Mixed Topics

Campaigners for greater transparency in medical science have reiterated calls for more to be done to avoid “medical research waste” after an investigation found that results from more than a fifth of clinical trials across five Nordic countries have never been made public.

A study found that results from 475 clinical trials in Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Norway, and Sweden — involving almost 84,000 participants — were never made public in any form.

Nonpublication of clinical trial results wastes public money, harms patients, and undermines public health, the researchers said. 

There is already a well-defined ethical responsibility to publish trial results. Article 36 of the Declaration of Helsinki on Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects states that “researchers have a duty to make publicly available the results of their research on human subjects,” and World Health Organization best practice protocols call for results to be uploaded onto trial registries within 12 months of trial completion.
 

Research Waste Is a ‘Pervasive Problem’

So, how and why do so many trials end up gathering dust in a drawer? The latest study, published February 5 as a preprint, evaluated the reporting outcomes of 2113 clinical trials at medical universities and university hospitals in Nordic countries between 2016 and 2019. It found that across the five countries, 22% of all clinical trial results had not been shared. Furthermore, only 27% of all trial results were made public, either on registries or in journals, within 12 months. Even 2 years after trials ended, only around half of results (51.7%) had been put into the public domain.

The authors concluded that missing and delayed results from academically-led clinical trials was a “pervasive problem” in Nordic countries and that institutions, funding bodies, and policymakers needed to ensure that regulations around reporting results were adhered to so that important findings are not lost.

Study first author, Gustav Nilsonne, MD, PHD, from the Department of Clinical Neuroscience at the Karolinska Institutet, Sweden, told this news organization: “Most people I talk to — most colleagues who are clinical scientists — tend to think that the main reason is that negative results are not as interesting to publish and therefore they get lower priority, and they get published later and sometimes not at all.”

Experts stressed that the problem is not confined to Nordic countries and that wasted medical research persists elsewhere in Europe and remains a global problem. For instance, a report published in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology found that 30% of German trials completed between 2014 and 2017 remained unpublished 5 years after completion.
 

The Case for Laws, Monitoring, and Fines

Till Bruckner, PHD, from TranspariMED, which campaigns to end evidence distortion in medicine, told this news organization: “What is needed to comprehensively fix the problem is a national legal requirement to make all trial results public, coupled with effective monitoring, and followed by sanctions in the rare cases where institutions refuse to comply.” 

Dr. Nilsonne added: “We have argued that the sponsors need to take greater responsibility, but also that there needs to be somebody whose job it is to monitor clinical trials reporting. It shouldn’t have to be that we do this as researchers on a shoestring with no dedicated resources. It should be somebody’s job.”

Since January 31, 2023, all initial clinical trial applications in the European Union must be submitted through the EU Clinical Trials Information System. Dr. Bruckner said that “the picture is not yet clear” in Europe, as the first trial results under the system are not expected until later this year. Even then, enforcement lies with regulators in individual countries. And while Denmark has already indicated it will enforce the regulations, he warned that other countries “might turn a blind eye.”

He pointed out that existing laws don’t apply to all types of trials. “That means that for many trials, nobody is legally responsible for ensuring that results are made public, and no government agency has any oversight or mandate,” he said.

Outside the EU, the United Kingdom has helped lead the way through the NHS Health Research Authority (HRA), which registers trials run in the country. One year after a trial has been completed, the HRA checks to see if the results have been uploaded to the registry and issues reminders if they haven’t.

In an update of its work in January, the authority said that compliance had hovered at just below 90% between 2018 and 2021 but that it was working to increase this to 100% by working with stakeholders across the research sector.

Dr. Nilsonne considers the UK system of central registration and follow-up an attractive option. “I would love to see something along those lines in other countries too,” he said.
 

‘Rampant Noncompliance’ in the United States

In the United States, a requirement to make trial results public is backed by law. Despite this, there’s evidence of “rampant noncompliance” and minimal government action, according to Megan Curtin from Universities Allied for Essential Medicines (UAEM), which has been tracking the issue in the United States and working to push universities and others to make their findings available.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) shares responsibility with the National Institutes of Health for enforcement of clinical trial results reporting, but the UAEM says nearly 4000 trials are currently out of compliance with reporting requirements. In January last year, the UAEM copublished a report with the National Center for Health Research and TranspariMED, which found that 3627 American children participated in clinical trials whose results remain unreported.

The FDA can levy a fine of up to $10,000 USD for a violation of the law, but UAEM said that, as of January 2023, the FDA had sent only 92 preliminary notices of noncompliance and four notices of noncompliance. “A clear difference between the EU field of clinical trial operation and US clinical trials is that there are clear laws for reporting within 12 months, which can be enforced, but they’re not being enforced by the FDA,” Ms. Curtin told this news organization.

The UAEM is pushing the FDA to issue a minimum of 250 preliminary notices of noncompliance each year to noncompliant trial sponsors.

Dr. Nilsonne said: “I do believe we have a great responsibility to the patients that do contribute. We need to make sure that the harms and risks that a clinical trial entails are really balanced by knowledge gain, and if the results are never reported, then we can’t have a knowledge gain.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Campaigners for greater transparency in medical science have reiterated calls for more to be done to avoid “medical research waste” after an investigation found that results from more than a fifth of clinical trials across five Nordic countries have never been made public.

A study found that results from 475 clinical trials in Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Norway, and Sweden — involving almost 84,000 participants — were never made public in any form.

Nonpublication of clinical trial results wastes public money, harms patients, and undermines public health, the researchers said. 

There is already a well-defined ethical responsibility to publish trial results. Article 36 of the Declaration of Helsinki on Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects states that “researchers have a duty to make publicly available the results of their research on human subjects,” and World Health Organization best practice protocols call for results to be uploaded onto trial registries within 12 months of trial completion.
 

Research Waste Is a ‘Pervasive Problem’

So, how and why do so many trials end up gathering dust in a drawer? The latest study, published February 5 as a preprint, evaluated the reporting outcomes of 2113 clinical trials at medical universities and university hospitals in Nordic countries between 2016 and 2019. It found that across the five countries, 22% of all clinical trial results had not been shared. Furthermore, only 27% of all trial results were made public, either on registries or in journals, within 12 months. Even 2 years after trials ended, only around half of results (51.7%) had been put into the public domain.

The authors concluded that missing and delayed results from academically-led clinical trials was a “pervasive problem” in Nordic countries and that institutions, funding bodies, and policymakers needed to ensure that regulations around reporting results were adhered to so that important findings are not lost.

Study first author, Gustav Nilsonne, MD, PHD, from the Department of Clinical Neuroscience at the Karolinska Institutet, Sweden, told this news organization: “Most people I talk to — most colleagues who are clinical scientists — tend to think that the main reason is that negative results are not as interesting to publish and therefore they get lower priority, and they get published later and sometimes not at all.”

Experts stressed that the problem is not confined to Nordic countries and that wasted medical research persists elsewhere in Europe and remains a global problem. For instance, a report published in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology found that 30% of German trials completed between 2014 and 2017 remained unpublished 5 years after completion.
 

The Case for Laws, Monitoring, and Fines

Till Bruckner, PHD, from TranspariMED, which campaigns to end evidence distortion in medicine, told this news organization: “What is needed to comprehensively fix the problem is a national legal requirement to make all trial results public, coupled with effective monitoring, and followed by sanctions in the rare cases where institutions refuse to comply.” 

Dr. Nilsonne added: “We have argued that the sponsors need to take greater responsibility, but also that there needs to be somebody whose job it is to monitor clinical trials reporting. It shouldn’t have to be that we do this as researchers on a shoestring with no dedicated resources. It should be somebody’s job.”

Since January 31, 2023, all initial clinical trial applications in the European Union must be submitted through the EU Clinical Trials Information System. Dr. Bruckner said that “the picture is not yet clear” in Europe, as the first trial results under the system are not expected until later this year. Even then, enforcement lies with regulators in individual countries. And while Denmark has already indicated it will enforce the regulations, he warned that other countries “might turn a blind eye.”

He pointed out that existing laws don’t apply to all types of trials. “That means that for many trials, nobody is legally responsible for ensuring that results are made public, and no government agency has any oversight or mandate,” he said.

Outside the EU, the United Kingdom has helped lead the way through the NHS Health Research Authority (HRA), which registers trials run in the country. One year after a trial has been completed, the HRA checks to see if the results have been uploaded to the registry and issues reminders if they haven’t.

In an update of its work in January, the authority said that compliance had hovered at just below 90% between 2018 and 2021 but that it was working to increase this to 100% by working with stakeholders across the research sector.

Dr. Nilsonne considers the UK system of central registration and follow-up an attractive option. “I would love to see something along those lines in other countries too,” he said.
 

‘Rampant Noncompliance’ in the United States

In the United States, a requirement to make trial results public is backed by law. Despite this, there’s evidence of “rampant noncompliance” and minimal government action, according to Megan Curtin from Universities Allied for Essential Medicines (UAEM), which has been tracking the issue in the United States and working to push universities and others to make their findings available.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) shares responsibility with the National Institutes of Health for enforcement of clinical trial results reporting, but the UAEM says nearly 4000 trials are currently out of compliance with reporting requirements. In January last year, the UAEM copublished a report with the National Center for Health Research and TranspariMED, which found that 3627 American children participated in clinical trials whose results remain unreported.

The FDA can levy a fine of up to $10,000 USD for a violation of the law, but UAEM said that, as of January 2023, the FDA had sent only 92 preliminary notices of noncompliance and four notices of noncompliance. “A clear difference between the EU field of clinical trial operation and US clinical trials is that there are clear laws for reporting within 12 months, which can be enforced, but they’re not being enforced by the FDA,” Ms. Curtin told this news organization.

The UAEM is pushing the FDA to issue a minimum of 250 preliminary notices of noncompliance each year to noncompliant trial sponsors.

Dr. Nilsonne said: “I do believe we have a great responsibility to the patients that do contribute. We need to make sure that the harms and risks that a clinical trial entails are really balanced by knowledge gain, and if the results are never reported, then we can’t have a knowledge gain.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Campaigners for greater transparency in medical science have reiterated calls for more to be done to avoid “medical research waste” after an investigation found that results from more than a fifth of clinical trials across five Nordic countries have never been made public.

A study found that results from 475 clinical trials in Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Norway, and Sweden — involving almost 84,000 participants — were never made public in any form.

Nonpublication of clinical trial results wastes public money, harms patients, and undermines public health, the researchers said. 

There is already a well-defined ethical responsibility to publish trial results. Article 36 of the Declaration of Helsinki on Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects states that “researchers have a duty to make publicly available the results of their research on human subjects,” and World Health Organization best practice protocols call for results to be uploaded onto trial registries within 12 months of trial completion.
 

Research Waste Is a ‘Pervasive Problem’

So, how and why do so many trials end up gathering dust in a drawer? The latest study, published February 5 as a preprint, evaluated the reporting outcomes of 2113 clinical trials at medical universities and university hospitals in Nordic countries between 2016 and 2019. It found that across the five countries, 22% of all clinical trial results had not been shared. Furthermore, only 27% of all trial results were made public, either on registries or in journals, within 12 months. Even 2 years after trials ended, only around half of results (51.7%) had been put into the public domain.

The authors concluded that missing and delayed results from academically-led clinical trials was a “pervasive problem” in Nordic countries and that institutions, funding bodies, and policymakers needed to ensure that regulations around reporting results were adhered to so that important findings are not lost.

Study first author, Gustav Nilsonne, MD, PHD, from the Department of Clinical Neuroscience at the Karolinska Institutet, Sweden, told this news organization: “Most people I talk to — most colleagues who are clinical scientists — tend to think that the main reason is that negative results are not as interesting to publish and therefore they get lower priority, and they get published later and sometimes not at all.”

Experts stressed that the problem is not confined to Nordic countries and that wasted medical research persists elsewhere in Europe and remains a global problem. For instance, a report published in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology found that 30% of German trials completed between 2014 and 2017 remained unpublished 5 years after completion.
 

The Case for Laws, Monitoring, and Fines

Till Bruckner, PHD, from TranspariMED, which campaigns to end evidence distortion in medicine, told this news organization: “What is needed to comprehensively fix the problem is a national legal requirement to make all trial results public, coupled with effective monitoring, and followed by sanctions in the rare cases where institutions refuse to comply.” 

Dr. Nilsonne added: “We have argued that the sponsors need to take greater responsibility, but also that there needs to be somebody whose job it is to monitor clinical trials reporting. It shouldn’t have to be that we do this as researchers on a shoestring with no dedicated resources. It should be somebody’s job.”

Since January 31, 2023, all initial clinical trial applications in the European Union must be submitted through the EU Clinical Trials Information System. Dr. Bruckner said that “the picture is not yet clear” in Europe, as the first trial results under the system are not expected until later this year. Even then, enforcement lies with regulators in individual countries. And while Denmark has already indicated it will enforce the regulations, he warned that other countries “might turn a blind eye.”

He pointed out that existing laws don’t apply to all types of trials. “That means that for many trials, nobody is legally responsible for ensuring that results are made public, and no government agency has any oversight or mandate,” he said.

Outside the EU, the United Kingdom has helped lead the way through the NHS Health Research Authority (HRA), which registers trials run in the country. One year after a trial has been completed, the HRA checks to see if the results have been uploaded to the registry and issues reminders if they haven’t.

In an update of its work in January, the authority said that compliance had hovered at just below 90% between 2018 and 2021 but that it was working to increase this to 100% by working with stakeholders across the research sector.

