the law, he added.

Arizona lawmakers are trying to reconcile two abortion laws on the books. One, based on an 1864 territorial law, deems abortion illegal. In addition, a newly approved law bans abortions after 15 weeks. The latter will go into effect in September 2022. In both laws, a risk to the mother’s life is the only exception for abortion, said Dr. Young.
 

Denials aren’t widespread

Not all doctors are seeing MTX denials, but they’re worried about the future. “To date, we have not encountered difficulty in obtaining methotrexate based upon state abortion restrictions but are concerned that this could occur and result in dangerous delays in care,” said Dr. Westin.

Dr. Reveille, who practices rheumatology in Houston, has not yet received any complaints from patients. Things may be different in more rural parts of Texas, where pharmacists could be denying prescriptions based on religious issues, he offered.

It’s a little soon to see what repercussions may result from the Supreme Court ruling and state actions, said Dr. Reveille. “In Texas, we’re a bit ahead of the tidal wave.”

Access problems also haven’t shown up at the university clinic where Dr. Young practices. “In Arizona, it’s unclear if there would be a legal basis to refuse a person methotrexate on the basis that it can be used as an abortifacient,” she said.

Specificity is key in writing Rx scripts

Physicians can make things easier for patients by writing the indication and dose for the drug on the prescription slip. For example, a 10-mg script for MTX is not going to be used for an abortion, said Dr. Miller.

Rheumatologists in Texas have been doing this for some time, even before the Supreme Court ruling, said Fehmida Zahabi, MD, FACR, president of the Society of Texas Association of Rheumatology. For MTX prescriptions in premenopausal women, “patients are told their doctor needs to call the pharmacist. In the small print, we are asked to give a diagnosis to make sure we aren’t using it to terminate pregnancies,” said Dr. Zahabi.

She further noted that if the diagnosis is already indicated on the script, pharmacies generally won’t give patients a hard time.

Patients can also ask their physicians for a letter of medical necessity that confirms a drug’s use for a specific medical condition.

Mail order is another option if a local pharmacy won’t fill a prescription, said Dr. Miller. “This is legal unless a state makes it illegal to send an abortifacient across state lines,” he added.

Many medications used in rheumatic diseases are harmful in pregnancy, and it’s important to routinely discuss pregnancy risk and planning in the rheumatology clinic, said Dr. Young. This should include a thorough discussion and referral for long-acting reversible contraception in most cases, she suggested.
 

Actions at the federal, state level 

President Joe Biden recently signed an executive order prompting federal regulators to protect access to medication abortions, among other steps to safeguard access to reproductive services.

In a statement on Twitter, the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) said that it was “ ... following this issue closely to determine if rheumatology providers and patients are experiencing any widespread difficulty accessing methotrexate or if any initial disruptions are potentially temporary and due to the independent actions of pharmacists trying to figure out what is and isn’t allowed where they practice.”

ACR has assembled a task force of medical and policy experts to determine the best course of action for patients.

The Arthritis Foundation also continues to monitor the situation, encouraging patients to call its hotline, said Steven Schultz, director of state legislative affairs, in an interview.

“We are analyzing how medication abortion could cause confusion on the part of providers or pharmacists dispensing the medication and what this means for specific patients,” said Mr. Schultz. Through a survey, the foundation hopes to get a better idea of what’s going on in the states at a macro level.

This may take some time, as states go through a process of lawsuits, injunctions, or coming into session to do something that may affect access to MTX, said Mr. Schultz.

Being involved in local advocacy is more important than ever, stressed Dr. Young. “Additionally, being plugged into what the ACR and other advocacy groups are doing on the national level is helpful as well to know the status of these medication access issues.”

Rheumatologists have a unique voice in this discussion, she added. “We guide our patients to stability for a safe pregnancy, and even with careful planning, we see patients who become critically ill during pregnancy and require lifesaving treatment, which at times can mean an abortion is necessary.”

Oncologists also advocate for their patients on a regular basis to make sure they have access to the care they need, said Dr. Westin. This situation with Roe is no different, he added. “We will continue to use our unique expertise to advocate for policies that assure access to high-quality, evidence-based care – and to help our patients overcome barriers that may interfere.”

Dr. Reveille participated on an advisory board with Eli Lilly in October 2021.

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

In a phase 2 cohort study, the KRAS (G12C) inhibitor adagrasib induced an objective response in about one out of three patients with KRAS (G12C)–mutated non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who had previously been treated with platinum-based chemotherapy and immune therapy.

Adagrasib targets KRAS (G12C), which had long been thought undruggable until research published in 2013 revealed a new binding pocket that did not compete directly against the protein’s natural binding partner. The new trial further validates the approach. “It supports that clinically effective targeted therapies can be developed for patients with KRAS (G12C)–mutant NSCLC,” said Pasi Jänne, MD, PhD, who is the lead author of the study describing the new results published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

KRAS is the most frequently mutated oncogene in human cancers. A mutated form is found in about 25% of NSCLCs. KRAS plays a key role in cell signaling governing growth, maturation, and cell death. The mutated form is linked to cancer growth and spread. Patients with mutated KRAS have few effective treatment options.

Adagrasib is currently under study and not yet approved by the Food and Drug Administration. However, sotorasib (Lumakras, Amgen), which also inhibits KRAS (G12C), was approved in May 2021 by the FDA for KRAS (G12C)–mutated NSCLC. There are some key differences between the drugs. Adagrasib has a half-life of 23 hours versus 5 hours for sotorasib, and the newer drug has the potential to penetrate the central nervous system. That could be an important consideration in NSCLC since it often metastasizes to the brain. “Having pharmacological approaches to treat brain metastases is a wonderful new therapeutic option for lung cancer patients,” said Dr. Jänne, who is director of the Lowe Center for Thoracic Oncology at Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

Adagrasib is being investigated as part of the KRYSTAL-1 study, alone and as part of combinations in various solid tumors. Previously treated NSCLC KRAS (G12C) patients are also being enrolled in a phase 3 study of adagrasib combined with docetaxel, as well as another phase 2 study of adagrasib combined with pembrolizumab as first-line therapy for NSCLC KRAS (G12C).

Adagrasib is likely to remain a second-line therapy following chemotherapy and immunotherapy. “The activity by itself at the moment is not sufficient to be a first-line treatment. That may change in the future in combination with a standard of care agent or in a subset of patients with KRAS (G12C)–mutant NSCLC, although no subset with higher efficacy has been identified to date. Identification of predictive biomarkers for patients likely to benefit from single agent or an adagrasib combination treatment remains a high priority,” Dr. Jänne said.

The study included 116 patients who had previously been treated with platinum-based chemotherapy and anti–programmed death 1 or programmed death–ligand 1 therapy. They received 600 mg oral adagrasib twice per day over a median follow-up period of 12.9 months. About 42.9% (95% confidence interval, 33.5%-52.6%) experienced a confirmed objective response with a median duration of 8.5 months (95% CI, 6.2-13.8 months). The median progression-free survival was 6.5 months (95% CI, 4.7-8.4 months). After a median follow-up of 15.6 months, the median overall survival was 12.6 months (95% CI, 9.2-19.2 months). The estimated overall survival at 1 year was 50.8% (95% CI, 40.9%-60.0%).

33 patients had stable central nervous system metastases that had been previously treated. About 33.3% had an intracranial confirmed objective response (95% CI, 18.0-51.8%) with a median duration of response of 11.2 months (95% CI, 2.99 months to not available).

Adverse events are similar to what is seen with other targeted therapies, according to Dr. Jänne. 97.4% of patient reported a treatment-related adverse event; 52.6% had grade 1-2 adverse events, and 44.8% had grade 3 adverse events. 6.9% discontinued the drug as a result.

Dr. Jänne has consulted for Mirati Therapeutics and is a member of its scientific advisory board. The study was funded by Mirati Therapeutics.

In a phase 2 cohort study, the KRAS (G12C) inhibitor adagrasib induced an objective response in about one out of three patients with KRAS (G12C)–mutated non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who had previously been treated with platinum-based chemotherapy and immune therapy.

Adagrasib targets KRAS (G12C), which had long been thought undruggable until research published in 2013 revealed a new binding pocket that did not compete directly against the protein’s natural binding partner. The new trial further validates the approach. “It supports that clinically effective targeted therapies can be developed for patients with KRAS (G12C)–mutant NSCLC,” said Pasi Jänne, MD, PhD, who is the lead author of the study describing the new results published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

KRAS is the most frequently mutated oncogene in human cancers. A mutated form is found in about 25% of NSCLCs. KRAS plays a key role in cell signaling governing growth, maturation, and cell death. The mutated form is linked to cancer growth and spread. Patients with mutated KRAS have few effective treatment options.