Dr. Nilsonne considers the UK system of central registration and follow-up an attractive option. “I would love to see something along those lines in other countries too,” he said.
 

‘Rampant Noncompliance’ in the United States

In the United States, a requirement to make trial results public is backed by law. Despite this, there’s evidence of “rampant noncompliance” and minimal government action, according to Megan Curtin from Universities Allied for Essential Medicines (UAEM), which has been tracking the issue in the United States and working to push universities and others to make their findings available.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) shares responsibility with the National Institutes of Health for enforcement of clinical trial results reporting, but the UAEM says nearly 4000 trials are currently out of compliance with reporting requirements. In January last year, the UAEM copublished a report with the National Center for Health Research and TranspariMED, which found that 3627 American children participated in clinical trials whose results remain unreported.

The FDA can levy a fine of up to $10,000 USD for a violation of the law, but UAEM said that, as of January 2023, the FDA had sent only 92 preliminary notices of noncompliance and four notices of noncompliance. “A clear difference between the EU field of clinical trial operation and US clinical trials is that there are clear laws for reporting within 12 months, which can be enforced, but they’re not being enforced by the FDA,” Ms. Curtin told this news organization.

The UAEM is pushing the FDA to issue a minimum of 250 preliminary notices of noncompliance each year to noncompliant trial sponsors.

Dr. Nilsonne said: “I do believe we have a great responsibility to the patients that do contribute. We need to make sure that the harms and risks that a clinical trial entails are really balanced by knowledge gain, and if the results are never reported, then we can’t have a knowledge gain.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Among patients with psoriasis, the risk of mortality was strongly associated with hepatic injury, cardiovascular disease, and psychiatric affective disorders, but was reduced among those who received systemic therapy with biologics, researchers from Canada report.

Those are key findings from a large retrospective registry study of patients with psoriasis, published in The Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

“Psoriasis, a chronic inflammatory condition affecting approximately 3% of the western populations, bears a higher risk of mortality compared to healthy individuals, possibly by inducing systemic inflammation associated with numerous comorbidities, especially cardiovascular diseases, metabolic syndrome, and others,” wrote corresponding author Robert Gniadecki, MD, PhD, of the division of dermatology at the University of Alberta, Canada, and colleagues. “It has been argued that the use of systemic immunomodulatory agents quenches systemic inflammation and potentially improves patient survival. However, the evidence to support this hypothesis is limited.”

To investigate the impact of comorbidities and systemic therapies on all-cause mortality in psoriasis, the researchers used the Alberta Health Services Data Repository of Reporting database from January 1, 2012, to June 1, 2019, which represents a population base of 4.47 million individuals. They extracted data on 18,618 psoriasis cases and 55,854 controls, stratified cases according to the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), a surrogate measure for comorbidity burden, and by the type of therapy received, and conducted statistical analyses including Cox proportional hazards regression to determine absolute hazard ratios representing relative effects of specific demographic and comorbidity factors on mortality within groups.

The median age in both cohorts was 48 years, and 51% were male. The researchers observed that mortality in the psoriasis cohort was significantly higher than in the controls (5.7% vs. 3.8%, respectively; P < .05), with a median age at the time of death of 72 vs. 74.4 years.

The CCI and comorbidities strongly predicted mortality, especially drug-induced liver injury (hazard ratio [HR], 1.78), bipolar disorder and suicidal ideation (HR, 1.24-1.58), and major cardiovascular diseases, which included myocardial infarction (MI), congestive heart failure (CHF), and cerebrovascular disease (CVA) (HR, 1.2-1.4).

Among patients in the psoriasis cohort, survival of those treated with biologic agents was higher than in controls, even after matching for CCI (3.2% vs. 4.4%, respectively, P < .05). “These patients also exhibit reduced overall mortality compared to those treated with methotrexate or topical agents,” Dr. Gniadecki and colleagues wrote. “There was no difference in mortality between methotrexate patients and the topical therapy patients, but any of those treatment groups had superior survival compared to the no-treatment cohort.”

They added that despite better survival among patients treated with biologic agents, no significant improvements were detected in their comorbidity profiles. “Notably, the frequency of major cardiovascular disease (MI, CHF, CVA) was the same as in the controls, and overall, the frequency of diseases coded as cardiovascular was slightly increased,” they wrote.

The fact that some factors could not be measured, including the type and severity of psoriasis, response to treatment, smoking history, and alcohol intake, was a study limitation, they noted.

Joel M. Gelfand, MD, director of the psoriasis and phototherapy treatment center at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who was asked to comment on the analysis, said the study confirms prior work indicating that having psoriasis is a predictor of mortality. In addition, “there is a strong healthy user affect among patients who take and stay on biologics for psoriasis,” he told this news organization.

Courtesy Dr. Gelfand

Among patients with psoriasis, the risk of mortality was strongly associated with hepatic injury, cardiovascular disease, and psychiatric affective disorders, but was reduced among those who received systemic therapy with biologics, researchers from Canada report.

Those are key findings from a large retrospective registry study of patients with psoriasis, published in The Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

“Psoriasis, a chronic inflammatory condition affecting approximately 3% of the western populations, bears a higher risk of mortality compared to healthy individuals, possibly by inducing systemic inflammation associated with numerous comorbidities, especially cardiovascular diseases, metabolic syndrome, and others,” wrote corresponding author Robert Gniadecki, MD, PhD, of the division of dermatology at the University of Alberta, Canada, and colleagues. “It has been argued that the use of systemic immunomodulatory agents quenches systemic inflammation and potentially improves patient survival. However, the evidence to support this hypothesis is limited.”

To investigate the impact of comorbidities and systemic therapies on all-cause mortality in psoriasis, the researchers used the Alberta Health Services Data Repository of Reporting database from January 1, 2012, to June 1, 2019, which represents a population base of 4.47 million individuals. They extracted data on 18,618 psoriasis cases and 55,854 controls, stratified cases according to the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), a surrogate measure for comorbidity burden, and by the type of therapy received, and conducted statistical analyses including Cox proportional hazards regression to determine absolute hazard ratios representing relative effects of specific demographic and comorbidity factors on mortality within groups.

The median age in both cohorts was 48 years, and 51% were male. The researchers observed that mortality in the psoriasis cohort was significantly higher than in the controls (5.7% vs. 3.8%, respectively; P < .05), with a median age at the time of death of 72 vs. 74.4 years.

The CCI and comorbidities strongly predicted mortality, especially drug-induced liver injury (hazard ratio [HR], 1.78), bipolar disorder and suicidal ideation (HR, 1.24-1.58), and major cardiovascular diseases, which included myocardial infarction (MI), congestive heart failure (CHF), and cerebrovascular disease (CVA) (HR, 1.2-1.4).

Among patients in the psoriasis cohort, survival of those treated with biologic agents was higher than in controls, even after matching for CCI (3.2% vs. 4.4%, respectively, P < .05). “These patients also exhibit reduced overall mortality compared to those treated with methotrexate or topical agents,” Dr. Gniadecki and colleagues wrote. “There was no difference in mortality between methotrexate patients and the topical therapy patients, but any of those treatment groups had superior survival compared to the no-treatment cohort.”

They added that despite better survival among patients treated with biologic agents, no significant improvements were detected in their comorbidity profiles. “Notably, the frequency of major cardiovascular disease (MI, CHF, CVA) was the same as in the controls, and overall, the frequency of diseases coded as cardiovascular was slightly increased,” they wrote.

The fact that some factors could not be measured, including the type and severity of psoriasis, response to treatment, smoking history, and alcohol intake, was a study limitation, they noted.

Joel M. Gelfand, MD, director of the psoriasis and phototherapy treatment center at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who was asked to comment on the analysis, said the study confirms prior work indicating that having psoriasis is a predictor of mortality. In addition, “there is a strong healthy user affect among patients who take and stay on biologics for psoriasis,” he told this news organization.

Courtesy Dr. Gelfand

Among patients with psoriasis, the risk of mortality was strongly associated with hepatic injury, cardiovascular disease, and psychiatric affective disorders, but was reduced among those who received systemic therapy with biologics, researchers from Canada report.

Those are key findings from a large retrospective registry study of patients with psoriasis, published in The Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

“Psoriasis, a chronic inflammatory condition affecting approximately 3% of the western populations, bears a higher risk of mortality compared to healthy individuals, possibly by inducing systemic inflammation associated with numerous comorbidities, especially cardiovascular diseases, metabolic syndrome, and others,” wrote corresponding author Robert Gniadecki, MD, PhD, of the division of dermatology at the University of Alberta, Canada, and colleagues. “It has been argued that the use of systemic immunomodulatory agents quenches systemic inflammation and potentially improves patient survival. However, the evidence to support this hypothesis is limited.”

To investigate the impact of comorbidities and systemic therapies on all-cause mortality in psoriasis, the researchers used the Alberta Health Services Data Repository of Reporting database from January 1, 2012, to June 1, 2019, which represents a population base of 4.47 million individuals. They extracted data on 18,618 psoriasis cases and 55,854 controls, stratified cases according to the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), a surrogate measure for comorbidity burden, and by the type of therapy received, and conducted statistical analyses including Cox proportional hazards regression to determine absolute hazard ratios representing relative effects of specific demographic and comorbidity factors on mortality within groups.

The median age in both cohorts was 48 years, and 51% were male. The researchers observed that mortality in the psoriasis cohort was significantly higher than in the controls (5.7% vs. 3.8%, respectively; P < .05), with a median age at the time of death of 72 vs. 74.4 years.

The CCI and comorbidities strongly predicted mortality, especially drug-induced liver injury (hazard ratio [HR], 1.78), bipolar disorder and suicidal ideation (HR, 1.24-1.58), and major cardiovascular diseases, which included myocardial infarction (MI), congestive heart failure (CHF), and cerebrovascular disease (CVA) (HR, 1.2-1.4).

Among patients in the psoriasis cohort, survival of those treated with biologic agents was higher than in controls, even after matching for CCI (3.2% vs. 4.4%, respectively, P < .05). “These patients also exhibit reduced overall mortality compared to those treated with methotrexate or topical agents,” Dr. Gniadecki and colleagues wrote. “There was no difference in mortality between methotrexate patients and the topical therapy patients, but any of those treatment groups had superior survival compared to the no-treatment cohort.”

They added that despite better survival among patients treated with biologic agents, no significant improvements were detected in their comorbidity profiles. “Notably, the frequency of major cardiovascular disease (MI, CHF, CVA) was the same as in the controls, and overall, the frequency of diseases coded as cardiovascular was slightly increased,” they wrote.

The fact that some factors could not be measured, including the type and severity of psoriasis, response to treatment, smoking history, and alcohol intake, was a study limitation, they noted.

Joel M. Gelfand, MD, director of the psoriasis and phototherapy treatment center at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who was asked to comment on the analysis, said the study confirms prior work indicating that having psoriasis is a predictor of mortality. In addition, “there is a strong healthy user affect among patients who take and stay on biologics for psoriasis,” he told this news organization.

Courtesy Dr. Gelfand

A group of 16 Democratic legislators on the House Committee on Oversight and Reform has demanded in a letter that the drugmaker Pfizer present details on how the company is responding to shortages of the generic chemotherapy drugs carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate.

In a statement about their February 21 action, the legislators, led by Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the committee’s ranking minority member, described their work as a follow up to an earlier investigation into price hikes of generic drugs. While the committee members queried Pfizer over the three oncology medications only, they also sent letters to drugmakers Teva and Sandoz with respect to shortages in other drug classes.

A representative for Pfizer confirmed to MDedge Oncology that the company had received the representatives’ letter but said “we have no further details to provide at this time.”

What is the basis for concern?

All three generic chemotherapy drugs are mainstay treatments used across a broad array of cancers. Though shortages have been reported for several years, they became especially acute after December 2022, when an inspection by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) led to regulatory action against an Indian manufacturer, Intas, that produced up to half of the platinum-based therapies supplied globally. The National Comprehensive Cancer Care Network reported in October 2023 that more than 90% of its member centers were struggling to maintain adequate supplies of carboplatin, and 70% had trouble obtaining cisplatin, while the American Society of Clinical Oncology published clinical guidance on alternative treatment strategies.

What has the government done in response to the recent shortages?

The White House and the FDA announced in September that they were working with several manufacturers to help increase supplies of the platinum-based chemotherapies and of methotrexate, and taking measures that included relaxing rules on imports. Recent guidance under a pandemic-era federal law, the 2020 CARES Act, strengthened manufacturer reporting requirements related to drug shortages, and other measures have been proposed. While federal regulators have many tools with which to address drug shortages, they cannot legally oblige a manufacturer to increase production of a drug.

What can the lawmakers expect to achieve with their letter?

By pressuring Pfizer publicly, the lawmakers may be able to nudge the company to take measures to assure more consistent supplies of the three drugs. The lawmakers also said they hoped to glean from Pfizer more insight into the root causes of the shortages and potential remedies. They noted that, in a May 2023 letter by Pfizer to customers, the company had warned of depleted and limited supplies of the three drugs and said it was “working diligently” to increase output. However, the lawmakers wrote, “the root cause is not yet resolved and carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate continue to experience residual delays.”

Why did the committee target Pfizer specifically?

Pfizer and its subsidiaries are among the major manufacturers of the three generic chemotherapy agents mentioned in the letter. The legislators noted that “pharmaceutical companies may not be motivated to produce generic drugs like carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate, because they are not as lucrative as producing patented brand name drugs,” and that “as a principal supplier of carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate, it is critical that Pfizer continues to increase production of these life-sustaining cancer medications, even amidst potential lower profitability.”