Adagrasib is currently under study and not yet approved by the Food and Drug Administration. However, sotorasib (Lumakras, Amgen), which also inhibits KRAS (G12C), was approved in May 2021 by the FDA for KRAS (G12C)–mutated NSCLC. There are some key differences between the drugs. Adagrasib has a half-life of 23 hours versus 5 hours for sotorasib, and the newer drug has the potential to penetrate the central nervous system. That could be an important consideration in NSCLC since it often metastasizes to the brain. “Having pharmacological approaches to treat brain metastases is a wonderful new therapeutic option for lung cancer patients,” said Dr. Jänne, who is director of the Lowe Center for Thoracic Oncology at Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

Adagrasib is being investigated as part of the KRYSTAL-1 study, alone and as part of combinations in various solid tumors. Previously treated NSCLC KRAS (G12C) patients are also being enrolled in a phase 3 study of adagrasib combined with docetaxel, as well as another phase 2 study of adagrasib combined with pembrolizumab as first-line therapy for NSCLC KRAS (G12C).

Adagrasib is likely to remain a second-line therapy following chemotherapy and immunotherapy. “The activity by itself at the moment is not sufficient to be a first-line treatment. That may change in the future in combination with a standard of care agent or in a subset of patients with KRAS (G12C)–mutant NSCLC, although no subset with higher efficacy has been identified to date. Identification of predictive biomarkers for patients likely to benefit from single agent or an adagrasib combination treatment remains a high priority,” Dr. Jänne said.

The study included 116 patients who had previously been treated with platinum-based chemotherapy and anti–programmed death 1 or programmed death–ligand 1 therapy. They received 600 mg oral adagrasib twice per day over a median follow-up period of 12.9 months. About 42.9% (95% confidence interval, 33.5%-52.6%) experienced a confirmed objective response with a median duration of 8.5 months (95% CI, 6.2-13.8 months). The median progression-free survival was 6.5 months (95% CI, 4.7-8.4 months). After a median follow-up of 15.6 months, the median overall survival was 12.6 months (95% CI, 9.2-19.2 months). The estimated overall survival at 1 year was 50.8% (95% CI, 40.9%-60.0%).

33 patients had stable central nervous system metastases that had been previously treated. About 33.3% had an intracranial confirmed objective response (95% CI, 18.0-51.8%) with a median duration of response of 11.2 months (95% CI, 2.99 months to not available).

Adverse events are similar to what is seen with other targeted therapies, according to Dr. Jänne. 97.4% of patient reported a treatment-related adverse event; 52.6% had grade 1-2 adverse events, and 44.8% had grade 3 adverse events. 6.9% discontinued the drug as a result.

Dr. Jänne has consulted for Mirati Therapeutics and is a member of its scientific advisory board. The study was funded by Mirati Therapeutics.

In a phase 2 cohort study, the KRAS (G12C) inhibitor adagrasib induced an objective response in about one out of three patients with KRAS (G12C)–mutated non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who had previously been treated with platinum-based chemotherapy and immune therapy.

Adagrasib targets KRAS (G12C), which had long been thought undruggable until research published in 2013 revealed a new binding pocket that did not compete directly against the protein’s natural binding partner. The new trial further validates the approach. “It supports that clinically effective targeted therapies can be developed for patients with KRAS (G12C)–mutant NSCLC,” said Pasi Jänne, MD, PhD, who is the lead author of the study describing the new results published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

KRAS is the most frequently mutated oncogene in human cancers. A mutated form is found in about 25% of NSCLCs. KRAS plays a key role in cell signaling governing growth, maturation, and cell death. The mutated form is linked to cancer growth and spread. Patients with mutated KRAS have few effective treatment options.

Adagrasib is currently under study and not yet approved by the Food and Drug Administration. However, sotorasib (Lumakras, Amgen), which also inhibits KRAS (G12C), was approved in May 2021 by the FDA for KRAS (G12C)–mutated NSCLC. There are some key differences between the drugs. Adagrasib has a half-life of 23 hours versus 5 hours for sotorasib, and the newer drug has the potential to penetrate the central nervous system. That could be an important consideration in NSCLC since it often metastasizes to the brain. “Having pharmacological approaches to treat brain metastases is a wonderful new therapeutic option for lung cancer patients,” said Dr. Jänne, who is director of the Lowe Center for Thoracic Oncology at Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

Adagrasib is being investigated as part of the KRYSTAL-1 study, alone and as part of combinations in various solid tumors. Previously treated NSCLC KRAS (G12C) patients are also being enrolled in a phase 3 study of adagrasib combined with docetaxel, as well as another phase 2 study of adagrasib combined with pembrolizumab as first-line therapy for NSCLC KRAS (G12C).

Adagrasib is likely to remain a second-line therapy following chemotherapy and immunotherapy. “The activity by itself at the moment is not sufficient to be a first-line treatment. That may change in the future in combination with a standard of care agent or in a subset of patients with KRAS (G12C)–mutant NSCLC, although no subset with higher efficacy has been identified to date. Identification of predictive biomarkers for patients likely to benefit from single agent or an adagrasib combination treatment remains a high priority,” Dr. Jänne said.

The study included 116 patients who had previously been treated with platinum-based chemotherapy and anti–programmed death 1 or programmed death–ligand 1 therapy. They received 600 mg oral adagrasib twice per day over a median follow-up period of 12.9 months. About 42.9% (95% confidence interval, 33.5%-52.6%) experienced a confirmed objective response with a median duration of 8.5 months (95% CI, 6.2-13.8 months). The median progression-free survival was 6.5 months (95% CI, 4.7-8.4 months). After a median follow-up of 15.6 months, the median overall survival was 12.6 months (95% CI, 9.2-19.2 months). The estimated overall survival at 1 year was 50.8% (95% CI, 40.9%-60.0%).

33 patients had stable central nervous system metastases that had been previously treated. About 33.3% had an intracranial confirmed objective response (95% CI, 18.0-51.8%) with a median duration of response of 11.2 months (95% CI, 2.99 months to not available).

Adverse events are similar to what is seen with other targeted therapies, according to Dr. Jänne. 97.4% of patient reported a treatment-related adverse event; 52.6% had grade 1-2 adverse events, and 44.8% had grade 3 adverse events. 6.9% discontinued the drug as a result.

Dr. Jänne has consulted for Mirati Therapeutics and is a member of its scientific advisory board. The study was funded by Mirati Therapeutics.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved concomitant use of the biologic pegloticase (Krystexxa) and methotrexate to lower serum uric acid levels (sUA) in patients with chronic gout.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

Pegloticase, which has been available for 12 years, is a pegylated uric acid specific enzyme that lowers sUA by converting it to allantoin.

Though pegloticase is effective in treating chronic gout in patients refractory to conventional treatment, approximately 92% of patients develop antibodies against the drug, resulting in reduced efficacy.

Based on the immunomodulatory effects of methotrexate, researchers of the randomized, placebo-controlled MIRROR trial sought to determine whether combination treatment of pegloticase with methotrexate (multiple brands) would prevent the development of anti-drug antibodies.

Findings from the phase 4 trial found that co-administration of pegloticase and methotrexate reduced the formation of new anti-PEG antibodies. In the group receiving methotrexate and pegloticase, 23.2% (22 out of 95) of patients had an increase in anti-PEG antibodies, compared with 50% (24 of 48) in the pegloticase plus placebo group, according to a recent company press release.

Nearly three-quarters (71%) of participants in the group pretreated with methotrexate, followed by combination pegloticase-methotrexate, had sUA levels that dopped to below 6 mg/dL during the 52-week study. By comparison, 38.5% of participants in the pegloticase and placebo group reached the endpoint. Though gout flare occurred in both groups, methotrexate did not appear to increase the risk for adverse events or gout flare.

The study, led by John Botson, MD, RPh, CCD, a rheumatologist in Anchorage, Alaska, concluded that these measurements demonstrated a significant improvement from traditional pegloticase-only treatment of gout. “This trial confirms not only improved efficacy but improved safety in patients treated with pegloticase in combination with methotrexate 15 mg orally once weekly,” Dr. Botson said last month in an interview with this news organization.

The study was funded by Horizon. Dr. Botson reports receiving research support from Horizon and Radius Health and speaker fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Aurinia, ChemoCentryx, Horizon, Eli Lilly, and Novartis.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved concomitant use of the biologic pegloticase (Krystexxa) and methotrexate to lower serum uric acid levels (sUA) in patients with chronic gout.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

Pegloticase, which has been available for 12 years, is a pegylated uric acid specific enzyme that lowers sUA by converting it to allantoin.