The committee members also made reference to news reports of price-gouging with these medications, as smaller hospitals or oncology centers are forced to turn to unscrupulous third-party suppliers.

What is being demanded of Pfizer?

Pfizer was given until March 6 to respond, in writing and in a briefing with committee staff, to a six questions. These queries concern what specific steps the company has taken to increase supplies of the three generic oncology drugs, what Pfizer is doing to help avert price-gouging, whether further oncology drug shortages are anticipated, and how the company is working with the FDA on the matter.

A group of 16 Democratic legislators on the House Committee on Oversight and Reform has demanded in a letter that the drugmaker Pfizer present details on how the company is responding to shortages of the generic chemotherapy drugs carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate.

In a statement about their February 21 action, the legislators, led by Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the committee’s ranking minority member, described their work as a follow up to an earlier investigation into price hikes of generic drugs. While the committee members queried Pfizer over the three oncology medications only, they also sent letters to drugmakers Teva and Sandoz with respect to shortages in other drug classes.

A representative for Pfizer confirmed to MDedge Oncology that the company had received the representatives’ letter but said “we have no further details to provide at this time.”

What is the basis for concern?

All three generic chemotherapy drugs are mainstay treatments used across a broad array of cancers. Though shortages have been reported for several years, they became especially acute after December 2022, when an inspection by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) led to regulatory action against an Indian manufacturer, Intas, that produced up to half of the platinum-based therapies supplied globally. The National Comprehensive Cancer Care Network reported in October 2023 that more than 90% of its member centers were struggling to maintain adequate supplies of carboplatin, and 70% had trouble obtaining cisplatin, while the American Society of Clinical Oncology published clinical guidance on alternative treatment strategies.

What has the government done in response to the recent shortages?

The White House and the FDA announced in September that they were working with several manufacturers to help increase supplies of the platinum-based chemotherapies and of methotrexate, and taking measures that included relaxing rules on imports. Recent guidance under a pandemic-era federal law, the 2020 CARES Act, strengthened manufacturer reporting requirements related to drug shortages, and other measures have been proposed. While federal regulators have many tools with which to address drug shortages, they cannot legally oblige a manufacturer to increase production of a drug.

What can the lawmakers expect to achieve with their letter?

By pressuring Pfizer publicly, the lawmakers may be able to nudge the company to take measures to assure more consistent supplies of the three drugs. The lawmakers also said they hoped to glean from Pfizer more insight into the root causes of the shortages and potential remedies. They noted that, in a May 2023 letter by Pfizer to customers, the company had warned of depleted and limited supplies of the three drugs and said it was “working diligently” to increase output. However, the lawmakers wrote, “the root cause is not yet resolved and carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate continue to experience residual delays.”

Why did the committee target Pfizer specifically?

Pfizer and its subsidiaries are among the major manufacturers of the three generic chemotherapy agents mentioned in the letter. The legislators noted that “pharmaceutical companies may not be motivated to produce generic drugs like carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate, because they are not as lucrative as producing patented brand name drugs,” and that “as a principal supplier of carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate, it is critical that Pfizer continues to increase production of these life-sustaining cancer medications, even amidst potential lower profitability.”

The committee members also made reference to news reports of price-gouging with these medications, as smaller hospitals or oncology centers are forced to turn to unscrupulous third-party suppliers.

What is being demanded of Pfizer?

Pfizer was given until March 6 to respond, in writing and in a briefing with committee staff, to a six questions. These queries concern what specific steps the company has taken to increase supplies of the three generic oncology drugs, what Pfizer is doing to help avert price-gouging, whether further oncology drug shortages are anticipated, and how the company is working with the FDA on the matter.

A group of 16 Democratic legislators on the House Committee on Oversight and Reform has demanded in a letter that the drugmaker Pfizer present details on how the company is responding to shortages of the generic chemotherapy drugs carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate.

In a statement about their February 21 action, the legislators, led by Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the committee’s ranking minority member, described their work as a follow up to an earlier investigation into price hikes of generic drugs. While the committee members queried Pfizer over the three oncology medications only, they also sent letters to drugmakers Teva and Sandoz with respect to shortages in other drug classes.

A representative for Pfizer confirmed to MDedge Oncology that the company had received the representatives’ letter but said “we have no further details to provide at this time.”

What is the basis for concern?

All three generic chemotherapy drugs are mainstay treatments used across a broad array of cancers. Though shortages have been reported for several years, they became especially acute after December 2022, when an inspection by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) led to regulatory action against an Indian manufacturer, Intas, that produced up to half of the platinum-based therapies supplied globally. The National Comprehensive Cancer Care Network reported in October 2023 that more than 90% of its member centers were struggling to maintain adequate supplies of carboplatin, and 70% had trouble obtaining cisplatin, while the American Society of Clinical Oncology published clinical guidance on alternative treatment strategies.

What has the government done in response to the recent shortages?

The White House and the FDA announced in September that they were working with several manufacturers to help increase supplies of the platinum-based chemotherapies and of methotrexate, and taking measures that included relaxing rules on imports. Recent guidance under a pandemic-era federal law, the 2020 CARES Act, strengthened manufacturer reporting requirements related to drug shortages, and other measures have been proposed. While federal regulators have many tools with which to address drug shortages, they cannot legally oblige a manufacturer to increase production of a drug.

What can the lawmakers expect to achieve with their letter?

By pressuring Pfizer publicly, the lawmakers may be able to nudge the company to take measures to assure more consistent supplies of the three drugs. The lawmakers also said they hoped to glean from Pfizer more insight into the root causes of the shortages and potential remedies. They noted that, in a May 2023 letter by Pfizer to customers, the company had warned of depleted and limited supplies of the three drugs and said it was “working diligently” to increase output. However, the lawmakers wrote, “the root cause is not yet resolved and carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate continue to experience residual delays.”

Why did the committee target Pfizer specifically?

Pfizer and its subsidiaries are among the major manufacturers of the three generic chemotherapy agents mentioned in the letter. The legislators noted that “pharmaceutical companies may not be motivated to produce generic drugs like carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate, because they are not as lucrative as producing patented brand name drugs,” and that “as a principal supplier of carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate, it is critical that Pfizer continues to increase production of these life-sustaining cancer medications, even amidst potential lower profitability.”

The committee members also made reference to news reports of price-gouging with these medications, as smaller hospitals or oncology centers are forced to turn to unscrupulous third-party suppliers.

What is being demanded of Pfizer?

Pfizer was given until March 6 to respond, in writing and in a briefing with committee staff, to a six questions. These queries concern what specific steps the company has taken to increase supplies of the three generic oncology drugs, what Pfizer is doing to help avert price-gouging, whether further oncology drug shortages are anticipated, and how the company is working with the FDA on the matter.

This article was originally published on February 10 in Eric Topol’s substack “Ground Truths.”

It’s astounding how devious cancer cells and tumor tissue can be. This week in Science we learned how certain lung cancer cells can function like “Catch Me If You Can” — changing their driver mutation and cell identity to escape targeted therapy. This histologic transformation, as seen in an experimental model, is just one of so many cancer tricks that we are learning about.

Recently, as shown by single-cell sequencing, cancer cells can steal the mitochondria from T cells, a double whammy that turbocharges cancer cells with the hijacked fuel supply and, at the same time, dismantles the immune response.

Last week, we saw how tumor cells can release a virus-like protein that unleashes a vicious autoimmune response.

And then there’s the finding that cancer cell spread predominantly is occurring while we sleep.

As I previously reviewed, the ability for cancer cells to hijack neurons and neural circuits is now well established, no less their ability to reprogram neurons to become adrenergic and stimulate tumor progression, and interfere with the immune response. Stay tuned on that for a new Ground Truths podcast with Prof Michelle Monje, a leader in cancer neuroscience, which will post soon.

Add advancing age’s immunosenescence as yet another challenge to the long and growing list of formidable ways that cancer cells, and the tumor microenvironment, evade our immune response.

An Ever-Expanding Armamentarium

All of this is telling us how we need to ramp up our game if we are going to be able to use our immune system to quash a cancer. Fortunately, we have abundant and ever-growing capabilities for doing just that.

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors

The field of immunotherapies took off with the immune checkpoint inhibitors, first approved by the FDA in 2011, that take the brakes off of T cells, with the programmed death-1 (PD-1), PD-ligand1, and anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal antibodies.

But we’re clearly learning they are not enough to prevail over cancer with common recurrences, only short term success in most patients, with some notable exceptions. Adding other immune response strategies, such as a vaccine, or antibody-drug conjugates, or engineered T cells, are showing improved chances for success.

Therapeutic Cancer Vaccines

There are many therapeutic cancer vaccines in the works, as reviewed in depth here.

Here’s a list of ongoing clinical trials of cancer vaccines. You’ll note most of these are on top of a checkpoint inhibitor and use personalized neoantigens (cancer cell surface proteins) derived from sequencing (whole-exome or whole genome, RNA-sequencing and HLA-profiling) the patient’s tumor.

An example of positive findings is with the combination of an mRNA-nanoparticle vaccine with up to 34 personalized neoantigens and pembrolizumab (Keytruda) vs pembrolizumab alone in advanced melanoma after resection, with improved outcomes at 3-year follow-up, cutting death or relapse rate in half.

Antibody-Drug Conjugates (ADC)

There is considerable excitement about antibody-drug conjugates (ADC) whereby a linker is used to attach a chemotherapy agent to the checkpoint inhibitor antibody, specifically targeting the cancer cell and facilitating entry of the chemotherapy into the cell. Akin to these are bispecific antibodies (BiTEs, binding to a tumor antigen and T cell receptor simultaneously), both of these conjugates acting as “biologic” or “guided” missiles.

A very good example of the potency of an ADC was seen in a “HER2-low” breast cancer randomized trial. The absence or very low expression or amplification of the HER2 receptor is common in breast cancer and successful treatment has been elusive. A randomized trial of an ADC (trastuzumab deruxtecan) compared to physician’s choice therapy demonstrated a marked success for progression-free survival in HER2-low patients, which was characterized as “unheard-of success” by media coverage.

This strategy is being used to target some of the most difficult cancer driver mutations such as TP53 and KRAS.

Oncolytic Viruses

Modifying viruses to infect the tumor and make it more visible to the immune system, potentiating anti-tumor responses, known as oncolytic viruses, have been proposed as a way to rev up the immune response for a long time but without positive Phase 3 clinical trials.

After decades of failure, a recent trial in refractory bladder cancer showed marked success, along with others, summarized here, now providing very encouraging results. It looks like oncolytic viruses are on a comeback path.

Engineering T Cells (Chimeric Antigen Receptor [CAR-T])

As I recently reviewed, there are over 500 ongoing clinical trials to build on the success of the first CAR-T approval for leukemia 7 years ago. I won’t go through that all again here, but to reiterate most of the success to date has been in “liquid” blood (leukemia and lymphoma) cancer tumors. This week in Nature is the discovery of a T cell cancer mutation, a gene fusion CARD11-PIK3R3, from a T cell lymphoma that can potentially be used to augment CAR-T efficacy. It has pronounced and prolonged effects in the experimental model. Instead of 1 million cells needed for treatment, even 20,000 were enough to melt the tumor. This is a noteworthy discovery since CAR-T work to date has largely not exploited such naturally occurring mutations, while instead concentrating on those seen in the patient’s set of key tumor mutations.

As currently conceived, CAR-T, and what is being referred to more broadly as adoptive cell therapies, involves removing T cells from the patient’s body and engineering their activation, then reintroducing them back to the patient. This is laborious, technically difficult, and very expensive. Recently, the idea of achieving all of this via an injection of virus that specifically infects T cells and inserts the genes needed, was advanced by two biotech companies with preclinical results, one in non-human primates.

Gearing up to meet the challenge of solid tumor CAR-T intervention, there’s more work using CRISPR genome editing of T cell receptors. A.I. is increasingly being exploited to process the data from sequencing and identify optimal neoantigens.

Instead of just CAR-T, we’re seeing the emergence of CAR-macrophage and CAR-natural killer (NK) cells strategies, and rapidly expanding potential combinations of all the strategies I’ve mentioned. No less, there’s been maturation of on-off suicide switches programmed in, to limit cytokine release and promote safety of these interventions. Overall, major side effects of immunotherapies are not only cytokine release syndromes, but also include interstitial pneumonitis and neurotoxicity.

Summary

Given the multitude of ways cancer cells and tumor tissue can evade our immune response, durably successful treatment remains a daunting challenge. But the ingenuity of so many different approaches to unleash our immune response, and their combinations, provides considerable hope that we’ll increasingly meet the challenge in the years ahead. We have clearly learned that combining different immunotherapy strategies will be essential for many patients with the most resilient solid tumors.

Of concern, as noted by a recent editorial in The Lancet, entitled “Cancer Research Equity: Innovations For The Many, Not The Few,” is that these individualized, sophisticated strategies are not scalable; they will have limited reach and benefit. The movement towards “off the shelf” CAR-T and inexpensive, orally active checkpoint inhibitors may help mitigate this issue.

Notwithstanding this important concern, we’re seeing an array of diverse and potent immunotherapy strategies that are providing highly encouraging results, engendering more excitement than we’ve seen in this space for some time. These should propel substantial improvements in outcomes for patients in the years ahead. It can’t happen soon enough.

Thanks for reading this edition of Ground Truths. If you found it informative, please share it with your colleagues.

Dr. Topol has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Dexcom; Illumina; Molecular Stethoscope; Quest Diagnostics; Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. Received research grant from National Institutes of Health.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This article was originally published on February 10 in Eric Topol’s substack “Ground Truths.”

It’s astounding how devious cancer cells and tumor tissue can be. This week in Science we learned how certain lung cancer cells can function like “Catch Me If You Can” — changing their driver mutation and cell identity to escape targeted therapy. This histologic transformation, as seen in an experimental model, is just one of so many cancer tricks that we are learning about.

Recently, as shown by single-cell sequencing, cancer cells can steal the mitochondria from T cells, a double whammy that turbocharges cancer cells with the hijacked fuel supply and, at the same time, dismantles the immune response.

Last week, we saw how tumor cells can release a virus-like protein that unleashes a vicious autoimmune response.

And then there’s the finding that cancer cell spread predominantly is occurring while we sleep.

As I previously reviewed, the ability for cancer cells to hijack neurons and neural circuits is now well established, no less their ability to reprogram neurons to become adrenergic and stimulate tumor progression, and interfere with the immune response. Stay tuned on that for a new Ground Truths podcast with Prof Michelle Monje, a leader in cancer neuroscience, which will post soon.

Add advancing age’s immunosenescence as yet another challenge to the long and growing list of formidable ways that cancer cells, and the tumor microenvironment, evade our immune response.

An Ever-Expanding Armamentarium

All of this is telling us how we need to ramp up our game if we are going to be able to use our immune system to quash a cancer. Fortunately, we have abundant and ever-growing capabilities for doing just that.

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors

The field of immunotherapies took off with the immune checkpoint inhibitors, first approved by the FDA in 2011, that take the brakes off of T cells, with the programmed death-1 (PD-1), PD-ligand1, and anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal antibodies.

But we’re clearly learning they are not enough to prevail over cancer with common recurrences, only short term success in most patients, with some notable exceptions. Adding other immune response strategies, such as a vaccine, or antibody-drug conjugates, or engineered T cells, are showing improved chances for success.

Therapeutic Cancer Vaccines

There are many therapeutic cancer vaccines in the works, as reviewed in depth here.

Here’s a list of ongoing clinical trials of cancer vaccines. You’ll note most of these are on top of a checkpoint inhibitor and use personalized neoantigens (cancer cell surface proteins) derived from sequencing (whole-exome or whole genome, RNA-sequencing and HLA-profiling) the patient’s tumor.

An example of positive findings is with the combination of an mRNA-nanoparticle vaccine with up to 34 personalized neoantigens and pembrolizumab (Keytruda) vs pembrolizumab alone in advanced melanoma after resection, with improved outcomes at 3-year follow-up, cutting death or relapse rate in half.

Antibody-Drug Conjugates (ADC)

There is considerable excitement about antibody-drug conjugates (ADC) whereby a linker is used to attach a chemotherapy agent to the checkpoint inhibitor antibody, specifically targeting the cancer cell and facilitating entry of the chemotherapy into the cell. Akin to these are bispecific antibodies (BiTEs, binding to a tumor antigen and T cell receptor simultaneously), both of these conjugates acting as “biologic” or “guided” missiles.

A very good example of the potency of an ADC was seen in a “HER2-low” breast cancer randomized trial. The absence or very low expression or amplification of the HER2 receptor is common in breast cancer and successful treatment has been elusive. A randomized trial of an ADC (trastuzumab deruxtecan) compared to physician’s choice therapy demonstrated a marked success for progression-free survival in HER2-low patients, which was characterized as “unheard-of success” by media coverage.

This strategy is being used to target some of the most difficult cancer driver mutations such as TP53 and KRAS.

Oncolytic Viruses

Modifying viruses to infect the tumor and make it more visible to the immune system, potentiating anti-tumor responses, known as oncolytic viruses, have been proposed as a way to rev up the immune response for a long time but without positive Phase 3 clinical trials.

After decades of failure, a recent trial in refractory bladder cancer showed marked success, along with others, summarized here, now providing very encouraging results. It looks like oncolytic viruses are on a comeback path.

Engineering T Cells (Chimeric Antigen Receptor [CAR-T])

As I recently reviewed, there are over 500 ongoing clinical trials to build on the success of the first CAR-T approval for leukemia 7 years ago. I won’t go through that all again here, but to reiterate most of the success to date has been in “liquid” blood (leukemia and lymphoma) cancer tumors. This week in Nature is the discovery of a T cell cancer mutation, a gene fusion CARD11-PIK3R3, from a T cell lymphoma that can potentially be used to augment CAR-T efficacy. It has pronounced and prolonged effects in the experimental model. Instead of 1 million cells needed for treatment, even 20,000 were enough to melt the tumor. This is a noteworthy discovery since CAR-T work to date has largely not exploited such naturally occurring mutations, while instead concentrating on those seen in the patient’s set of key tumor mutations.

As currently conceived, CAR-T, and what is being referred to more broadly as adoptive cell therapies, involves removing T cells from the patient’s body and engineering their activation, then reintroducing them back to the patient. This is laborious, technically difficult, and very expensive. Recently, the idea of achieving all of this via an injection of virus that specifically infects T cells and inserts the genes needed, was advanced by two biotech companies with preclinical results, one in non-human primates.

Gearing up to meet the challenge of solid tumor CAR-T intervention, there’s more work using CRISPR genome editing of T cell receptors. A.I. is increasingly being exploited to process the data from sequencing and identify optimal neoantigens.

Instead of just CAR-T, we’re seeing the emergence of CAR-macrophage and CAR-natural killer (NK) cells strategies, and rapidly expanding potential combinations of all the strategies I’ve mentioned. No less, there’s been maturation of on-off suicide switches programmed in, to limit cytokine release and promote safety of these interventions. Overall, major side effects of immunotherapies are not only cytokine release syndromes, but also include interstitial pneumonitis and neurotoxicity.

Summary

Given the multitude of ways cancer cells and tumor tissue can evade our immune response, durably successful treatment remains a daunting challenge. But the ingenuity of so many different approaches to unleash our immune response, and their combinations, provides considerable hope that we’ll increasingly meet the challenge in the years ahead. We have clearly learned that combining different immunotherapy strategies will be essential for many patients with the most resilient solid tumors.

Of concern, as noted by a recent editorial in The Lancet, entitled “Cancer Research Equity: Innovations For The Many, Not The Few,” is that these individualized, sophisticated strategies are not scalable; they will have limited reach and benefit. The movement towards “off the shelf” CAR-T and inexpensive, orally active checkpoint inhibitors may help mitigate this issue.

Notwithstanding this important concern, we’re seeing an array of diverse and potent immunotherapy strategies that are providing highly encouraging results, engendering more excitement than we’ve seen in this space for some time. These should propel substantial improvements in outcomes for patients in the years ahead. It can’t happen soon enough.

Thanks for reading this edition of Ground Truths. If you found it informative, please share it with your colleagues.

Dr. Topol has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Dexcom; Illumina; Molecular Stethoscope; Quest Diagnostics; Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. Received research grant from National Institutes of Health.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This article was originally published on February 10 in Eric Topol’s substack “Ground Truths.”

It’s astounding how devious cancer cells and tumor tissue can be. This week in Science we learned how certain lung cancer cells can function like “Catch Me If You Can” — changing their driver mutation and cell identity to escape targeted therapy. This histologic transformation, as seen in an experimental model, is just one of so many cancer tricks that we are learning about.

Recently, as shown by single-cell sequencing, cancer cells can steal the mitochondria from T cells, a double whammy that turbocharges cancer cells with the hijacked fuel supply and, at the same time, dismantles the immune response.

Last week, we saw how tumor cells can release a virus-like protein that unleashes a vicious autoimmune response.

And then there’s the finding that cancer cell spread predominantly is occurring while we sleep.

As I previously reviewed, the ability for cancer cells to hijack neurons and neural circuits is now well established, no less their ability to reprogram neurons to become adrenergic and stimulate tumor progression, and interfere with the immune response. Stay tuned on that for a new Ground Truths podcast with Prof Michelle Monje, a leader in cancer neuroscience, which will post soon.

Add advancing age’s immunosenescence as yet another challenge to the long and growing list of formidable ways that cancer cells, and the tumor microenvironment, evade our immune response.

An Ever-Expanding Armamentarium

All of this is telling us how we need to ramp up our game if we are going to be able to use our immune system to quash a cancer. Fortunately, we have abundant and ever-growing capabilities for doing just that.

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors

The field of immunotherapies took off with the immune checkpoint inhibitors, first approved by the FDA in 2011, that take the brakes off of T cells, with the programmed death-1 (PD-1), PD-ligand1, and anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal antibodies.

But we’re clearly learning they are not enough to prevail over cancer with common recurrences, only short term success in most patients, with some notable exceptions. Adding other immune response strategies, such as a vaccine, or antibody-drug conjugates, or engineered T cells, are showing improved chances for success.

Therapeutic Cancer Vaccines

There are many therapeutic cancer vaccines in the works, as reviewed in depth here.

Here’s a list of ongoing clinical trials of cancer vaccines. You’ll note most of these are on top of a checkpoint inhibitor and use personalized neoantigens (cancer cell surface proteins) derived from sequencing (whole-exome or whole genome, RNA-sequencing and HLA-profiling) the patient’s tumor.

An example of positive findings is with the combination of an mRNA-nanoparticle vaccine with up to 34 personalized neoantigens and pembrolizumab (Keytruda) vs pembrolizumab alone in advanced melanoma after resection, with improved outcomes at 3-year follow-up, cutting death or relapse rate in half.

Antibody-Drug Conjugates (ADC)

There is considerable excitement about antibody-drug conjugates (ADC) whereby a linker is used to attach a chemotherapy agent to the checkpoint inhibitor antibody, specifically targeting the cancer cell and facilitating entry of the chemotherapy into the cell. Akin to these are bispecific antibodies (BiTEs, binding to a tumor antigen and T cell receptor simultaneously), both of these conjugates acting as “biologic” or “guided” missiles.

A very good example of the potency of an ADC was seen in a “HER2-low” breast cancer randomized trial. The absence or very low expression or amplification of the HER2 receptor is common in breast cancer and successful treatment has been elusive. A randomized trial of an ADC (trastuzumab deruxtecan) compared to physician’s choice therapy demonstrated a marked success for progression-free survival in HER2-low patients, which was characterized as “unheard-of success” by media coverage.

This strategy is being used to target some of the most difficult cancer driver mutations such as TP53 and KRAS.

Oncolytic Viruses

Modifying viruses to infect the tumor and make it more visible to the immune system, potentiating anti-tumor responses, known as oncolytic viruses, have been proposed as a way to rev up the immune response for a long time but without positive Phase 3 clinical trials.

After decades of failure, a recent trial in refractory bladder cancer showed marked success, along with others, summarized here, now providing very encouraging results. It looks like oncolytic viruses are on a comeback path.

Engineering T Cells (Chimeric Antigen Receptor [CAR-T])

As I recently reviewed, there are over 500 ongoing clinical trials to build on the success of the first CAR-T approval for leukemia 7 years ago. I won’t go through that all again here, but to reiterate most of the success to date has been in “liquid” blood (leukemia and lymphoma) cancer tumors. This week in Nature is the discovery of a T cell cancer mutation, a gene fusion CARD11-PIK3R3, from a T cell lymphoma that can potentially be used to augment CAR-T efficacy. It has pronounced and prolonged effects in the experimental model. Instead of 1 million cells needed for treatment, even 20,000 were enough to melt the tumor. This is a noteworthy discovery since CAR-T work to date has largely not exploited such naturally occurring mutations, while instead concentrating on those seen in the patient’s set of key tumor mutations.

As currently conceived, CAR-T, and what is being referred to more broadly as adoptive cell therapies, involves removing T cells from the patient’s body and engineering their activation, then reintroducing them back to the patient. This is laborious, technically difficult, and very expensive. Recently, the idea of achieving all of this via an injection of virus that specifically infects T cells and inserts the genes needed, was advanced by two biotech companies with preclinical results, one in non-human primates.

Gearing up to meet the challenge of solid tumor CAR-T intervention, there’s more work using CRISPR genome editing of T cell receptors. A.I. is increasingly being exploited to process the data from sequencing and identify optimal neoantigens.

Instead of just CAR-T, we’re seeing the emergence of CAR-macrophage and CAR-natural killer (NK) cells strategies, and rapidly expanding potential combinations of all the strategies I’ve mentioned. No less, there’s been maturation of on-off suicide switches programmed in, to limit cytokine release and promote safety of these interventions. Overall, major side effects of immunotherapies are not only cytokine release syndromes, but also include interstitial pneumonitis and neurotoxicity.

Summary

Given the multitude of ways cancer cells and tumor tissue can evade our immune response, durably successful treatment remains a daunting challenge. But the ingenuity of so many different approaches to unleash our immune response, and their combinations, provides considerable hope that we’ll increasingly meet the challenge in the years ahead. We have clearly learned that combining different immunotherapy strategies will be essential for many patients with the most resilient solid tumors.

Of concern, as noted by a recent editorial in The Lancet, entitled “Cancer Research Equity: Innovations For The Many, Not The Few,” is that these individualized, sophisticated strategies are not scalable; they will have limited reach and benefit. The movement towards “off the shelf” CAR-T and inexpensive, orally active checkpoint inhibitors may help mitigate this issue.

Notwithstanding this important concern, we’re seeing an array of diverse and potent immunotherapy strategies that are providing highly encouraging results, engendering more excitement than we’ve seen in this space for some time. These should propel substantial improvements in outcomes for patients in the years ahead. It can’t happen soon enough.

Thanks for reading this edition of Ground Truths. If you found it informative, please share it with your colleagues.