Though pegloticase is effective in treating chronic gout in patients refractory to conventional treatment, approximately 92% of patients develop antibodies against the drug, resulting in reduced efficacy.

Based on the immunomodulatory effects of methotrexate, researchers of the randomized, placebo-controlled MIRROR trial sought to determine whether combination treatment of pegloticase with methotrexate (multiple brands) would prevent the development of anti-drug antibodies.

Findings from the phase 4 trial found that co-administration of pegloticase and methotrexate reduced the formation of new anti-PEG antibodies. In the group receiving methotrexate and pegloticase, 23.2% (22 out of 95) of patients had an increase in anti-PEG antibodies, compared with 50% (24 of 48) in the pegloticase plus placebo group, according to a recent company press release.

Nearly three-quarters (71%) of participants in the group pretreated with methotrexate, followed by combination pegloticase-methotrexate, had sUA levels that dopped to below 6 mg/dL during the 52-week study. By comparison, 38.5% of participants in the pegloticase and placebo group reached the endpoint. Though gout flare occurred in both groups, methotrexate did not appear to increase the risk for adverse events or gout flare.

The study, led by John Botson, MD, RPh, CCD, a rheumatologist in Anchorage, Alaska, concluded that these measurements demonstrated a significant improvement from traditional pegloticase-only treatment of gout. “This trial confirms not only improved efficacy but improved safety in patients treated with pegloticase in combination with methotrexate 15 mg orally once weekly,” Dr. Botson said last month in an interview with this news organization.

The study was funded by Horizon. Dr. Botson reports receiving research support from Horizon and Radius Health and speaker fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Aurinia, ChemoCentryx, Horizon, Eli Lilly, and Novartis.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved concomitant use of the biologic pegloticase (Krystexxa) and methotrexate to lower serum uric acid levels (sUA) in patients with chronic gout.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

Pegloticase, which has been available for 12 years, is a pegylated uric acid specific enzyme that lowers sUA by converting it to allantoin.

Though pegloticase is effective in treating chronic gout in patients refractory to conventional treatment, approximately 92% of patients develop antibodies against the drug, resulting in reduced efficacy.

Based on the immunomodulatory effects of methotrexate, researchers of the randomized, placebo-controlled MIRROR trial sought to determine whether combination treatment of pegloticase with methotrexate (multiple brands) would prevent the development of anti-drug antibodies.

Findings from the phase 4 trial found that co-administration of pegloticase and methotrexate reduced the formation of new anti-PEG antibodies. In the group receiving methotrexate and pegloticase, 23.2% (22 out of 95) of patients had an increase in anti-PEG antibodies, compared with 50% (24 of 48) in the pegloticase plus placebo group, according to a recent company press release.

Nearly three-quarters (71%) of participants in the group pretreated with methotrexate, followed by combination pegloticase-methotrexate, had sUA levels that dopped to below 6 mg/dL during the 52-week study. By comparison, 38.5% of participants in the pegloticase and placebo group reached the endpoint. Though gout flare occurred in both groups, methotrexate did not appear to increase the risk for adverse events or gout flare.

The study, led by John Botson, MD, RPh, CCD, a rheumatologist in Anchorage, Alaska, concluded that these measurements demonstrated a significant improvement from traditional pegloticase-only treatment of gout. “This trial confirms not only improved efficacy but improved safety in patients treated with pegloticase in combination with methotrexate 15 mg orally once weekly,” Dr. Botson said last month in an interview with this news organization.

The study was funded by Horizon. Dr. Botson reports receiving research support from Horizon and Radius Health and speaker fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Aurinia, ChemoCentryx, Horizon, Eli Lilly, and Novartis.

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

Long thought to be untreatable, KRAS is one of the most difficult to treat oncogenic drivers responsible for approximately 25% of all tumors, including 68% of pancreatic tumors and 20% of all non–small cell lung cancers (NSCLC).

We now have a treatment – sotorasib – for patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC that is driven by a KRAS mutation (G12C). And, now, there is a second treatment – adagrasib – under study, which, according to a presentation recently made at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, looks promising.

Ras is a membrane-bound regulatory protein (G protein) belonging to the family of guanosine triphosphatases (GTPases). Ras functions as a guanosine diphosphate/triphosphate binary switch by cycling between the active GTP-bound and the inactive GDP-bound states in response to extracellular stimuli. The KRAS (G12C) mutation affects the active form of KRAS and results in abnormally high concentrations of GTP-bound KRAS leading to hyperactivation of downstream oncogenic pathways and uncontrolled cell growth, specifically of ERK and MEK signaling pathways.

At the ASCO annual meeting in June, Spira and colleagues reported the results of cohort A of the KRYSTAL-1 study evaluating adagrasib as second-line therapy patients with advanced solid tumors harboring a KRAS (G12C) mutation. Like sotorasib, adagrasib is a KRAS (G12C) inhibitor that irreversibly and selectively binds KRAS (G12C), locking it in its inactive state. In this study, patients had to have failed first-line chemotherapy and immunotherapy with 43% of lung cancer patients responding. The 12-month overall survival (OS) was 51%, median overall survival was 12.6 and median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.5 months. Twenty-five patients with KRAS (G12C)–mutant NSCLC and active, untreated central nervous system metastases received adagrasib in a phase 1b cohort. The intracranial overall response rate was 31.6% and median intracranial PFS was 4.2 months. Systemic ORR was 35.0% (7/20), the disease control rate was 80.0% (16/20) and median duration of response was 9.6 months. Based on these data, a phase 3 trial evaluating adagrasib monotherapy versus docetaxel in previously treated patients with KRAS (G12C) mutant NSCLC is ongoing.

The Food and Drug Administration approval of sotorasib in 2021 was, in part, based on the results of a single-arm, phase 2, second-line study of patients who had previously received platinum-based chemotherapy and/or immunotherapy. An ORR rate of 37.1% was reported with a median PFS of 6.8 months and median OS of 12.5 months leading to the FDA approval. Responses were observed across the range of baseline PD-L1 expression levels: 48% of PD-L1 negative, 39% with PD-L1 between 1%-49%, and 22% of patients with a PD-L1 of greater than 50% having a response.

The major toxicities observed in these studies were gastrointestinal (diarrhea, nausea, vomiting) and hepatic (elevated liver enzymes). About 97% of patients on adagrasib experienced any treatment-related adverse events, and 43% experienced a grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse event leading to dose reduction in 52% of patients, a dose interruption in 61% of patients, and a 7% discontinuation rate. About 70% of patients treated with sotorasib had a treatment-related adverse event of any grade, and 21% reported grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events.

A subgroup in the KRYSTAL-1 trial reported an intracranial ORR of 32% in patients with active, untreated CNS metastases. Median overall survival has not yet reached concordance between systemic and intracranial disease control was 88%. In addition, preliminary data from two patients with untreated CNS metastases from a phase 1b cohort found cerebrospinal fluid concentrations of adagrasib with a mean ratio of unbound brain-to-plasma concentration of 0.47, which is comparable or exceeds values for known CNS-penetrant tyrosine kinase inhibitors.

Unfortunately, KRAS (G12C) is not the only KRAS mutation out there. There are a myriad of others, such as G12V and G12D. Hopefully, we will be seeing more drugs aimed at this set of important mutations. Another question, of course, is when and if these drugs will move to the first-line setting.

Dr. Schiller is a medical oncologist and founding member of Oncologists United for Climate and Health. She is a former board member of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer and a current board member of the Lung Cancer Research Foundation.

Long thought to be untreatable, KRAS is one of the most difficult to treat oncogenic drivers responsible for approximately 25% of all tumors, including 68% of pancreatic tumors and 20% of all non–small cell lung cancers (NSCLC).

We now have a treatment – sotorasib – for patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC that is driven by a KRAS mutation (G12C). And, now, there is a second treatment – adagrasib – under study, which, according to a presentation recently made at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, looks promising.

Ras is a membrane-bound regulatory protein (G protein) belonging to the family of guanosine triphosphatases (GTPases). Ras functions as a guanosine diphosphate/triphosphate binary switch by cycling between the active GTP-bound and the inactive GDP-bound states in response to extracellular stimuli. The KRAS (G12C) mutation affects the active form of KRAS and results in abnormally high concentrations of GTP-bound KRAS leading to hyperactivation of downstream oncogenic pathways and uncontrolled cell growth, specifically of ERK and MEK signaling pathways.