Dr. Topol has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Dexcom; Illumina; Molecular Stethoscope; Quest Diagnostics; Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. Received research grant from National Institutes of Health.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Your patients come in wanting a script for the latest medication they saw on a television commercial (Ozempic anyone?), a request for a medical marijuana card for their shoulder ache, or any number of pleas for drugs, procedures, or tests that are medically inappropriate.

One of the toughest parts of the job as a physician is balancing patient requests with patient satisfaction. In the age of Healthgrades, Yelp reviews, and patients sharing their visit high points on multiple social media platforms, how can you keep patients happy and satisfied when you have to say no?

Turns out, you can likely reroute those patient-driven requests if you can get to the heart of the issue the patient is looking to resolve, suggested Peter Lee, MD, a plastic surgeon at Wave Plastic Surgery in Los Angeles.

“The conversation between physicians and patients hinges less on the answer ‘no’ than it does on being a careful listener,” he said. “This includes focusing on the different available treatment options and then deciding which of these is most suitable to the particular situation facing that patient.”

Here are a few failsafe ways to say no — and why physicians think these approaches can make the difference between a contentious appointment and a positive one.
 

Hear Patients Out

When patients book an appointment with a physician to discuss a noncritical issue, they likely have a sense from Google of what they might need, which is why Dara Kass, MD, an emergency medicine physician in Hartford, Connecticut, always asks patients “why did you come in” and “what test do you think you need.”

“For example, they may say, ‘I came for a CT scan of my head because I’ve had a headache for 2 years, and it’s frustrating trying to find a neurologist,’” she said. “Maybe they don’t need a CT scan after all, but it’s up to me to figure that out, and letting them share what they think they need frames out a feeling that we’re making joint decisions.”
 

Help Patients Rethink Requests

The ubiquity of online searching is just one reason patients may tend to arrive at your office armed with “information.” This is especially true for patients seeking plastic surgery, said Dr. Lee. “A plastic surgeon’s reaction to such a request may be less about saying ‘no’ than taking the patient a few steps back in the decision-making process,” he said. “The goal should be to educate the patient, in the case of plastic surgery, about what is actually causing the appearance he or she is trying to correct.”

For something like a marijuana card for a slight ache, explaining that it may not be appropriate and “here’s what we can do instead” goes a long way in getting the patient to rethink and understand that their request may not be legitimate.
 

Use Safety Concerns as an Out

Often, a patient just isn’t a good candidate for a procedure, said Samuel Lin, MD, a plastic surgeon in Boston and an associate professor of surgery at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “They may think they need to have a procedure, but it might not be a safe thing for them to have it,” he said.

“I would lean heavily on the fact that it may not be medically safe for this patient to have this procedure due to elements of their medical history or the fact that they have had prior surgeries. Then, if you pivot to the more conservative things you can do, this can help you say no when a patient is seeking a certain procedure.”

Likewise, explaining that a weight loss drug may have more risks than benefits and isn’t appropriate for that 15 pounds they’re struggling with couched as a safety concern can ease the disappointment of a no.
 

Remind Patients That Tests Can Be Costly

It’s one thing for a patient to request certain tests, say an MRI or a CT scan, but those same patients may grumble when they get the bill for the tests. That said, it’s always a good idea to remind them of the costs of these tests, said Dr. Kass. Patients will get bills in the mail after their visit for those extra tests and scans. “They may not realize this until after they asked for it, and if they, for example, have $1000 in coinsurance, that bill may be a very upsetting surprise.”
 

You Can’t Always Prevent a Negative Patient Review

No matter how hard you try, a patient may still be unhappy that you’ve declined their request, and this may show up in the form of a negative review for all to see. However, it’s always best to keep these reviews in perspective. “The ‘no’ that might result in a bad review can happen for everything from waiting 15 minutes to see the doctor to not getting a discount at checkout and everything in between including being told they don’t need the drug, test, or procedure they requested.”

“I feel like people who write bad reviews want money back, or they have an alternative agenda. That’s why, I educate patients and empower them to make the right decisions,” said Jody A. Levine, MD, director of dermatology at Plastic Surgery & Dermatology of New York City.

Dr. Lee told this news organization that the fundamental pledge to “do no harm” is as good as any other credo when saying no to patients. “If we don’t believe there is a likely probability that a surgery will be safe to perform on a patient and leave the patient satisfied with the result, then it is our duty to decline to perform that surgery.”

Ultimately, being transparent leads to a happy doctor-patient relationship. “As long as you are clear and honest in explaining to a patient why you are declining to perform a procedure, most patients, rather than being angry with you, will thank you for your candor,” he said. “They’ll leave your office a little bit wiser, too.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Your patients come in wanting a script for the latest medication they saw on a television commercial (Ozempic anyone?), a request for a medical marijuana card for their shoulder ache, or any number of pleas for drugs, procedures, or tests that are medically inappropriate.

One of the toughest parts of the job as a physician is balancing patient requests with patient satisfaction. In the age of Healthgrades, Yelp reviews, and patients sharing their visit high points on multiple social media platforms, how can you keep patients happy and satisfied when you have to say no?

Turns out, you can likely reroute those patient-driven requests if you can get to the heart of the issue the patient is looking to resolve, suggested Peter Lee, MD, a plastic surgeon at Wave Plastic Surgery in Los Angeles.

“The conversation between physicians and patients hinges less on the answer ‘no’ than it does on being a careful listener,” he said. “This includes focusing on the different available treatment options and then deciding which of these is most suitable to the particular situation facing that patient.”

Here are a few failsafe ways to say no — and why physicians think these approaches can make the difference between a contentious appointment and a positive one.
 

Hear Patients Out

When patients book an appointment with a physician to discuss a noncritical issue, they likely have a sense from Google of what they might need, which is why Dara Kass, MD, an emergency medicine physician in Hartford, Connecticut, always asks patients “why did you come in” and “what test do you think you need.”

“For example, they may say, ‘I came for a CT scan of my head because I’ve had a headache for 2 years, and it’s frustrating trying to find a neurologist,’” she said. “Maybe they don’t need a CT scan after all, but it’s up to me to figure that out, and letting them share what they think they need frames out a feeling that we’re making joint decisions.”
 

Help Patients Rethink Requests

The ubiquity of online searching is just one reason patients may tend to arrive at your office armed with “information.” This is especially true for patients seeking plastic surgery, said Dr. Lee. “A plastic surgeon’s reaction to such a request may be less about saying ‘no’ than taking the patient a few steps back in the decision-making process,” he said. “The goal should be to educate the patient, in the case of plastic surgery, about what is actually causing the appearance he or she is trying to correct.”

For something like a marijuana card for a slight ache, explaining that it may not be appropriate and “here’s what we can do instead” goes a long way in getting the patient to rethink and understand that their request may not be legitimate.
 

Use Safety Concerns as an Out

Often, a patient just isn’t a good candidate for a procedure, said Samuel Lin, MD, a plastic surgeon in Boston and an associate professor of surgery at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “They may think they need to have a procedure, but it might not be a safe thing for them to have it,” he said.

“I would lean heavily on the fact that it may not be medically safe for this patient to have this procedure due to elements of their medical history or the fact that they have had prior surgeries. Then, if you pivot to the more conservative things you can do, this can help you say no when a patient is seeking a certain procedure.”

Likewise, explaining that a weight loss drug may have more risks than benefits and isn’t appropriate for that 15 pounds they’re struggling with couched as a safety concern can ease the disappointment of a no.
 

Remind Patients That Tests Can Be Costly

It’s one thing for a patient to request certain tests, say an MRI or a CT scan, but those same patients may grumble when they get the bill for the tests. That said, it’s always a good idea to remind them of the costs of these tests, said Dr. Kass. Patients will get bills in the mail after their visit for those extra tests and scans. “They may not realize this until after they asked for it, and if they, for example, have $1000 in coinsurance, that bill may be a very upsetting surprise.”
 

You Can’t Always Prevent a Negative Patient Review

No matter how hard you try, a patient may still be unhappy that you’ve declined their request, and this may show up in the form of a negative review for all to see. However, it’s always best to keep these reviews in perspective. “The ‘no’ that might result in a bad review can happen for everything from waiting 15 minutes to see the doctor to not getting a discount at checkout and everything in between including being told they don’t need the drug, test, or procedure they requested.”

“I feel like people who write bad reviews want money back, or they have an alternative agenda. That’s why, I educate patients and empower them to make the right decisions,” said Jody A. Levine, MD, director of dermatology at Plastic Surgery & Dermatology of New York City.

Dr. Lee told this news organization that the fundamental pledge to “do no harm” is as good as any other credo when saying no to patients. “If we don’t believe there is a likely probability that a surgery will be safe to perform on a patient and leave the patient satisfied with the result, then it is our duty to decline to perform that surgery.”

Ultimately, being transparent leads to a happy doctor-patient relationship. “As long as you are clear and honest in explaining to a patient why you are declining to perform a procedure, most patients, rather than being angry with you, will thank you for your candor,” he said. “They’ll leave your office a little bit wiser, too.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Your patients come in wanting a script for the latest medication they saw on a television commercial (Ozempic anyone?), a request for a medical marijuana card for their shoulder ache, or any number of pleas for drugs, procedures, or tests that are medically inappropriate.

One of the toughest parts of the job as a physician is balancing patient requests with patient satisfaction. In the age of Healthgrades, Yelp reviews, and patients sharing their visit high points on multiple social media platforms, how can you keep patients happy and satisfied when you have to say no?

Turns out, you can likely reroute those patient-driven requests if you can get to the heart of the issue the patient is looking to resolve, suggested Peter Lee, MD, a plastic surgeon at Wave Plastic Surgery in Los Angeles.

“The conversation between physicians and patients hinges less on the answer ‘no’ than it does on being a careful listener,” he said. “This includes focusing on the different available treatment options and then deciding which of these is most suitable to the particular situation facing that patient.”

Here are a few failsafe ways to say no — and why physicians think these approaches can make the difference between a contentious appointment and a positive one.
 

Hear Patients Out

When patients book an appointment with a physician to discuss a noncritical issue, they likely have a sense from Google of what they might need, which is why Dara Kass, MD, an emergency medicine physician in Hartford, Connecticut, always asks patients “why did you come in” and “what test do you think you need.”

“For example, they may say, ‘I came for a CT scan of my head because I’ve had a headache for 2 years, and it’s frustrating trying to find a neurologist,’” she said. “Maybe they don’t need a CT scan after all, but it’s up to me to figure that out, and letting them share what they think they need frames out a feeling that we’re making joint decisions.”
 

Help Patients Rethink Requests

The ubiquity of online searching is just one reason patients may tend to arrive at your office armed with “information.” This is especially true for patients seeking plastic surgery, said Dr. Lee. “A plastic surgeon’s reaction to such a request may be less about saying ‘no’ than taking the patient a few steps back in the decision-making process,” he said. “The goal should be to educate the patient, in the case of plastic surgery, about what is actually causing the appearance he or she is trying to correct.”

For something like a marijuana card for a slight ache, explaining that it may not be appropriate and “here’s what we can do instead” goes a long way in getting the patient to rethink and understand that their request may not be legitimate.
 

Use Safety Concerns as an Out

Often, a patient just isn’t a good candidate for a procedure, said Samuel Lin, MD, a plastic surgeon in Boston and an associate professor of surgery at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “They may think they need to have a procedure, but it might not be a safe thing for them to have it,” he said.

“I would lean heavily on the fact that it may not be medically safe for this patient to have this procedure due to elements of their medical history or the fact that they have had prior surgeries. Then, if you pivot to the more conservative things you can do, this can help you say no when a patient is seeking a certain procedure.”

Likewise, explaining that a weight loss drug may have more risks than benefits and isn’t appropriate for that 15 pounds they’re struggling with couched as a safety concern can ease the disappointment of a no.
 

Remind Patients That Tests Can Be Costly

It’s one thing for a patient to request certain tests, say an MRI or a CT scan, but those same patients may grumble when they get the bill for the tests. That said, it’s always a good idea to remind them of the costs of these tests, said Dr. Kass. Patients will get bills in the mail after their visit for those extra tests and scans. “They may not realize this until after they asked for it, and if they, for example, have $1000 in coinsurance, that bill may be a very upsetting surprise.”
 

You Can’t Always Prevent a Negative Patient Review

No matter how hard you try, a patient may still be unhappy that you’ve declined their request, and this may show up in the form of a negative review for all to see. However, it’s always best to keep these reviews in perspective. “The ‘no’ that might result in a bad review can happen for everything from waiting 15 minutes to see the doctor to not getting a discount at checkout and everything in between including being told they don’t need the drug, test, or procedure they requested.”

“I feel like people who write bad reviews want money back, or they have an alternative agenda. That’s why, I educate patients and empower them to make the right decisions,” said Jody A. Levine, MD, director of dermatology at Plastic Surgery & Dermatology of New York City.

Dr. Lee told this news organization that the fundamental pledge to “do no harm” is as good as any other credo when saying no to patients. “If we don’t believe there is a likely probability that a surgery will be safe to perform on a patient and leave the patient satisfied with the result, then it is our duty to decline to perform that surgery.”

Ultimately, being transparent leads to a happy doctor-patient relationship. “As long as you are clear and honest in explaining to a patient why you are declining to perform a procedure, most patients, rather than being angry with you, will thank you for your candor,” he said. “They’ll leave your office a little bit wiser, too.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Cefepime-taniborbactam was 22% more effective than meropenem, which is a current treatment for complicated urinary tract infections (UTIs) and acute pyelonephritis, according to a study published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

METHODOLOGY:

• Cefepime-taniborbactam is an antibiotic currently being explored as a treatment for antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
• The phase 3, double-blind, randomized trial included participants from 15 countries, including a safety group of 657 patients who were studied for adverse events and 436 in the micro intention-to-treat group who were studied for drug effectiveness.
• Each drug’s efficacy was measured as a combination of reduced bacteria levels and a resolution of symptoms and signs of infection.
• Patients in the study were over age 18; had a diagnosis of either complicated UTI or acute pyelonephritis; and had pyuria, at least one systemic sign, and at least one local sign or symptom. People were excluded if they had already received antibacterial drug therapy for more than 24 hours before randomization or had an infection with a meropenem-resistant pathogen.

TAKEAWAY:

• At days 19-23, 70.6% of patients in the cefepime-taniborbactam group showed a successful reduction in bacteria and symptoms compared with 58.0% in the meropenem group.
• Cefepime-taniborbactam was more effective than meropenem during follow-up, with 89.1% efficacy less than 24 hours after the last dose, compared to meropenem’s 86%. Cefepime-taniborbactam continued to have 63.8% efficacy up to 35 days after starting treatment, while meropenem was 51.7% during that timeframe.
• In the cefepime-taniborbactam group, 35.5% of patients experienced adverse effects that were mild to moderate, including headache, diarrhea, constipation, hypertension, and nausea, compared to 29% in the meropenem group.
• Overall, 3% of participants discontinued cefepime-taniborbactam and 1.8% discontinued meropenem, but reasons were heterogeneous.

IN PRACTICE:

“Cefepime-taniborbactam was superior to meropenem for the treatment of complicated UTI that included acute pyelonephritis, with a safety profile similar to that of meropenem,” the study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Paul McGovern, MD, infectious disease specialist and senior vice president of Venatorx Pharmaceuticals, was the corresponding author of the study.

LIMITATIONS:

The authors reported no limitations.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by Venatorx Pharmaceuticals, which received funding from the US Department of Health and Human Services, the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response, the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, the Global Antibiotic Research and Development Partnership, and Everest Medicines.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Cefepime-taniborbactam was 22% more effective than meropenem, which is a current treatment for complicated urinary tract infections (UTIs) and acute pyelonephritis, according to a study published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

METHODOLOGY:

• Cefepime-taniborbactam is an antibiotic currently being explored as a treatment for antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
• The phase 3, double-blind, randomized trial included participants from 15 countries, including a safety group of 657 patients who were studied for adverse events and 436 in the micro intention-to-treat group who were studied for drug effectiveness.
• Each drug’s efficacy was measured as a combination of reduced bacteria levels and a resolution of symptoms and signs of infection.
• Patients in the study were over age 18; had a diagnosis of either complicated UTI or acute pyelonephritis; and had pyuria, at least one systemic sign, and at least one local sign or symptom. People were excluded if they had already received antibacterial drug therapy for more than 24 hours before randomization or had an infection with a meropenem-resistant pathogen.

TAKEAWAY:

• At days 19-23, 70.6% of patients in the cefepime-taniborbactam group showed a successful reduction in bacteria and symptoms compared with 58.0% in the meropenem group.
• Cefepime-taniborbactam was more effective than meropenem during follow-up, with 89.1% efficacy less than 24 hours after the last dose, compared to meropenem’s 86%. Cefepime-taniborbactam continued to have 63.8% efficacy up to 35 days after starting treatment, while meropenem was 51.7% during that timeframe.
• In the cefepime-taniborbactam group, 35.5% of patients experienced adverse effects that were mild to moderate, including headache, diarrhea, constipation, hypertension, and nausea, compared to 29% in the meropenem group.
• Overall, 3% of participants discontinued cefepime-taniborbactam and 1.8% discontinued meropenem, but reasons were heterogeneous.

IN PRACTICE:

“Cefepime-taniborbactam was superior to meropenem for the treatment of complicated UTI that included acute pyelonephritis, with a safety profile similar to that of meropenem,” the study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Paul McGovern, MD, infectious disease specialist and senior vice president of Venatorx Pharmaceuticals, was the corresponding author of the study.

LIMITATIONS:

The authors reported no limitations.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by Venatorx Pharmaceuticals, which received funding from the US Department of Health and Human Services, the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response, the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, the Global Antibiotic Research and Development Partnership, and Everest Medicines.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Cefepime-taniborbactam was 22% more effective than meropenem, which is a current treatment for complicated urinary tract infections (UTIs) and acute pyelonephritis, according to a study published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

METHODOLOGY:

• Cefepime-taniborbactam is an antibiotic currently being explored as a treatment for antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
• The phase 3, double-blind, randomized trial included participants from 15 countries, including a safety group of 657 patients who were studied for adverse events and 436 in the micro intention-to-treat group who were studied for drug effectiveness.
• Each drug’s efficacy was measured as a combination of reduced bacteria levels and a resolution of symptoms and signs of infection.
• Patients in the study were over age 18; had a diagnosis of either complicated UTI or acute pyelonephritis; and had pyuria, at least one systemic sign, and at least one local sign or symptom. People were excluded if they had already received antibacterial drug therapy for more than 24 hours before randomization or had an infection with a meropenem-resistant pathogen.

TAKEAWAY:

• At days 19-23, 70.6% of patients in the cefepime-taniborbactam group showed a successful reduction in bacteria and symptoms compared with 58.0% in the meropenem group.
• Cefepime-taniborbactam was more effective than meropenem during follow-up, with 89.1% efficacy less than 24 hours after the last dose, compared to meropenem’s 86%. Cefepime-taniborbactam continued to have 63.8% efficacy up to 35 days after starting treatment, while meropenem was 51.7% during that timeframe.
• In the cefepime-taniborbactam group, 35.5% of patients experienced adverse effects that were mild to moderate, including headache, diarrhea, constipation, hypertension, and nausea, compared to 29% in the meropenem group.
• Overall, 3% of participants discontinued cefepime-taniborbactam and 1.8% discontinued meropenem, but reasons were heterogeneous.

IN PRACTICE:

“Cefepime-taniborbactam was superior to meropenem for the treatment of complicated UTI that included acute pyelonephritis, with a safety profile similar to that of meropenem,” the study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Paul McGovern, MD, infectious disease specialist and senior vice president of Venatorx Pharmaceuticals, was the corresponding author of the study.

LIMITATIONS:

The authors reported no limitations.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by Venatorx Pharmaceuticals, which received funding from the US Department of Health and Human Services, the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response, the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, the Global Antibiotic Research and Development Partnership, and Everest Medicines.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I want to briefly discuss a critically important topic that cannot be overly emphasized. It is the relevance, the importance, the benefits, and the outcome of HPV vaccination.

The paper I’m referring to was published in Pediatrics in October 2023. It’s titled, “Ten-Year Follow-up of 9-Valent Human Papillomavirus Vaccine: Immunogenicity, Effectiveness, and Safety.”

Let me emphasize that we’re talking about a 10-year follow-up. In this particular paper and analysis, 301 boys — I emphasize boys — were included and 971 girls at 40 different sites in 13 countries, who received the 9-valent vaccine, which includes HPV 16, 18, and seven other types.

These investigators demonstrated that the seropositivity rate 10 years after vaccination remained high for all nine types they looked at. Most importantly, there was not a single case. Not one. Let me repeat this: There was not a single case of high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia, or worse, or condyloma in either males or females. There was not a single case in over 1000 individuals with a follow-up of more than 10 years.

It is difficult to overstate the magnitude of the benefit associated with HPV vaccination for our children and young adults on their risk of developing highly relevant, life-changing, potentially deadly cancers.

For those of you who are interested in this topic — which should include almost all of you, if not all of you — I encourage you to read this very important follow-up paper, again, demonstrating the simple, overwhelming magnitude of the benefit of HPV vaccination. I thank you for your attention.
 

Dr. Markman is a professor in the department of medical oncology and therapeutics research, City of Hope, Duarte, California, and president of medicine and science, City of Hope Atlanta, Chicago, and Phoenix. He disclosed ties with GlaxoSmithKline; AstraZeneca.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I want to briefly discuss a critically important topic that cannot be overly emphasized. It is the relevance, the importance, the benefits, and the outcome of HPV vaccination.

The paper I’m referring to was published in Pediatrics in October 2023. It’s titled, “Ten-Year Follow-up of 9-Valent Human Papillomavirus Vaccine: Immunogenicity, Effectiveness, and Safety.”

Let me emphasize that we’re talking about a 10-year follow-up. In this particular paper and analysis, 301 boys — I emphasize boys — were included and 971 girls at 40 different sites in 13 countries, who received the 9-valent vaccine, which includes HPV 16, 18, and seven other types.

These investigators demonstrated that the seropositivity rate 10 years after vaccination remained high for all nine types they looked at. Most importantly, there was not a single case. Not one. Let me repeat this: There was not a single case of high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia, or worse, or condyloma in either males or females. There was not a single case in over 1000 individuals with a follow-up of more than 10 years.

It is difficult to overstate the magnitude of the benefit associated with HPV vaccination for our children and young adults on their risk of developing highly relevant, life-changing, potentially deadly cancers.

For those of you who are interested in this topic — which should include almost all of you, if not all of you — I encourage you to read this very important follow-up paper, again, demonstrating the simple, overwhelming magnitude of the benefit of HPV vaccination. I thank you for your attention.
 

Dr. Markman is a professor in the department of medical oncology and therapeutics research, City of Hope, Duarte, California, and president of medicine and science, City of Hope Atlanta, Chicago, and Phoenix. He disclosed ties with GlaxoSmithKline; AstraZeneca.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I want to briefly discuss a critically important topic that cannot be overly emphasized. It is the relevance, the importance, the benefits, and the outcome of HPV vaccination.

The paper I’m referring to was published in Pediatrics in October 2023. It’s titled, “Ten-Year Follow-up of 9-Valent Human Papillomavirus Vaccine: Immunogenicity, Effectiveness, and Safety.”

Let me emphasize that we’re talking about a 10-year follow-up. In this particular paper and analysis, 301 boys — I emphasize boys — were included and 971 girls at 40 different sites in 13 countries, who received the 9-valent vaccine, which includes HPV 16, 18, and seven other types.

These investigators demonstrated that the seropositivity rate 10 years after vaccination remained high for all nine types they looked at. Most importantly, there was not a single case. Not one. Let me repeat this: There was not a single case of high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia, or worse, or condyloma in either males or females. There was not a single case in over 1000 individuals with a follow-up of more than 10 years.

It is difficult to overstate the magnitude of the benefit associated with HPV vaccination for our children and young adults on their risk of developing highly relevant, life-changing, potentially deadly cancers.

For those of you who are interested in this topic — which should include almost all of you, if not all of you — I encourage you to read this very important follow-up paper, again, demonstrating the simple, overwhelming magnitude of the benefit of HPV vaccination. I thank you for your attention.
 

Dr. Markman is a professor in the department of medical oncology and therapeutics research, City of Hope, Duarte, California, and president of medicine and science, City of Hope Atlanta, Chicago, and Phoenix. He disclosed ties with GlaxoSmithKline; AstraZeneca.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As more and more treatments for obesity become available, what does the future hold for these patients? Here are five things that clinicians need to know.

1. Public health officials will prioritize dietary quality over quantity.

Dietitians, healthcare providers, and scientists are already prioritizing the quality of calories, and now policymakers are aligning with this goal, with calls for more research on ultraprocessed foods (UPFs) to answer the key question, “Why do UPFs cause people to eat 500 more calories per day compared with unprocessed foods?” The food industry has taken notice of the potential “Ozempic effect” associated with reduced spending on groceries and is responding with product lines “designed to complement” glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) while simultaneously lobbying against any UPF reform. However, with emerging data on how sugar taxes may reduce sales and Congress honing in on the diabetes epidemic, we are hopeful that change is coming in 2024.

2. Antiobesity medications will target fat loss instead of weight loss.

Currently, the US Food and Drug Administration requires antiobesity medications to prove safe weight loss of ≥ 5% over placebo. The focus on weight has been long-standing, but with highly effective medications like tirzepatide causing about 20% weight loss, attention is shifting to body composition — namely, how do we optimize fat loss while preserving muscle? We are seeing this transition in the research community. Bimagrumab, for example, a once-monthly injection that increases muscle mass and decreases fat mass, is being tested in a phase 3 clinical trial alongside semaglutide. Agents initially designed for spinal muscular atrophy, like apitegromab and taldefgrobep alfa, are being repurposed for obesity. Watch for results of these phase 2 trials in 2024.

3. Increasing energy expenditure is the holy grail of obesity research.

The success of GLP-1 RAs, and the even greater success of dual- and triple-target agents like tirzepatide and retatrutide, tells us that obesity is, indeed, a hormone problem. These medications primarily cause weight loss by suppressing appetite and reducing caloric intake. As scientists develop more therapeutics to normalize appetite regulation, attention will shift to optimizing energy expenditure. Researchers are already investigating brown fat, mitochondrial uncouplers, and skeletal muscle metabolism, but no agent thus far has been proven to be both safe and effective in increasing energy expenditure. Of these, keep an eye on clinical trials involving brown fat and the excitement over the anti-inflammatory cytokine growth differentiating factor 15 (GDF15).

4. Chronic disease without chronic medications.

Obesity is a chronic disease, just like hypertension or diabetes. Similarly, medications that treat chronic diseases are expected to be taken long-term because discontinuation often results in disease recurrence. However, obesity research is getting closer and closer to options that require less frequent administration. Bimagrumab, for example, is a once-monthly injection. In endocrinology, the premier example is osteoporosis: Osteoporosis can be treated with just 3 years of an annual injection and never require treatment again. In obesity, anticipate more basic science discoveries aimed at developing safe and specific treatments that are truly disease-modifying — ones that reverse appetitive dysregulation, reduce proinflammatory adiposity, and optimize anabolic metabolism.