At the ASCO annual meeting in June, Spira and colleagues reported the results of cohort A of the KRYSTAL-1 study evaluating adagrasib as second-line therapy patients with advanced solid tumors harboring a KRAS (G12C) mutation. Like sotorasib, adagrasib is a KRAS (G12C) inhibitor that irreversibly and selectively binds KRAS (G12C), locking it in its inactive state. In this study, patients had to have failed first-line chemotherapy and immunotherapy with 43% of lung cancer patients responding. The 12-month overall survival (OS) was 51%, median overall survival was 12.6 and median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.5 months. Twenty-five patients with KRAS (G12C)–mutant NSCLC and active, untreated central nervous system metastases received adagrasib in a phase 1b cohort. The intracranial overall response rate was 31.6% and median intracranial PFS was 4.2 months. Systemic ORR was 35.0% (7/20), the disease control rate was 80.0% (16/20) and median duration of response was 9.6 months. Based on these data, a phase 3 trial evaluating adagrasib monotherapy versus docetaxel in previously treated patients with KRAS (G12C) mutant NSCLC is ongoing.

The Food and Drug Administration approval of sotorasib in 2021 was, in part, based on the results of a single-arm, phase 2, second-line study of patients who had previously received platinum-based chemotherapy and/or immunotherapy. An ORR rate of 37.1% was reported with a median PFS of 6.8 months and median OS of 12.5 months leading to the FDA approval. Responses were observed across the range of baseline PD-L1 expression levels: 48% of PD-L1 negative, 39% with PD-L1 between 1%-49%, and 22% of patients with a PD-L1 of greater than 50% having a response.

The major toxicities observed in these studies were gastrointestinal (diarrhea, nausea, vomiting) and hepatic (elevated liver enzymes). About 97% of patients on adagrasib experienced any treatment-related adverse events, and 43% experienced a grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse event leading to dose reduction in 52% of patients, a dose interruption in 61% of patients, and a 7% discontinuation rate. About 70% of patients treated with sotorasib had a treatment-related adverse event of any grade, and 21% reported grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events.

A subgroup in the KRYSTAL-1 trial reported an intracranial ORR of 32% in patients with active, untreated CNS metastases. Median overall survival has not yet reached concordance between systemic and intracranial disease control was 88%. In addition, preliminary data from two patients with untreated CNS metastases from a phase 1b cohort found cerebrospinal fluid concentrations of adagrasib with a mean ratio of unbound brain-to-plasma concentration of 0.47, which is comparable or exceeds values for known CNS-penetrant tyrosine kinase inhibitors.

Unfortunately, KRAS (G12C) is not the only KRAS mutation out there. There are a myriad of others, such as G12V and G12D. Hopefully, we will be seeing more drugs aimed at this set of important mutations. Another question, of course, is when and if these drugs will move to the first-line setting.

Dr. Schiller is a medical oncologist and founding member of Oncologists United for Climate and Health. She is a former board member of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer and a current board member of the Lung Cancer Research Foundation.

Long thought to be untreatable, KRAS is one of the most difficult to treat oncogenic drivers responsible for approximately 25% of all tumors, including 68% of pancreatic tumors and 20% of all non–small cell lung cancers (NSCLC).

We now have a treatment – sotorasib – for patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC that is driven by a KRAS mutation (G12C). And, now, there is a second treatment – adagrasib – under study, which, according to a presentation recently made at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, looks promising.

Ras is a membrane-bound regulatory protein (G protein) belonging to the family of guanosine triphosphatases (GTPases). Ras functions as a guanosine diphosphate/triphosphate binary switch by cycling between the active GTP-bound and the inactive GDP-bound states in response to extracellular stimuli. The KRAS (G12C) mutation affects the active form of KRAS and results in abnormally high concentrations of GTP-bound KRAS leading to hyperactivation of downstream oncogenic pathways and uncontrolled cell growth, specifically of ERK and MEK signaling pathways.

At the ASCO annual meeting in June, Spira and colleagues reported the results of cohort A of the KRYSTAL-1 study evaluating adagrasib as second-line therapy patients with advanced solid tumors harboring a KRAS (G12C) mutation. Like sotorasib, adagrasib is a KRAS (G12C) inhibitor that irreversibly and selectively binds KRAS (G12C), locking it in its inactive state. In this study, patients had to have failed first-line chemotherapy and immunotherapy with 43% of lung cancer patients responding. The 12-month overall survival (OS) was 51%, median overall survival was 12.6 and median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.5 months. Twenty-five patients with KRAS (G12C)–mutant NSCLC and active, untreated central nervous system metastases received adagrasib in a phase 1b cohort. The intracranial overall response rate was 31.6% and median intracranial PFS was 4.2 months. Systemic ORR was 35.0% (7/20), the disease control rate was 80.0% (16/20) and median duration of response was 9.6 months. Based on these data, a phase 3 trial evaluating adagrasib monotherapy versus docetaxel in previously treated patients with KRAS (G12C) mutant NSCLC is ongoing.

The Food and Drug Administration approval of sotorasib in 2021 was, in part, based on the results of a single-arm, phase 2, second-line study of patients who had previously received platinum-based chemotherapy and/or immunotherapy. An ORR rate of 37.1% was reported with a median PFS of 6.8 months and median OS of 12.5 months leading to the FDA approval. Responses were observed across the range of baseline PD-L1 expression levels: 48% of PD-L1 negative, 39% with PD-L1 between 1%-49%, and 22% of patients with a PD-L1 of greater than 50% having a response.

The major toxicities observed in these studies were gastrointestinal (diarrhea, nausea, vomiting) and hepatic (elevated liver enzymes). About 97% of patients on adagrasib experienced any treatment-related adverse events, and 43% experienced a grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse event leading to dose reduction in 52% of patients, a dose interruption in 61% of patients, and a 7% discontinuation rate. About 70% of patients treated with sotorasib had a treatment-related adverse event of any grade, and 21% reported grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events.

A subgroup in the KRYSTAL-1 trial reported an intracranial ORR of 32% in patients with active, untreated CNS metastases. Median overall survival has not yet reached concordance between systemic and intracranial disease control was 88%. In addition, preliminary data from two patients with untreated CNS metastases from a phase 1b cohort found cerebrospinal fluid concentrations of adagrasib with a mean ratio of unbound brain-to-plasma concentration of 0.47, which is comparable or exceeds values for known CNS-penetrant tyrosine kinase inhibitors.

Unfortunately, KRAS (G12C) is not the only KRAS mutation out there. There are a myriad of others, such as G12V and G12D. Hopefully, we will be seeing more drugs aimed at this set of important mutations. Another question, of course, is when and if these drugs will move to the first-line setting.

Dr. Schiller is a medical oncologist and founding member of Oncologists United for Climate and Health. She is a former board member of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer and a current board member of the Lung Cancer Research Foundation.

Pharmacists can now prescribe Paxlovid, Pfizer’s COVID-19 antiviral pill, directly to patients.

The Food and Drug Administration revised the drug’s emergency use authorization on July 6, letting state-licensed pharmacists screen patients and determine if they are eligible for Paxlovid, according to The Associated Press.

Previously, only doctors could prescribe the antiviral drug, the AP reported. With some limits, pharmacists can now prescribe the medication for patients who face high risks for severe COVID-19.

“The FDA recognizes the important role pharmacists have played and continue to play in combating this pandemic,” Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a statement.

“Since Paxlovid must be taken within 5 days after symptoms begin, authorizing state-licensed pharmacists to prescribe Paxlovid could expand access to timely treatment for some patients who are eligible to receive this drug for the treatment of COVID-19,” she said.

Tom Kraus, the vice president of government relations at the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, said in a statement that the organization was “pleased to see the FDA remove this barrier to patients’ access to this critical treatment.”

“Pharmacists have played a vital role in our pandemic response efforts and are well-positioned to help patients, particularly those in rural and underserved communities, benefit from this medication,” he said.

But some doctor’s groups questioned the FDA’s move. Jack Resneck Jr., MD, the president of the American Medical Association, said in a statement that prescribing Paxlovid “requires knowledge of a patient’s medical history, as well as clinical monitoring for side effects and follow-up care to determine whether a patient is improving” – requirements that are “far beyond a pharmacist’s scope and training.”

“In the fight against a virus that has killed more than a million people in the United States and is still extremely present and transmissible, patients will get the best, most comprehensive care from physician-led teams – teams that include pharmacists. But, whenever possible, prescribing decisions should be made by a physician with knowledge of a patient’s medical history and the ability to follow up. To ensure the best possible care for COVID-19 patients, we urge people who test positive to discuss treatment options with their physician, if they have one,” he said.

After testing positive for COVID-19, patients should first consider seeking care from their regular health care provider or locating a Test-to-Treat site in their area, the FDA said. Although the latest update allows pharmacists to prescribe Paxlovid, community pharmacies that don’t yet take part in the Test-to-Treat program can decide if they will offer the prescription service to patients.

Paxlovid is authorized to treat mild to moderate COVID-19 in adults and in kids ages 12 and older who weigh at least 88 pounds. Patients who report a positive at-home test are eligible for Paxlovid under the FDA authorization.

If patients want to seek a prescription directly from a pharmacist, they should bring electronic or printed health records from the past year, including their most recent reports of blood work, so the pharmacist can review for kidney or liver problems. Pharmacists can also get this information from the patient’s health care provider.

In addition, patients should bring a list of all medications they are taking, including over-the-counter medications, so the pharmacist can screen for drugs that can have serious interactions with Paxlovid.

Under the limits in the updated FDA authorization, pharmacists should refer patients for more screening if Paxlovid isn’t a good option or if there’s not enough information to find out how well their kidneys or liver works, as well as potential drug interactions.

Paxlovid is intended for people with COVID-19 who face the highest risks for serious disease, the AP reported, including older adults and those with health conditions such as heart disease, obesity, cancer, or diabetes. It isn’t recommended for people with severe kidney or liver problems. A course of treatment requires three pills twice a day for 5 days.

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

Pharmacists can now prescribe Paxlovid, Pfizer’s COVID-19 antiviral pill, directly to patients.

The Food and Drug Administration revised the drug’s emergency use authorization on July 6, letting state-licensed pharmacists screen patients and determine if they are eligible for Paxlovid, according to The Associated Press.

Previously, only doctors could prescribe the antiviral drug, the AP reported. With some limits, pharmacists can now prescribe the medication for patients who face high risks for severe COVID-19.

“The FDA recognizes the important role pharmacists have played and continue to play in combating this pandemic,” Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a statement.

“Since Paxlovid must be taken within 5 days after symptoms begin, authorizing state-licensed pharmacists to prescribe Paxlovid could expand access to timely treatment for some patients who are eligible to receive this drug for the treatment of COVID-19,” she said.

Tom Kraus, the vice president of government relations at the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, said in a statement that the organization was “pleased to see the FDA remove this barrier to patients’ access to this critical treatment.”

“Pharmacists have played a vital role in our pandemic response efforts and are well-positioned to help patients, particularly those in rural and underserved communities, benefit from this medication,” he said.

But some doctor’s groups questioned the FDA’s move. Jack Resneck Jr., MD, the president of the American Medical Association, said in a statement that prescribing Paxlovid “requires knowledge of a patient’s medical history, as well as clinical monitoring for side effects and follow-up care to determine whether a patient is improving” – requirements that are “far beyond a pharmacist’s scope and training.”

“In the fight against a virus that has killed more than a million people in the United States and is still extremely present and transmissible, patients will get the best, most comprehensive care from physician-led teams – teams that include pharmacists. But, whenever possible, prescribing decisions should be made by a physician with knowledge of a patient’s medical history and the ability to follow up. To ensure the best possible care for COVID-19 patients, we urge people who test positive to discuss treatment options with their physician, if they have one,” he said.

After testing positive for COVID-19, patients should first consider seeking care from their regular health care provider or locating a Test-to-Treat site in their area, the FDA said. Although the latest update allows pharmacists to prescribe Paxlovid, community pharmacies that don’t yet take part in the Test-to-Treat program can decide if they will offer the prescription service to patients.

Paxlovid is authorized to treat mild to moderate COVID-19 in adults and in kids ages 12 and older who weigh at least 88 pounds. Patients who report a positive at-home test are eligible for Paxlovid under the FDA authorization.

If patients want to seek a prescription directly from a pharmacist, they should bring electronic or printed health records from the past year, including their most recent reports of blood work, so the pharmacist can review for kidney or liver problems. Pharmacists can also get this information from the patient’s health care provider.

In addition, patients should bring a list of all medications they are taking, including over-the-counter medications, so the pharmacist can screen for drugs that can have serious interactions with Paxlovid.

Under the limits in the updated FDA authorization, pharmacists should refer patients for more screening if Paxlovid isn’t a good option or if there’s not enough information to find out how well their kidneys or liver works, as well as potential drug interactions.

Paxlovid is intended for people with COVID-19 who face the highest risks for serious disease, the AP reported, including older adults and those with health conditions such as heart disease, obesity, cancer, or diabetes. It isn’t recommended for people with severe kidney or liver problems. A course of treatment requires three pills twice a day for 5 days.

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

Pharmacists can now prescribe Paxlovid, Pfizer’s COVID-19 antiviral pill, directly to patients.

The Food and Drug Administration revised the drug’s emergency use authorization on July 6, letting state-licensed pharmacists screen patients and determine if they are eligible for Paxlovid, according to The Associated Press.

Previously, only doctors could prescribe the antiviral drug, the AP reported. With some limits, pharmacists can now prescribe the medication for patients who face high risks for severe COVID-19.

“The FDA recognizes the important role pharmacists have played and continue to play in combating this pandemic,” Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a statement.

“Since Paxlovid must be taken within 5 days after symptoms begin, authorizing state-licensed pharmacists to prescribe Paxlovid could expand access to timely treatment for some patients who are eligible to receive this drug for the treatment of COVID-19,” she said.

Tom Kraus, the vice president of government relations at the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, said in a statement that the organization was “pleased to see the FDA remove this barrier to patients’ access to this critical treatment.”

“Pharmacists have played a vital role in our pandemic response efforts and are well-positioned to help patients, particularly those in rural and underserved communities, benefit from this medication,” he said.

But some doctor’s groups questioned the FDA’s move. Jack Resneck Jr., MD, the president of the American Medical Association, said in a statement that prescribing Paxlovid “requires knowledge of a patient’s medical history, as well as clinical monitoring for side effects and follow-up care to determine whether a patient is improving” – requirements that are “far beyond a pharmacist’s scope and training.”

“In the fight against a virus that has killed more than a million people in the United States and is still extremely present and transmissible, patients will get the best, most comprehensive care from physician-led teams – teams that include pharmacists. But, whenever possible, prescribing decisions should be made by a physician with knowledge of a patient’s medical history and the ability to follow up. To ensure the best possible care for COVID-19 patients, we urge people who test positive to discuss treatment options with their physician, if they have one,” he said.

After testing positive for COVID-19, patients should first consider seeking care from their regular health care provider or locating a Test-to-Treat site in their area, the FDA said. Although the latest update allows pharmacists to prescribe Paxlovid, community pharmacies that don’t yet take part in the Test-to-Treat program can decide if they will offer the prescription service to patients.

Paxlovid is authorized to treat mild to moderate COVID-19 in adults and in kids ages 12 and older who weigh at least 88 pounds. Patients who report a positive at-home test are eligible for Paxlovid under the FDA authorization.

If patients want to seek a prescription directly from a pharmacist, they should bring electronic or printed health records from the past year, including their most recent reports of blood work, so the pharmacist can review for kidney or liver problems. Pharmacists can also get this information from the patient’s health care provider.

In addition, patients should bring a list of all medications they are taking, including over-the-counter medications, so the pharmacist can screen for drugs that can have serious interactions with Paxlovid.

Under the limits in the updated FDA authorization, pharmacists should refer patients for more screening if Paxlovid isn’t a good option or if there’s not enough information to find out how well their kidneys or liver works, as well as potential drug interactions.

Paxlovid is intended for people with COVID-19 who face the highest risks for serious disease, the AP reported, including older adults and those with health conditions such as heart disease, obesity, cancer, or diabetes. It isn’t recommended for people with severe kidney or liver problems. A course of treatment requires three pills twice a day for 5 days.

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

Ann Marco, 73, who was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in late 2018, credits her oncology team for saving her life. They treated her with chemotherapy, debulking surgery, and more chemotherapy. But it is her second and current care team that helped restore Ms. Marco’s quality of life, directing her toward such resources as palliative care, physical therapy and counseling for her and her husband.

“I can’t say enough about my palliative care doctor. She helped me manage pain, and the fatigue associated with chemotherapy. When she noticed that my leg was swollen she suspected a blood clot and sent me for an ultrasound,” Ms. Marco said.

The ultrasound revealed that she did indeed have a blood clot, for which she received, and continues to receive, medication. “Because with ovarian cancer, you always have blood clots. So little things like that, though they’re not that little, have really helped me in my journey with this cancer,” Ms. Marco said.

That journey has had its ups and downs. One chemotherapy regimen was so intolerable she decided to discontinue it, with full support of her oncologist. I told her, I just want to live my life, whether that’s only 6 more months or 3 years, but I don’t want to live it like this. And she said, ‘Ann, we’re going to do what you want to do.’”

Nine months later, when her cancer started growing again, Ms. Marco returned to chemotherapy. But this regimen has been much more tolerable, and it also appears to be doing its job. A recent CT scan showed that the tumors are shrinking.

“They’ll never go away. I have metastatic cancer. But they’re smaller, and I was really thrilled about that. It’s the best news I’ve had in more than 3 years,” Ms. Marco said.
 

End-of-life aggressive care still common

Despite clinical guidelines advising against intensive or invasive end-of-life care, more than half of women with terminal ovarian cancer receive at least one aggressive intervention, shows a study published in JCO Oncology Practice.

“We have good evidence that the types of aggressive end-of-life care we looked at in this paper are generally related to a lower quality of life for patients, poorer bereavement outcomes for their families, and even shorter duration survivals,” said lead author Megan A. Mullins, PhD, MPH, a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. “This suggests there’s a disconnect between what people think aggressive care might do and what it’s doing.”

In their evaluation of variation in end-of-life care, Dr. Mullins and her colleagues analyzed SEER-Medicare data on 6,288 women with ovarian cancer who died between 2016 and 2020. They found that 51% of those women received some form of aggressive cancer care. The most common forms were not being admitted to hospice (28.9%), receiving an invasive procedure (20.7%) and being admitted to an intensive care unit (18.6%).

Dr. Mullins noted that since palliative care was officially recognized as a specialty in 2006, there has been increasing guidance for earlier integration of palliative care and reducing the aggressiveness of end-of-life care; both ASCO and the National Quality Form have standards advising against aggressive end-of-life care.

“But there are a lot of complicated factors that I think make it hard to move the needle in this area,” she said. “For one thing, particularly with ovarian cancer, women tend to have recurrences. I’ve spoken with physicians who got their patients through a difficult patch; they rebounded and they did fine. You don’t know for sure if that’s going to happen again if you try something else. Prognostication is not an exact science.”

Also, end-of-life discussions can be challenging conversations. “Nobody wants to take hope away from their patients. But there’s evidence to show that these conversations don’t actually reduce patients’ hopes – that’s a misconception,” Dr. Mullins said.

“It’s challenging. In the United States, we don’t like to talk about death and dying. But I think having these conversations earlier and more often can help make them a more regular part of care,” she said.

Brittany A. Davidson, MD, a gynecologic oncologist with Duke Health in Durham, N.C., who wrote an accompanying editorial, acknowledges that end-of-life can be fraught with fear, anxiety, and a lot of emotion. But she finds helping patients and their families navigate the ups and downs of their cancer one of the most rewarding aspects of her career as a physician.

“We want to help patients and their family members make these transitions as smoothly as possible,” she said.

A proponent of communications skills training for physicians in general, Dr. Brittany said doctors can learn to identify cues that patients are ready to have conversations about their end-of-life care.

“Those cues will help us facilitate conversations sooner rather than later so we’re not waiting until the very end,” she said.

What these conversations consist of varies depending on where the patient is in her cancer trajectory. In a patient with recurrent ovarian or recurrent uterine cancer, this might start with making sure the patient understands that while their cancer is treatable, it is very unlikely to be curable.

“I have often had patients who have been treated for cancer for several years and didn’t know their cancer wasn’t curable. How many missed opportunities have we overlooked?” Dr. Davidson said.

Then the conversation can turn to the goals of treatment. What’s important to the patient? “Are there events they want to be around for? Symptoms they want to avoid? Some patients really want to know what it’s going to be like to die. I try to take the lead from the patient. Ask what kind of information is helpful to them. Is it numbers? Is it symptoms? It’s really different for everybody,” Dr. Davidson said.

Although Dr. Mullins’s research and Dr. Davidson’s editorial suggest there’s room for improvement toward achieving goal-concordant care in gynecological cancers, Dr. Davidson suspects these patients might be faring a bit better than patients with other types of cancer based on her own anecdotal observations.

“One of the unique things about gynecologic oncology is that we have an amazing longitudinal relationship with our patients – we are not only their surgeons, we’re their oncologists. In other solid tumors, care is fractionated.

“That’s one of the reasons I love gynecologic oncology. I have the opportunity to know my patients through all the stages they experience as part of their cancer. I’d like to think that allows me a better opportunity to get to know them and help them recognize the value of palliative care,” Dr. Mullins said.

Ann Marco, 73, who was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in late 2018, credits her oncology team for saving her life. They treated her with chemotherapy, debulking surgery, and more chemotherapy. But it is her second and current care team that helped restore Ms. Marco’s quality of life, directing her toward such resources as palliative care, physical therapy and counseling for her and her husband.

“I can’t say enough about my palliative care doctor. She helped me manage pain, and the fatigue associated with chemotherapy. When she noticed that my leg was swollen she suspected a blood clot and sent me for an ultrasound,” Ms. Marco said.

The ultrasound revealed that she did indeed have a blood clot, for which she received, and continues to receive, medication. “Because with ovarian cancer, you always have blood clots. So little things like that, though they’re not that little, have really helped me in my journey with this cancer,” Ms. Marco said.

That journey has had its ups and downs. One chemotherapy regimen was so intolerable she decided to discontinue it, with full support of her oncologist. I told her, I just want to live my life, whether that’s only 6 more months or 3 years, but I don’t want to live it like this. And she said, ‘Ann, we’re going to do what you want to do.’”

Nine months later, when her cancer started growing again, Ms. Marco returned to chemotherapy. But this regimen has been much more tolerable, and it also appears to be doing its job. A recent CT scan showed that the tumors are shrinking.

“They’ll never go away. I have metastatic cancer. But they’re smaller, and I was really thrilled about that. It’s the best news I’ve had in more than 3 years,” Ms. Marco said.
 

End-of-life aggressive care still common

Despite clinical guidelines advising against intensive or invasive end-of-life care, more than half of women with terminal ovarian cancer receive at least one aggressive intervention, shows a study published in JCO Oncology Practice.

“We have good evidence that the types of aggressive end-of-life care we looked at in this paper are generally related to a lower quality of life for patients, poorer bereavement outcomes for their families, and even shorter duration survivals,” said lead author Megan A. Mullins, PhD, MPH, a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. “This suggests there’s a disconnect between what people think aggressive care might do and what it’s doing.”

In their evaluation of variation in end-of-life care, Dr. Mullins and her colleagues analyzed SEER-Medicare data on 6,288 women with ovarian cancer who died between 2016 and 2020. They found that 51% of those women received some form of aggressive cancer care. The most common forms were not being admitted to hospice (28.9%), receiving an invasive procedure (20.7%) and being admitted to an intensive care unit (18.6%).

Dr. Mullins noted that since palliative care was officially recognized as a specialty in 2006, there has been increasing guidance for earlier integration of palliative care and reducing the aggressiveness of end-of-life care; both ASCO and the National Quality Form have standards advising against aggressive end-of-life care.

“But there are a lot of complicated factors that I think make it hard to move the needle in this area,” she said. “For one thing, particularly with ovarian cancer, women tend to have recurrences. I’ve spoken with physicians who got their patients through a difficult patch; they rebounded and they did fine. You don’t know for sure if that’s going to happen again if you try something else. Prognostication is not an exact science.”

Also, end-of-life discussions can be challenging conversations. “Nobody wants to take hope away from their patients. But there’s evidence to show that these conversations don’t actually reduce patients’ hopes – that’s a misconception,” Dr. Mullins said.

“It’s challenging. In the United States, we don’t like to talk about death and dying. But I think having these conversations earlier and more often can help make them a more regular part of care,” she said.

Brittany A. Davidson, MD, a gynecologic oncologist with Duke Health in Durham, N.C., who wrote an accompanying editorial, acknowledges that end-of-life can be fraught with fear, anxiety, and a lot of emotion. But she finds helping patients and their families navigate the ups and downs of their cancer one of the most rewarding aspects of her career as a physician.

“We want to help patients and their family members make these transitions as smoothly as possible,” she said.

A proponent of communications skills training for physicians in general, Dr. Brittany said doctors can learn to identify cues that patients are ready to have conversations about their end-of-life care.

“Those cues will help us facilitate conversations sooner rather than later so we’re not waiting until the very end,” she said.

What these conversations consist of varies depending on where the patient is in her cancer trajectory. In a patient with recurrent ovarian or recurrent uterine cancer, this might start with making sure the patient understands that while their cancer is treatable, it is very unlikely to be curable.

“I have often had patients who have been treated for cancer for several years and didn’t know their cancer wasn’t curable. How many missed opportunities have we overlooked?” Dr. Davidson said.

Then the conversation can turn to the goals of treatment. What’s important to the patient? “Are there events they want to be around for? Symptoms they want to avoid? Some patients really want to know what it’s going to be like to die. I try to take the lead from the patient. Ask what kind of information is helpful to them. Is it numbers? Is it symptoms? It’s really different for everybody,” Dr. Davidson said.

Although Dr. Mullins’s research and Dr. Davidson’s editorial suggest there’s room for improvement toward achieving goal-concordant care in gynecological cancers, Dr. Davidson suspects these patients might be faring a bit better than patients with other types of cancer based on her own anecdotal observations.

“One of the unique things about gynecologic oncology is that we have an amazing longitudinal relationship with our patients – we are not only their surgeons, we’re their oncologists. In other solid tumors, care is fractionated.

“That’s one of the reasons I love gynecologic oncology. I have the opportunity to know my patients through all the stages they experience as part of their cancer. I’d like to think that allows me a better opportunity to get to know them and help them recognize the value of palliative care,” Dr. Mullins said.

Ann Marco, 73, who was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in late 2018, credits her oncology team for saving her life. They treated her with chemotherapy, debulking surgery, and more chemotherapy. But it is her second and current care team that helped restore Ms. Marco’s quality of life, directing her toward such resources as palliative care, physical therapy and counseling for her and her husband.

“I can’t say enough about my palliative care doctor. She helped me manage pain, and the fatigue associated with chemotherapy. When she noticed that my leg was swollen she suspected a blood clot and sent me for an ultrasound,” Ms. Marco said.

The ultrasound revealed that she did indeed have a blood clot, for which she received, and continues to receive, medication. “Because with ovarian cancer, you always have blood clots. So little things like that, though they’re not that little, have really helped me in my journey with this cancer,” Ms. Marco said.

That journey has had its ups and downs. One chemotherapy regimen was so intolerable she decided to discontinue it, with full support of her oncologist. I told her, I just want to live my life, whether that’s only 6 more months or 3 years, but I don’t want to live it like this. And she said, ‘Ann, we’re going to do what you want to do.’”

Nine months later, when her cancer started growing again, Ms. Marco returned to chemotherapy. But this regimen has been much more tolerable, and it also appears to be doing its job. A recent CT scan showed that the tumors are shrinking.

“They’ll never go away. I have metastatic cancer. But they’re smaller, and I was really thrilled about that. It’s the best news I’ve had in more than 3 years,” Ms. Marco said.
 

End-of-life aggressive care still common

Despite clinical guidelines advising against intensive or invasive end-of-life care, more than half of women with terminal ovarian cancer receive at least one aggressive intervention, shows a study published in JCO Oncology Practice.

“We have good evidence that the types of aggressive end-of-life care we looked at in this paper are generally related to a lower quality of life for patients, poorer bereavement outcomes for their families, and even shorter duration survivals,” said lead author Megan A. Mullins, PhD, MPH, a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. “This suggests there’s a disconnect between what people think aggressive care might do and what it’s doing.”

In their evaluation of variation in end-of-life care, Dr. Mullins and her colleagues analyzed SEER-Medicare data on 6,288 women with ovarian cancer who died between 2016 and 2020. They found that 51% of those women received some form of aggressive cancer care. The most common forms were not being admitted to hospice (28.9%), receiving an invasive procedure (20.7%) and being admitted to an intensive care unit (18.6%).

Dr. Mullins noted that since palliative care was officially recognized as a specialty in 2006, there has been increasing guidance for earlier integration of palliative care and reducing the aggressiveness of end-of-life care; both ASCO and the National Quality Form have standards advising against aggressive end-of-life care.

“But there are a lot of complicated factors that I think make it hard to move the needle in this area,” she said. “For one thing, particularly with ovarian cancer, women tend to have recurrences. I’ve spoken with physicians who got their patients through a difficult patch; they rebounded and they did fine. You don’t know for sure if that’s going to happen again if you try something else. Prognostication is not an exact science.”

Also, end-of-life discussions can be challenging conversations. “Nobody wants to take hope away from their patients. But there’s evidence to show that these conversations don’t actually reduce patients’ hopes – that’s a misconception,” Dr. Mullins said.

“It’s challenging. In the United States, we don’t like to talk about death and dying. But I think having these conversations earlier and more often can help make them a more regular part of care,” she said.

Brittany A. Davidson, MD, a gynecologic oncologist with Duke Health in Durham, N.C., who wrote an accompanying editorial, acknowledges that end-of-life can be fraught with fear, anxiety, and a lot of emotion. But she finds helping patients and their families navigate the ups and downs of their cancer one of the most rewarding aspects of her career as a physician.

“We want to help patients and their family members make these transitions as smoothly as possible,” she said.

A proponent of communications skills training for physicians in general, Dr. Brittany said doctors can learn to identify cues that patients are ready to have conversations about their end-of-life care.

“Those cues will help us facilitate conversations sooner rather than later so we’re not waiting until the very end,” she said.

What these conversations consist of varies depending on where the patient is in her cancer trajectory. In a patient with recurrent ovarian or recurrent uterine cancer, this might start with making sure the patient understands that while their cancer is treatable, it is very unlikely to be curable.

“I have often had patients who have been treated for cancer for several years and didn’t know their cancer wasn’t curable. How many missed opportunities have we overlooked?” Dr. Davidson said.

Then the conversation can turn to the goals of treatment. What’s important to the patient? “Are there events they want to be around for? Symptoms they want to avoid? Some patients really want to know what it’s going to be like to die. I try to take the lead from the patient. Ask what kind of information is helpful to them. Is it numbers? Is it symptoms? It’s really different for everybody,” Dr. Davidson said.

Although Dr. Mullins’s research and Dr. Davidson’s editorial suggest there’s room for improvement toward achieving goal-concordant care in gynecological cancers, Dr. Davidson suspects these patients might be faring a bit better than patients with other types of cancer based on her own anecdotal observations.

“One of the unique things about gynecologic oncology is that we have an amazing longitudinal relationship with our patients – we are not only their surgeons, we’re their oncologists. In other solid tumors, care is fractionated.

“That’s one of the reasons I love gynecologic oncology. I have the opportunity to know my patients through all the stages they experience as part of their cancer. I’d like to think that allows me a better opportunity to get to know them and help them recognize the value of palliative care,” Dr. Mullins said.

Opioids remain a staple in pain management for cancer, but there is little guidance around how to treat patients who have a history of opioid misuse.

Recently, a group of palliative and addiction medicine specialists developed strategies to help frontline clinicians manage patients with advanced cancer-related pain and opioid use disorder.

“There is a tendency to ignore treatment of opioid use disorder in advanced cancer patients because people think: ‘Oh, this person has bigger fish to fry,’ but that’s not a very patient-centric way of looking at things,” senior author Jessica Merlin, MD, PhD, with the University of Pittsburgh, said in a news release.

“We know that opioid use disorder is a really important factor in quality of life, so addressing opioid addiction and prescription opioid misuse in people with advanced cancer is really critical,” Dr. Merlin added.

The study was published online in JAMA Oncology.

To improve care for people with advanced cancer and cancer-related pain, the researchers first assessed how clinicians currently treat patients with opioid complexity.

Using an online Delphi platform, the team invited 120 clinicians with expertise in palliative care, pain management, and addiction medicine to weigh in on three common clinical scenarios – a patient with a recent history of untreated opioid use disorder, a patient taking more opioids than prescribed, and a patient using nonprescribed benzodiazepines.

For a patient with cancer and a recent history of untreated opioid use disorder, regardless of prognosis, the panel deemed it appropriate to begin treatment with buprenorphine/naloxone for pain but inappropriate to refer the patient to a methadone clinic. The panel felt that going to a methadone clinic would be too burdensome for a patient with advanced cancer and not possible for those with limited prognoses.

“This underscores the importance of access to [opioid use disorder] treatment in cancer treatment settings, including non–addiction specialists waivered to prescribe buprenorphine/naloxone and addiction specialists for more complex cases,” the authors wrote.

For a patient with untreated opioid use disorder, the panel deemed split-dose methadone (two to three times daily) appropriate in those with limited prognosis of weeks to months but was uncertain about the suitability of this approach for patients with longer prognoses of a year or longer.

The appropriateness of initiating treatment with a full-agonist opioid was considered uncertain for a patient with limited prognosis and inappropriate for a patient with longer prognosis.

For a patient with cancer pain and no medical history of opioid use disorder but taking more opioids than prescribed, regardless of prognosis, the panel felt it was appropriate to increase monitoring and inappropriate to taper opioids. The panel was not certain about whether to increase opioids based on the patient’s account of what they need or transition to buprenorphine/naloxone.

For a patient with no history of opioid use disorder who was prescribed traditional opioids for pain and had a positive urine drug test for nonprescribed benzodiazepines, regardless of prognosis, the panel felt it was appropriate to continue opioids with close monitoring and inappropriate to taper opioids or transition to buprenorphine/naloxone.

The researchers said that improving education around buprenorphine and cancer pain management in the context of opioid use disorder or misuse is needed.

In a related editorial, two experts noted that the patients considered in this “important article” require considerable time and expertise from an interdisciplinary team.

“It is important that cancer centers establish and fund such teams mainly as a safety measure for these patients and also as a major contribution to the care of all patients with cancer,” wrote Joseph Arthur, MD, and Eduardo Bruera, MD, with the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

In the wider context, Dr. Arthur and Dr. Bruera highlighted how treatments for patients with advanced cancer have evolved over the past 3 decades, yet patients have continued to be given opioids to address cancer-related pain. Developing more sophisticated drugs that relieve pain without significant side effects or addictive properties is imperative.

Dr. Arthur and Dr. Bruera said the study authors “appropriately emphasize the value of delivering compassionate and expert care for these particularly complex cases and the importance of conducting research on the best ways to alleviate the suffering in this rapidly growing patient population.”

This research was supported by Cambia Health Foundation and the National Institute of Nursing Research. Dr. Merlin, Dr. Arthur, and Dr. Bruera reported no relevant disclosures.

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

Opioids remain a staple in pain management for cancer, but there is little guidance around how to treat patients who have a history of opioid misuse.

Recently, a group of palliative and addiction medicine specialists developed strategies to help frontline clinicians manage patients with advanced cancer-related pain and opioid use disorder.

“There is a tendency to ignore treatment of opioid use disorder in advanced cancer patients because people think: ‘Oh, this person has bigger fish to fry,’ but that’s not a very patient-centric way of looking at things,” senior author Jessica Merlin, MD, PhD, with the University of Pittsburgh, said in a news release.

“We know that opioid use disorder is a really important factor in quality of life, so addressing opioid addiction and prescription opioid misuse in people with advanced cancer is really critical,” Dr. Merlin added.

The study was published online in JAMA Oncology.

To improve care for people with advanced cancer and cancer-related pain, the researchers first assessed how clinicians currently treat patients with opioid complexity.

Using an online Delphi platform, the team invited 120 clinicians with expertise in palliative care, pain management, and addiction medicine to weigh in on three common clinical scenarios – a patient with a recent history of untreated opioid use disorder, a patient taking more opioids than prescribed, and a patient using nonprescribed benzodiazepines.

For a patient with cancer and a recent history of untreated opioid use disorder, regardless of prognosis, the panel deemed it appropriate to begin treatment with buprenorphine/naloxone for pain but inappropriate to refer the patient to a methadone clinic. The panel felt that going to a methadone clinic would be too burdensome for a patient with advanced cancer and not possible for those with limited prognoses.

“This underscores the importance of access to [opioid use disorder] treatment in cancer treatment settings, including non–addiction specialists waivered to prescribe buprenorphine/naloxone and addiction specialists for more complex cases,” the authors wrote.

For a patient with untreated opioid use disorder, the panel deemed split-dose methadone (two to three times daily) appropriate in those with limited prognosis of weeks to months but was uncertain about the suitability of this approach for patients with longer prognoses of a year or longer.

The appropriateness of initiating treatment with a full-agonist opioid was considered uncertain for a patient with limited prognosis and inappropriate for a patient with longer prognosis.

For a patient with cancer pain and no medical history of opioid use disorder but taking more opioids than prescribed, regardless of prognosis, the panel felt it was appropriate to increase monitoring and inappropriate to taper opioids. The panel was not certain about whether to increase opioids based on the patient’s account of what they need or transition to buprenorphine/naloxone.

For a patient with no history of opioid use disorder who was prescribed traditional opioids for pain and had a positive urine drug test for nonprescribed benzodiazepines, regardless of prognosis, the panel felt it was appropriate to continue opioids with close monitoring and inappropriate to taper opioids or transition to buprenorphine/naloxone.

The researchers said that improving education around buprenorphine and cancer pain management in the context of opioid use disorder or misuse is needed.

In a related editorial, two experts noted that the patients considered in this “important article” require considerable time and expertise from an interdisciplinary team.

“It is important that cancer centers establish and fund such teams mainly as a safety measure for these patients and also as a major contribution to the care of all patients with cancer,” wrote Joseph Arthur, MD, and Eduardo Bruera, MD, with the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

In the wider context, Dr. Arthur and Dr. Bruera highlighted how treatments for patients with advanced cancer have evolved over the past 3 decades, yet patients have continued to be given opioids to address cancer-related pain. Developing more sophisticated drugs that relieve pain without significant side effects or addictive properties is imperative.

Dr. Arthur and Dr. Bruera said the study authors “appropriately emphasize the value of delivering compassionate and expert care for these particularly complex cases and the importance of conducting research on the best ways to alleviate the suffering in this rapidly growing patient population.”

This research was supported by Cambia Health Foundation and the National Institute of Nursing Research. Dr. Merlin, Dr. Arthur, and Dr. Bruera reported no relevant disclosures.

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

Opioids remain a staple in pain management for cancer, but there is little guidance around how to treat patients who have a history of opioid misuse.

Recently, a group of palliative and addiction medicine specialists developed strategies to help frontline clinicians manage patients with advanced cancer-related pain and opioid use disorder.

“There is a tendency to ignore treatment of opioid use disorder in advanced cancer patients because people think: ‘Oh, this person has bigger fish to fry,’ but that’s not a very patient-centric way of looking at things,” senior author Jessica Merlin, MD, PhD, with the University of Pittsburgh, said in a news release.

“We know that opioid use disorder is a really important factor in quality of life, so addressing opioid addiction and prescription opioid misuse in people with advanced cancer is really critical,” Dr. Merlin added.

The study was published online in JAMA Oncology.

To improve care for people with advanced cancer and cancer-related pain, the researchers first assessed how clinicians currently treat patients with opioid complexity.

Using an online Delphi platform, the team invited 120 clinicians with expertise in palliative care, pain management, and addiction medicine to weigh in on three common clinical scenarios – a patient with a recent history of untreated opioid use disorder, a patient taking more opioids than prescribed, and a patient using nonprescribed benzodiazepines.

For a patient with cancer and a recent history of untreated opioid use disorder, regardless of prognosis, the panel deemed it appropriate to begin treatment with buprenorphine/naloxone for pain but inappropriate to refer the patient to a methadone clinic. The panel felt that going to a methadone clinic would be too burdensome for a patient with advanced cancer and not possible for those with limited prognoses.

“This underscores the importance of access to [opioid use disorder] treatment in cancer treatment settings, including non–addiction specialists waivered to prescribe buprenorphine/naloxone and addiction specialists for more complex cases,” the authors wrote.

For a patient with untreated opioid use disorder, the panel deemed split-dose methadone (two to three times daily) appropriate in those with limited prognosis of weeks to months but was uncertain about the suitability of this approach for patients with longer prognoses of a year or longer.

The appropriateness of initiating treatment with a full-agonist opioid was considered uncertain for a patient with limited prognosis and inappropriate for a patient with longer prognosis.

For a patient with cancer pain and no medical history of opioid use disorder but taking more opioids than prescribed, regardless of prognosis, the panel felt it was appropriate to increase monitoring and inappropriate to taper opioids. The panel was not certain about whether to increase opioids based on the patient’s account of what they need or transition to buprenorphine/naloxone.

For a patient with no history of opioid use disorder who was prescribed traditional opioids for pain and had a positive urine drug test for nonprescribed benzodiazepines, regardless of prognosis, the panel felt it was appropriate to continue opioids with close monitoring and inappropriate to taper opioids or transition to buprenorphine/naloxone.

The researchers said that improving education around buprenorphine and cancer pain management in the context of opioid use disorder or misuse is needed.

In a related editorial, two experts noted that the patients considered in this “important article” require considerable time and expertise from an interdisciplinary team.

“It is important that cancer centers establish and fund such teams mainly as a safety measure for these patients and also as a major contribution to the care of all patients with cancer,” wrote Joseph Arthur, MD, and Eduardo Bruera, MD, with the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

In the wider context, Dr. Arthur and Dr. Bruera highlighted how treatments for patients with advanced cancer have evolved over the past 3 decades, yet patients have continued to be given opioids to address cancer-related pain. Developing more sophisticated drugs that relieve pain without significant side effects or addictive properties is imperative.

Dr. Arthur and Dr. Bruera said the study authors “appropriately emphasize the value of delivering compassionate and expert care for these particularly complex cases and the importance of conducting research on the best ways to alleviate the suffering in this rapidly growing patient population.”

This research was supported by Cambia Health Foundation and the National Institute of Nursing Research. Dr. Merlin, Dr. Arthur, and Dr. Bruera reported no relevant disclosures.

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