5. Barriers to access are barriers to progress.

The biggest challenge to obesity treatment today is access: drug shortages, medication costs, and lack of obesity medicine providers. Shortages of medications like semaglutide 2.4 mg are being driven by high “demand”; in other words, manufacturers failed to anticipate the massive interest in antiobesity medications.

Medicare and most state Medicaid programs don’t cover these medications; commercial payers are refusing, reversing, or limiting coverage. An out-of-pocket monthly cost over $1000 limits affordability for the majority of Americans.

Seeking care from an obesity medicine doctor is a challenge as well. Over 40% of US adults have obesity, but less than 1% of doctors are certified in obesity medicine. Meanwhile, private equity is eager to address the lack of access through compounding pharmacies, medispas, or telemedicine services, but the quality of care varies greatly. Some companies purposely avoid the term “patient,” preferring ethics-free labels like “consumers” or “members.”

The $100 billion–dollar weight loss industry unfortunately has created financial incentives that drive obesity commerce over obesity care. Because of these barriers, the epidemic of obesity, with a prevalence projected to be 50% by 2030, will not be solved or slowed despite the scientific progress in obesity treatment. A single silver lining exists among policymakers who are aiming to correct our costly sick-care system in steps, starting with pharmacy benefit manager reform. Five of these bills are the ones to track in 2024: Pharmacy Benefit Manager Reform Act, Pharmacy Benefits Manager Accountability Act, Pharmacy Benefit Manager Sunshine and Accountability Act, Pharmacy Benefit Manager Transparency Act of 2023, and Lower Costs, More Transparency Act.

I believe that these five things will have the most impact on the treatment of our patients with obesity. Stay tuned throughout the year as I share updates in obesity research, pharmacotherapy, and public policy.
 

Dr. Tchang is Assistant Professor, Clinical Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, Weill Cornell Medicine; Physician, Department of Medicine, Iris Cantor Women’s Health Center, Comprehensive Weight Control Center, New York, NY. She disclosed ties with Gelesis and Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As more and more treatments for obesity become available, what does the future hold for these patients? Here are five things that clinicians need to know.

1. Public health officials will prioritize dietary quality over quantity.

Dietitians, healthcare providers, and scientists are already prioritizing the quality of calories, and now policymakers are aligning with this goal, with calls for more research on ultraprocessed foods (UPFs) to answer the key question, “Why do UPFs cause people to eat 500 more calories per day compared with unprocessed foods?” The food industry has taken notice of the potential “Ozempic effect” associated with reduced spending on groceries and is responding with product lines “designed to complement” glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) while simultaneously lobbying against any UPF reform. However, with emerging data on how sugar taxes may reduce sales and Congress honing in on the diabetes epidemic, we are hopeful that change is coming in 2024.

2. Antiobesity medications will target fat loss instead of weight loss.

Currently, the US Food and Drug Administration requires antiobesity medications to prove safe weight loss of ≥ 5% over placebo. The focus on weight has been long-standing, but with highly effective medications like tirzepatide causing about 20% weight loss, attention is shifting to body composition — namely, how do we optimize fat loss while preserving muscle? We are seeing this transition in the research community. Bimagrumab, for example, a once-monthly injection that increases muscle mass and decreases fat mass, is being tested in a phase 3 clinical trial alongside semaglutide. Agents initially designed for spinal muscular atrophy, like apitegromab and taldefgrobep alfa, are being repurposed for obesity. Watch for results of these phase 2 trials in 2024.

3. Increasing energy expenditure is the holy grail of obesity research.

The success of GLP-1 RAs, and the even greater success of dual- and triple-target agents like tirzepatide and retatrutide, tells us that obesity is, indeed, a hormone problem. These medications primarily cause weight loss by suppressing appetite and reducing caloric intake. As scientists develop more therapeutics to normalize appetite regulation, attention will shift to optimizing energy expenditure. Researchers are already investigating brown fat, mitochondrial uncouplers, and skeletal muscle metabolism, but no agent thus far has been proven to be both safe and effective in increasing energy expenditure. Of these, keep an eye on clinical trials involving brown fat and the excitement over the anti-inflammatory cytokine growth differentiating factor 15 (GDF15).

4. Chronic disease without chronic medications.

Obesity is a chronic disease, just like hypertension or diabetes. Similarly, medications that treat chronic diseases are expected to be taken long-term because discontinuation often results in disease recurrence. However, obesity research is getting closer and closer to options that require less frequent administration. Bimagrumab, for example, is a once-monthly injection. In endocrinology, the premier example is osteoporosis: Osteoporosis can be treated with just 3 years of an annual injection and never require treatment again. In obesity, anticipate more basic science discoveries aimed at developing safe and specific treatments that are truly disease-modifying — ones that reverse appetitive dysregulation, reduce proinflammatory adiposity, and optimize anabolic metabolism.

5. Barriers to access are barriers to progress.

The biggest challenge to obesity treatment today is access: drug shortages, medication costs, and lack of obesity medicine providers. Shortages of medications like semaglutide 2.4 mg are being driven by high “demand”; in other words, manufacturers failed to anticipate the massive interest in antiobesity medications.

Medicare and most state Medicaid programs don’t cover these medications; commercial payers are refusing, reversing, or limiting coverage. An out-of-pocket monthly cost over $1000 limits affordability for the majority of Americans.

Seeking care from an obesity medicine doctor is a challenge as well. Over 40% of US adults have obesity, but less than 1% of doctors are certified in obesity medicine. Meanwhile, private equity is eager to address the lack of access through compounding pharmacies, medispas, or telemedicine services, but the quality of care varies greatly. Some companies purposely avoid the term “patient,” preferring ethics-free labels like “consumers” or “members.”

The $100 billion–dollar weight loss industry unfortunately has created financial incentives that drive obesity commerce over obesity care. Because of these barriers, the epidemic of obesity, with a prevalence projected to be 50% by 2030, will not be solved or slowed despite the scientific progress in obesity treatment. A single silver lining exists among policymakers who are aiming to correct our costly sick-care system in steps, starting with pharmacy benefit manager reform. Five of these bills are the ones to track in 2024: Pharmacy Benefit Manager Reform Act, Pharmacy Benefits Manager Accountability Act, Pharmacy Benefit Manager Sunshine and Accountability Act, Pharmacy Benefit Manager Transparency Act of 2023, and Lower Costs, More Transparency Act.

I believe that these five things will have the most impact on the treatment of our patients with obesity. Stay tuned throughout the year as I share updates in obesity research, pharmacotherapy, and public policy.
 

Dr. Tchang is Assistant Professor, Clinical Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, Weill Cornell Medicine; Physician, Department of Medicine, Iris Cantor Women’s Health Center, Comprehensive Weight Control Center, New York, NY. She disclosed ties with Gelesis and Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As more and more treatments for obesity become available, what does the future hold for these patients? Here are five things that clinicians need to know.

1. Public health officials will prioritize dietary quality over quantity.

Dietitians, healthcare providers, and scientists are already prioritizing the quality of calories, and now policymakers are aligning with this goal, with calls for more research on ultraprocessed foods (UPFs) to answer the key question, “Why do UPFs cause people to eat 500 more calories per day compared with unprocessed foods?” The food industry has taken notice of the potential “Ozempic effect” associated with reduced spending on groceries and is responding with product lines “designed to complement” glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) while simultaneously lobbying against any UPF reform. However, with emerging data on how sugar taxes may reduce sales and Congress honing in on the diabetes epidemic, we are hopeful that change is coming in 2024.

2. Antiobesity medications will target fat loss instead of weight loss.

Currently, the US Food and Drug Administration requires antiobesity medications to prove safe weight loss of ≥ 5% over placebo. The focus on weight has been long-standing, but with highly effective medications like tirzepatide causing about 20% weight loss, attention is shifting to body composition — namely, how do we optimize fat loss while preserving muscle? We are seeing this transition in the research community. Bimagrumab, for example, a once-monthly injection that increases muscle mass and decreases fat mass, is being tested in a phase 3 clinical trial alongside semaglutide. Agents initially designed for spinal muscular atrophy, like apitegromab and taldefgrobep alfa, are being repurposed for obesity. Watch for results of these phase 2 trials in 2024.

3. Increasing energy expenditure is the holy grail of obesity research.

The success of GLP-1 RAs, and the even greater success of dual- and triple-target agents like tirzepatide and retatrutide, tells us that obesity is, indeed, a hormone problem. These medications primarily cause weight loss by suppressing appetite and reducing caloric intake. As scientists develop more therapeutics to normalize appetite regulation, attention will shift to optimizing energy expenditure. Researchers are already investigating brown fat, mitochondrial uncouplers, and skeletal muscle metabolism, but no agent thus far has been proven to be both safe and effective in increasing energy expenditure. Of these, keep an eye on clinical trials involving brown fat and the excitement over the anti-inflammatory cytokine growth differentiating factor 15 (GDF15).

4. Chronic disease without chronic medications.

Obesity is a chronic disease, just like hypertension or diabetes. Similarly, medications that treat chronic diseases are expected to be taken long-term because discontinuation often results in disease recurrence. However, obesity research is getting closer and closer to options that require less frequent administration. Bimagrumab, for example, is a once-monthly injection. In endocrinology, the premier example is osteoporosis: Osteoporosis can be treated with just 3 years of an annual injection and never require treatment again. In obesity, anticipate more basic science discoveries aimed at developing safe and specific treatments that are truly disease-modifying — ones that reverse appetitive dysregulation, reduce proinflammatory adiposity, and optimize anabolic metabolism.

5. Barriers to access are barriers to progress.

The biggest challenge to obesity treatment today is access: drug shortages, medication costs, and lack of obesity medicine providers. Shortages of medications like semaglutide 2.4 mg are being driven by high “demand”; in other words, manufacturers failed to anticipate the massive interest in antiobesity medications.

Medicare and most state Medicaid programs don’t cover these medications; commercial payers are refusing, reversing, or limiting coverage. An out-of-pocket monthly cost over $1000 limits affordability for the majority of Americans.

Seeking care from an obesity medicine doctor is a challenge as well. Over 40% of US adults have obesity, but less than 1% of doctors are certified in obesity medicine. Meanwhile, private equity is eager to address the lack of access through compounding pharmacies, medispas, or telemedicine services, but the quality of care varies greatly. Some companies purposely avoid the term “patient,” preferring ethics-free labels like “consumers” or “members.”

The $100 billion–dollar weight loss industry unfortunately has created financial incentives that drive obesity commerce over obesity care. Because of these barriers, the epidemic of obesity, with a prevalence projected to be 50% by 2030, will not be solved or slowed despite the scientific progress in obesity treatment. A single silver lining exists among policymakers who are aiming to correct our costly sick-care system in steps, starting with pharmacy benefit manager reform. Five of these bills are the ones to track in 2024: Pharmacy Benefit Manager Reform Act, Pharmacy Benefits Manager Accountability Act, Pharmacy Benefit Manager Sunshine and Accountability Act, Pharmacy Benefit Manager Transparency Act of 2023, and Lower Costs, More Transparency Act.

I believe that these five things will have the most impact on the treatment of our patients with obesity. Stay tuned throughout the year as I share updates in obesity research, pharmacotherapy, and public policy.
 

Dr. Tchang is Assistant Professor, Clinical Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, Weill Cornell Medicine; Physician, Department of Medicine, Iris Cantor Women’s Health Center, Comprehensive Weight Control Center, New York, NY. She disclosed ties with Gelesis and Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has issued a reminder to healthcare professionals regarding the potential serious adverse reactions associated with Paxlovid when administered in combination with specific immunosuppressants.

These immunosuppressants, encompassing calcineurin inhibitors (tacrolimus and ciclosporin) and mTOR inhibitors (everolimus and sirolimus), possess a narrow safe dosage range. They are recognized for their role in diminishing the activity of the immune system and are typically prescribed for autoimmune conditions and organ transplant recipients.

The highlighted risk arises due to drug-drug interactions, which can compromise the body’s ability to eliminate these medicines effectively.

Paxlovid, also known as nirmatrelvir with ritonavir, is an antiviral medication used to treat COVID-19 in adults who do not require supplemental oxygen and who are at an increased risk of progressing to severe COVID-19. It should be administered as soon as possible after a diagnosis of COVID-19 has been made and within 5 days of symptom onset.

Conditional marketing authorization for Paxlovid was granted across the European Union (EU) on January 28, 2022, and subsequently transitioned to full marketing authorization on February 24, 2023.

Developed by Pfizer, Paxlovid exhibited an 89% reduction in the risk for hospitalization or death among unvaccinated individuals in a phase 2-3 clinical trial. This led the National Institutes of Health to prioritize Paxlovid over other COVID-19 treatments. Subsequent real-world studies have affirmed its effectiveness, even among the vaccinated.

When combining Paxlovid with tacrolimus, ciclosporin, everolimus, or sirolimus, healthcare professionals need to actively monitor their blood levels. This proactive approach is essential to mitigate the risk for drug-drug interactions and potential serious reactions. They should collaborate with a multidisciplinary team of specialists to navigate the complexities of administering these medications concurrently.

Further, Paxlovid must not be coadministered with medications highly reliant on CYP3A liver enzymes for elimination, such as the immunosuppressant voclosporin. When administered together, there is a risk for these drugs interfering with each other’s metabolism, potentially leading to altered blood levels, reduced effectiveness, or an increased risk for adverse reactions.

After a thorough review, PRAC has highlighted potential serious adverse reactions, including fatal cases, due to drug interactions between Paxlovid and specified immunosuppressants. Thus, it issued a direct healthcare professional communication (DHPC) to emphasize the recognized risk for these interactions, as previously outlined in Paxlovid’s product information.

The DHPC for Paxlovid will undergo further evaluation by EMA’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use and, upon adoption, will be disseminated to healthcare professionals. The communication plan will include publication on the DHPCs page and in national registers across EU Member States.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has issued a reminder to healthcare professionals regarding the potential serious adverse reactions associated with Paxlovid when administered in combination with specific immunosuppressants.

These immunosuppressants, encompassing calcineurin inhibitors (tacrolimus and ciclosporin) and mTOR inhibitors (everolimus and sirolimus), possess a narrow safe dosage range. They are recognized for their role in diminishing the activity of the immune system and are typically prescribed for autoimmune conditions and organ transplant recipients.

The highlighted risk arises due to drug-drug interactions, which can compromise the body’s ability to eliminate these medicines effectively.

Paxlovid, also known as nirmatrelvir with ritonavir, is an antiviral medication used to treat COVID-19 in adults who do not require supplemental oxygen and who are at an increased risk of progressing to severe COVID-19. It should be administered as soon as possible after a diagnosis of COVID-19 has been made and within 5 days of symptom onset.

Conditional marketing authorization for Paxlovid was granted across the European Union (EU) on January 28, 2022, and subsequently transitioned to full marketing authorization on February 24, 2023.

Developed by Pfizer, Paxlovid exhibited an 89% reduction in the risk for hospitalization or death among unvaccinated individuals in a phase 2-3 clinical trial. This led the National Institutes of Health to prioritize Paxlovid over other COVID-19 treatments. Subsequent real-world studies have affirmed its effectiveness, even among the vaccinated.

When combining Paxlovid with tacrolimus, ciclosporin, everolimus, or sirolimus, healthcare professionals need to actively monitor their blood levels. This proactive approach is essential to mitigate the risk for drug-drug interactions and potential serious reactions. They should collaborate with a multidisciplinary team of specialists to navigate the complexities of administering these medications concurrently.

Further, Paxlovid must not be coadministered with medications highly reliant on CYP3A liver enzymes for elimination, such as the immunosuppressant voclosporin. When administered together, there is a risk for these drugs interfering with each other’s metabolism, potentially leading to altered blood levels, reduced effectiveness, or an increased risk for adverse reactions.

After a thorough review, PRAC has highlighted potential serious adverse reactions, including fatal cases, due to drug interactions between Paxlovid and specified immunosuppressants. Thus, it issued a direct healthcare professional communication (DHPC) to emphasize the recognized risk for these interactions, as previously outlined in Paxlovid’s product information.

The DHPC for Paxlovid will undergo further evaluation by EMA’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use and, upon adoption, will be disseminated to healthcare professionals. The communication plan will include publication on the DHPCs page and in national registers across EU Member States.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has issued a reminder to healthcare professionals regarding the potential serious adverse reactions associated with Paxlovid when administered in combination with specific immunosuppressants.

These immunosuppressants, encompassing calcineurin inhibitors (tacrolimus and ciclosporin) and mTOR inhibitors (everolimus and sirolimus), possess a narrow safe dosage range. They are recognized for their role in diminishing the activity of the immune system and are typically prescribed for autoimmune conditions and organ transplant recipients.

The highlighted risk arises due to drug-drug interactions, which can compromise the body’s ability to eliminate these medicines effectively.

Paxlovid, also known as nirmatrelvir with ritonavir, is an antiviral medication used to treat COVID-19 in adults who do not require supplemental oxygen and who are at an increased risk of progressing to severe COVID-19. It should be administered as soon as possible after a diagnosis of COVID-19 has been made and within 5 days of symptom onset.

Conditional marketing authorization for Paxlovid was granted across the European Union (EU) on January 28, 2022, and subsequently transitioned to full marketing authorization on February 24, 2023.

Developed by Pfizer, Paxlovid exhibited an 89% reduction in the risk for hospitalization or death among unvaccinated individuals in a phase 2-3 clinical trial. This led the National Institutes of Health to prioritize Paxlovid over other COVID-19 treatments. Subsequent real-world studies have affirmed its effectiveness, even among the vaccinated.

When combining Paxlovid with tacrolimus, ciclosporin, everolimus, or sirolimus, healthcare professionals need to actively monitor their blood levels. This proactive approach is essential to mitigate the risk for drug-drug interactions and potential serious reactions. They should collaborate with a multidisciplinary team of specialists to navigate the complexities of administering these medications concurrently.

Further, Paxlovid must not be coadministered with medications highly reliant on CYP3A liver enzymes for elimination, such as the immunosuppressant voclosporin. When administered together, there is a risk for these drugs interfering with each other’s metabolism, potentially leading to altered blood levels, reduced effectiveness, or an increased risk for adverse reactions.

After a thorough review, PRAC has highlighted potential serious adverse reactions, including fatal cases, due to drug interactions between Paxlovid and specified immunosuppressants. Thus, it issued a direct healthcare professional communication (DHPC) to emphasize the recognized risk for these interactions, as previously outlined in Paxlovid’s product information.

The DHPC for Paxlovid will undergo further evaluation by EMA’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use and, upon adoption, will be disseminated to healthcare professionals. The communication plan will include publication on the DHPCs page and in national registers across EU Member States.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A plant-based diet, low in dairy and meat but rich in fruits, vegetables, grains, and nuts, can improve sexual and urinary health in patients treated for local prostate cancer, new research showed.

The findings, published on February 13, 2024, in the journal Cancer, bolster previous research showing plant-based diets can reduce the risk for recurrence and improve survivorship in men with prostate cancer.

“The current study shows for the first time an association between eating more plant-based food with better scores for quality of life among patients diagnosed with prostate cancer,” Stacy Loeb, MD, a urologist in the departments of Urology and Population Health at NYU Langone Health, in New York City, who led the research.

For the new study, Dr. Loeb and her colleagues looked at data from more than 3500 men with prostate cancer in the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, an ongoing investigation begun in 1986 and sponsored by Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. The dataset included more than 50,000 male dentists, pharmacists, optometrists, osteopaths, podiatrists, and veterinarians.

The median age of prostate cancer diagnosis was 68 years; 48% of patients underwent radical prostatectomy and 35% had radiation as primary therapy. None of the patients were known to have had metastatic disease.

Men in the study answered a questionnaire every 4 years about the kinds of foods they ate and in what proportions. Another survey, administered every 2 years, assessed the frequency of incontinence, difficulties maintaining an erection, and problems with bowels, energy, and mood, among many other health concerns.

Dr. Loeb and her colleagues sorted patients into quintiles based on the proportion of plant vs animal foods the men said they eat. The authors found those who consumed the most plant-based foods scored 8%-11% better in measures of sexual function than the group that consumed the least of these products.

These men also reported up to 14% better scores for urinary health, with fewer instances of incontinence, obstruction, and irritation, and up to 13% better scores in hormonal health, marked by symptoms like low energy, depression, and hot flashes.

Justin Gregg, MD, a urology researcher at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, in Houston, Texas, whose research has found the Mediterranean diet can slow tumor progression among men with localized prostate cancer on active surveillance, called the results “not entirely surprising, as prior studies have shown associations between plant-based diet and outcomes like erectile function among men who do not have prostate cancer.”

But Kenneth Jacobsohn, MD, professor of urology and director of lifestyle medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin, in Milwaukee, said the new findings help establish “the positive role of diet quality and plant-based diets, specifically on quality of life after prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment for men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer.”

Dr. Jacobsohn said the study was limited by its retrospective nature and the manner of the dietary assessment.

“As the authors point out, a plant-based diet may be helpful, though it’s important to keep in mind the strong data for its protective effect in terms of cardiovascular disease risk, which is very important for men who have a history of prostate cancer as many will die of cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Gregg added.

Dr. Loeb, Dr. Gregg, and Dr. Jacobsohn reported no conflicts of interest. Some of the study authors reported a variety of potential conflicts.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

A plant-based diet, low in dairy and meat but rich in fruits, vegetables, grains, and nuts, can improve sexual and urinary health in patients treated for local prostate cancer, new research showed.

The findings, published on February 13, 2024, in the journal Cancer, bolster previous research showing plant-based diets can reduce the risk for recurrence and improve survivorship in men with prostate cancer.

“The current study shows for the first time an association between eating more plant-based food with better scores for quality of life among patients diagnosed with prostate cancer,” Stacy Loeb, MD, a urologist in the departments of Urology and Population Health at NYU Langone Health, in New York City, who led the research.

For the new study, Dr. Loeb and her colleagues looked at data from more than 3500 men with prostate cancer in the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, an ongoing investigation begun in 1986 and sponsored by Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. The dataset included more than 50,000 male dentists, pharmacists, optometrists, osteopaths, podiatrists, and veterinarians.

The median age of prostate cancer diagnosis was 68 years; 48% of patients underwent radical prostatectomy and 35% had radiation as primary therapy. None of the patients were known to have had metastatic disease.

Men in the study answered a questionnaire every 4 years about the kinds of foods they ate and in what proportions. Another survey, administered every 2 years, assessed the frequency of incontinence, difficulties maintaining an erection, and problems with bowels, energy, and mood, among many other health concerns.

Dr. Loeb and her colleagues sorted patients into quintiles based on the proportion of plant vs animal foods the men said they eat. The authors found those who consumed the most plant-based foods scored 8%-11% better in measures of sexual function than the group that consumed the least of these products.

These men also reported up to 14% better scores for urinary health, with fewer instances of incontinence, obstruction, and irritation, and up to 13% better scores in hormonal health, marked by symptoms like low energy, depression, and hot flashes.

Justin Gregg, MD, a urology researcher at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, in Houston, Texas, whose research has found the Mediterranean diet can slow tumor progression among men with localized prostate cancer on active surveillance, called the results “not entirely surprising, as prior studies have shown associations between plant-based diet and outcomes like erectile function among men who do not have prostate cancer.”

But Kenneth Jacobsohn, MD, professor of urology and director of lifestyle medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin, in Milwaukee, said the new findings help establish “the positive role of diet quality and plant-based diets, specifically on quality of life after prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment for men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer.”

Dr. Jacobsohn said the study was limited by its retrospective nature and the manner of the dietary assessment.

“As the authors point out, a plant-based diet may be helpful, though it’s important to keep in mind the strong data for its protective effect in terms of cardiovascular disease risk, which is very important for men who have a history of prostate cancer as many will die of cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Gregg added.

Dr. Loeb, Dr. Gregg, and Dr. Jacobsohn reported no conflicts of interest. Some of the study authors reported a variety of potential conflicts.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

A plant-based diet, low in dairy and meat but rich in fruits, vegetables, grains, and nuts, can improve sexual and urinary health in patients treated for local prostate cancer, new research showed.

The findings, published on February 13, 2024, in the journal Cancer, bolster previous research showing plant-based diets can reduce the risk for recurrence and improve survivorship in men with prostate cancer.

“The current study shows for the first time an association between eating more plant-based food with better scores for quality of life among patients diagnosed with prostate cancer,” Stacy Loeb, MD, a urologist in the departments of Urology and Population Health at NYU Langone Health, in New York City, who led the research.

For the new study, Dr. Loeb and her colleagues looked at data from more than 3500 men with prostate cancer in the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, an ongoing investigation begun in 1986 and sponsored by Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. The dataset included more than 50,000 male dentists, pharmacists, optometrists, osteopaths, podiatrists, and veterinarians.

The median age of prostate cancer diagnosis was 68 years; 48% of patients underwent radical prostatectomy and 35% had radiation as primary therapy. None of the patients were known to have had metastatic disease.

Men in the study answered a questionnaire every 4 years about the kinds of foods they ate and in what proportions. Another survey, administered every 2 years, assessed the frequency of incontinence, difficulties maintaining an erection, and problems with bowels, energy, and mood, among many other health concerns.

Dr. Loeb and her colleagues sorted patients into quintiles based on the proportion of plant vs animal foods the men said they eat. The authors found those who consumed the most plant-based foods scored 8%-11% better in measures of sexual function than the group that consumed the least of these products.

These men also reported up to 14% better scores for urinary health, with fewer instances of incontinence, obstruction, and irritation, and up to 13% better scores in hormonal health, marked by symptoms like low energy, depression, and hot flashes.

Justin Gregg, MD, a urology researcher at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, in Houston, Texas, whose research has found the Mediterranean diet can slow tumor progression among men with localized prostate cancer on active surveillance, called the results “not entirely surprising, as prior studies have shown associations between plant-based diet and outcomes like erectile function among men who do not have prostate cancer.”

But Kenneth Jacobsohn, MD, professor of urology and director of lifestyle medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin, in Milwaukee, said the new findings help establish “the positive role of diet quality and plant-based diets, specifically on quality of life after prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment for men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer.”

Dr. Jacobsohn said the study was limited by its retrospective nature and the manner of the dietary assessment.

“As the authors point out, a plant-based diet may be helpful, though it’s important to keep in mind the strong data for its protective effect in terms of cardiovascular disease risk, which is very important for men who have a history of prostate cancer as many will die of cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Gregg added.

Dr. Loeb, Dr. Gregg, and Dr. Jacobsohn reported no conflicts of interest. Some of the study authors reported a variety of potential conflicts.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .