Rheumatology News and the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations have partnered together to keep rheumatologists regularly informed on the advocacy issues of the day and perhaps inspire those who may be on the fence about finding “room” in their lives for action. This inaugural piece tells how CSRO President Dr. Madelaine (Mattie) A. Feldman views advocacy and how she found her way to action.

As a rheumatologist in private practice for 30 years, with husband and kids (and now grandkids), an active social life, and an exercise regimen, I realized if I were to become active in advocacy I would have to make room for it in my busy schedule. We all come up against the question of where will we find the time for a new hobby, exercise, joining a new organization, or even just eating right? Next comes the priority list discussion. How important is advocacy for my patients, my specialty, and my profession? Ultimately, how important is it for me? Where did that desire to get involved even come from? Why have I become so passionate about the issues?

For me, the answer to these questions goes back to the 1960s when I was growing up in New Orleans. My mom participated in civil rights protests, which did not make our family popular in the neighborhood, back when the KKK put flyers on everyone’s screen door. My mother didn’t care and told me that, no matter what people said, it was our duty to stand up for what was right. That was a long time ago and sadly my mom passed away just a year after I was old enough to vote. Her words have stayed with me and are more important now than ever.

Striving for justice despite how formidable the foe is requires an inner knowing that what you are doing is meaningful and will make a difference maybe not now, maybe not next year. At some point you must believe that your efforts will create a change for the better, small as it may be. My “saying” on Twitter (@MattieRheumMD) is “I’ll keep doing what I’m doing until my cynicism catches up to my passion.”

The story about my mom is just one of the many stories in my life taking me to where I am today. We all have them. I think the reason many of us go into rheumatology may be similar to the reasoning that leads one to advocacy efforts. At this point in time we can’t yet offer a cure, but we can point to a path that leads to improvements in the lives of our patients. I have to remind myself of that, every time there is an advocacy battle ahead, whether with insurance companies or the government ... increments are important.
 

The four Ps of advocacy

Living with compromise is hard, particularly when working within a system that needs a complete overhaul. Still, compromise is the key to getting anything done. Compromise is one of the four Ps of advocacy. I realize that compromise doesn’t start with a P, but it is such an integral part of advocacy, I am making allowances for it. The other Ps include patience, persistence/perseverance, and passion. I’m sure there are many others that could be part of the P family, like planning and performance, but let’s stick with these.

You don’t need to have all of these qualities when you start on the road to action in advocacy. For example, my passion came first. It developed when my patients could not get access to the treatments they needed. For many reasons, the medications were either unavailable (i.e., not on formulary, tiered very high) or unaffordable (i.e., copay too high, deductible too high). My passion deepened when I saw the hypocrisy within the drug-supply channel and the mistruths being told by those who profit from this channel. It wasn’t the “profit” part that bothered me, as I’m a believer in the free market. But this was not free market, and the companies were actually profiteering on the backs of my patients and justifying it by claiming they were saving the health care system billions of dollars. The fallacy of that claim and the players in this broken system are stories for another day.

Persistence came next for me. If you let up on the message, things might not only stay the same but could get worse. Perseverance is part of persistence because you need it to keep knocking on the same door even after that door is metaphorically (hopefully not literally) slammed in your face. Often, I will feel like a broken record and think that everyone has already heard the issues, not only from me but also from my fellow advocates. But never underestimate how many times a message, particularly on a difficult issue to understand, needs to be heard before it is fully comprehended.

Patience is one of the more difficult attributes to practice when you want action. I want things to happen yesterday – not tomorrow and definitely not next year. I have learned that the wheels of change turn quite slowly in this arena, sometimes pausing for inordinately long periods of time. I realize now that during the long wait, new facts can arise, allowing me to shape a different advocacy approach, one that ultimately bolsters my case. It still is very difficult to hear that a piece of legislation that seemed to be moving forward suddenly died and won’t be heard again until the next session. With patience you move forward with a smile, maybe a half-hearted one, but a smile nonetheless. This just makes life better.

Then there is compromise. This took me the longest to understand, particularly on the issues where my passion ran the deepest. Here is where passion could potentially get in the way of action. Feeling very strongly about an issue makes it difficult to let any piece of your ideal end result fall by the wayside. Here is where the saying “the perfect is the enemy of the good” comes into play. Just because you can’t have it all, doesn’t mean you can’t do good by achieving just part of what you have been striving for. Remember if you seek perfection, without compromise, you may lose the entire battle. Is there such a thing as compromising too much? I think so, but that may just be my passion speaking.

Rheumatology News and the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations started this column to keep you informed about current advocacy issues in rheumatology and perhaps inspire those who may be on the fence about finding “room” in their lives for action.

Advocacy doesn’t have to take up much room in your life. It can be as simple as clicking on CSRO.info/map, finding your state, and taking action by writing a letter to your representative on an important piece of legislation, like an accumulator adjustment ban (lots more on that in future columns). Or maybe just finding the time to read this column is all the action you have room for. We all have different amounts of space for any particular activity in our busy lives. It seems one of my stories from childhood created that space for advocacy in my life. I guess you could say it created a “Rheum” for Action.

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is President of the CSRO, chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines, and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at rhnews@mdedge.com.

Rheumatology News and the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations have partnered together to keep rheumatologists regularly informed on the advocacy issues of the day and perhaps inspire those who may be on the fence about finding “room” in their lives for action. This inaugural piece tells how CSRO President Dr. Madelaine (Mattie) A. Feldman views advocacy and how she found her way to action.

As a rheumatologist in private practice for 30 years, with husband and kids (and now grandkids), an active social life, and an exercise regimen, I realized if I were to become active in advocacy I would have to make room for it in my busy schedule. We all come up against the question of where will we find the time for a new hobby, exercise, joining a new organization, or even just eating right? Next comes the priority list discussion. How important is advocacy for my patients, my specialty, and my profession? Ultimately, how important is it for me? Where did that desire to get involved even come from? Why have I become so passionate about the issues?

For me, the answer to these questions goes back to the 1960s when I was growing up in New Orleans. My mom participated in civil rights protests, which did not make our family popular in the neighborhood, back when the KKK put flyers on everyone’s screen door. My mother didn’t care and told me that, no matter what people said, it was our duty to stand up for what was right. That was a long time ago and sadly my mom passed away just a year after I was old enough to vote. Her words have stayed with me and are more important now than ever.

Striving for justice despite how formidable the foe is requires an inner knowing that what you are doing is meaningful and will make a difference maybe not now, maybe not next year. At some point you must believe that your efforts will create a change for the better, small as it may be. My “saying” on Twitter (@MattieRheumMD) is “I’ll keep doing what I’m doing until my cynicism catches up to my passion.”

The story about my mom is just one of the many stories in my life taking me to where I am today. We all have them. I think the reason many of us go into rheumatology may be similar to the reasoning that leads one to advocacy efforts. At this point in time we can’t yet offer a cure, but we can point to a path that leads to improvements in the lives of our patients. I have to remind myself of that, every time there is an advocacy battle ahead, whether with insurance companies or the government ... increments are important.
 

The four Ps of advocacy

Living with compromise is hard, particularly when working within a system that needs a complete overhaul. Still, compromise is the key to getting anything done. Compromise is one of the four Ps of advocacy. I realize that compromise doesn’t start with a P, but it is such an integral part of advocacy, I am making allowances for it. The other Ps include patience, persistence/perseverance, and passion. I’m sure there are many others that could be part of the P family, like planning and performance, but let’s stick with these.

You don’t need to have all of these qualities when you start on the road to action in advocacy. For example, my passion came first. It developed when my patients could not get access to the treatments they needed. For many reasons, the medications were either unavailable (i.e., not on formulary, tiered very high) or unaffordable (i.e., copay too high, deductible too high). My passion deepened when I saw the hypocrisy within the drug-supply channel and the mistruths being told by those who profit from this channel. It wasn’t the “profit” part that bothered me, as I’m a believer in the free market. But this was not free market, and the companies were actually profiteering on the backs of my patients and justifying it by claiming they were saving the health care system billions of dollars. The fallacy of that claim and the players in this broken system are stories for another day.

Persistence came next for me. If you let up on the message, things might not only stay the same but could get worse. Perseverance is part of persistence because you need it to keep knocking on the same door even after that door is metaphorically (hopefully not literally) slammed in your face. Often, I will feel like a broken record and think that everyone has already heard the issues, not only from me but also from my fellow advocates. But never underestimate how many times a message, particularly on a difficult issue to understand, needs to be heard before it is fully comprehended.

Patience is one of the more difficult attributes to practice when you want action. I want things to happen yesterday – not tomorrow and definitely not next year. I have learned that the wheels of change turn quite slowly in this arena, sometimes pausing for inordinately long periods of time. I realize now that during the long wait, new facts can arise, allowing me to shape a different advocacy approach, one that ultimately bolsters my case. It still is very difficult to hear that a piece of legislation that seemed to be moving forward suddenly died and won’t be heard again until the next session. With patience you move forward with a smile, maybe a half-hearted one, but a smile nonetheless. This just makes life better.

Then there is compromise. This took me the longest to understand, particularly on the issues where my passion ran the deepest. Here is where passion could potentially get in the way of action. Feeling very strongly about an issue makes it difficult to let any piece of your ideal end result fall by the wayside. Here is where the saying “the perfect is the enemy of the good” comes into play. Just because you can’t have it all, doesn’t mean you can’t do good by achieving just part of what you have been striving for. Remember if you seek perfection, without compromise, you may lose the entire battle. Is there such a thing as compromising too much? I think so, but that may just be my passion speaking.

Rheumatology News and the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations started this column to keep you informed about current advocacy issues in rheumatology and perhaps inspire those who may be on the fence about finding “room” in their lives for action.

Advocacy doesn’t have to take up much room in your life. It can be as simple as clicking on CSRO.info/map, finding your state, and taking action by writing a letter to your representative on an important piece of legislation, like an accumulator adjustment ban (lots more on that in future columns). Or maybe just finding the time to read this column is all the action you have room for. We all have different amounts of space for any particular activity in our busy lives. It seems one of my stories from childhood created that space for advocacy in my life. I guess you could say it created a “Rheum” for Action.

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is President of the CSRO, chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines, and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at rhnews@mdedge.com.

Rheumatology News and the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations have partnered together to keep rheumatologists regularly informed on the advocacy issues of the day and perhaps inspire those who may be on the fence about finding “room” in their lives for action. This inaugural piece tells how CSRO President Dr. Madelaine (Mattie) A. Feldman views advocacy and how she found her way to action.

As a rheumatologist in private practice for 30 years, with husband and kids (and now grandkids), an active social life, and an exercise regimen, I realized if I were to become active in advocacy I would have to make room for it in my busy schedule. We all come up against the question of where will we find the time for a new hobby, exercise, joining a new organization, or even just eating right? Next comes the priority list discussion. How important is advocacy for my patients, my specialty, and my profession? Ultimately, how important is it for me? Where did that desire to get involved even come from? Why have I become so passionate about the issues?

For me, the answer to these questions goes back to the 1960s when I was growing up in New Orleans. My mom participated in civil rights protests, which did not make our family popular in the neighborhood, back when the KKK put flyers on everyone’s screen door. My mother didn’t care and told me that, no matter what people said, it was our duty to stand up for what was right. That was a long time ago and sadly my mom passed away just a year after I was old enough to vote. Her words have stayed with me and are more important now than ever.

Striving for justice despite how formidable the foe is requires an inner knowing that what you are doing is meaningful and will make a difference maybe not now, maybe not next year. At some point you must believe that your efforts will create a change for the better, small as it may be. My “saying” on Twitter (@MattieRheumMD) is “I’ll keep doing what I’m doing until my cynicism catches up to my passion.”

The story about my mom is just one of the many stories in my life taking me to where I am today. We all have them. I think the reason many of us go into rheumatology may be similar to the reasoning that leads one to advocacy efforts. At this point in time we can’t yet offer a cure, but we can point to a path that leads to improvements in the lives of our patients. I have to remind myself of that, every time there is an advocacy battle ahead, whether with insurance companies or the government ... increments are important.
 

The four Ps of advocacy

Living with compromise is hard, particularly when working within a system that needs a complete overhaul. Still, compromise is the key to getting anything done. Compromise is one of the four Ps of advocacy. I realize that compromise doesn’t start with a P, but it is such an integral part of advocacy, I am making allowances for it. The other Ps include patience, persistence/perseverance, and passion. I’m sure there are many others that could be part of the P family, like planning and performance, but let’s stick with these.

You don’t need to have all of these qualities when you start on the road to action in advocacy. For example, my passion came first. It developed when my patients could not get access to the treatments they needed. For many reasons, the medications were either unavailable (i.e., not on formulary, tiered very high) or unaffordable (i.e., copay too high, deductible too high). My passion deepened when I saw the hypocrisy within the drug-supply channel and the mistruths being told by those who profit from this channel. It wasn’t the “profit” part that bothered me, as I’m a believer in the free market. But this was not free market, and the companies were actually profiteering on the backs of my patients and justifying it by claiming they were saving the health care system billions of dollars. The fallacy of that claim and the players in this broken system are stories for another day.

Persistence came next for me. If you let up on the message, things might not only stay the same but could get worse. Perseverance is part of persistence because you need it to keep knocking on the same door even after that door is metaphorically (hopefully not literally) slammed in your face. Often, I will feel like a broken record and think that everyone has already heard the issues, not only from me but also from my fellow advocates. But never underestimate how many times a message, particularly on a difficult issue to understand, needs to be heard before it is fully comprehended.

Patience is one of the more difficult attributes to practice when you want action. I want things to happen yesterday – not tomorrow and definitely not next year. I have learned that the wheels of change turn quite slowly in this arena, sometimes pausing for inordinately long periods of time. I realize now that during the long wait, new facts can arise, allowing me to shape a different advocacy approach, one that ultimately bolsters my case. It still is very difficult to hear that a piece of legislation that seemed to be moving forward suddenly died and won’t be heard again until the next session. With patience you move forward with a smile, maybe a half-hearted one, but a smile nonetheless. This just makes life better.

Then there is compromise. This took me the longest to understand, particularly on the issues where my passion ran the deepest. Here is where passion could potentially get in the way of action. Feeling very strongly about an issue makes it difficult to let any piece of your ideal end result fall by the wayside. Here is where the saying “the perfect is the enemy of the good” comes into play. Just because you can’t have it all, doesn’t mean you can’t do good by achieving just part of what you have been striving for. Remember if you seek perfection, without compromise, you may lose the entire battle. Is there such a thing as compromising too much? I think so, but that may just be my passion speaking.

Rheumatology News and the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations started this column to keep you informed about current advocacy issues in rheumatology and perhaps inspire those who may be on the fence about finding “room” in their lives for action.

Advocacy doesn’t have to take up much room in your life. It can be as simple as clicking on CSRO.info/map, finding your state, and taking action by writing a letter to your representative on an important piece of legislation, like an accumulator adjustment ban (lots more on that in future columns). Or maybe just finding the time to read this column is all the action you have room for. We all have different amounts of space for any particular activity in our busy lives. It seems one of my stories from childhood created that space for advocacy in my life. I guess you could say it created a “Rheum” for Action.

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is President of the CSRO, chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines, and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at rhnews@mdedge.com.

William of Ockham would have been proud because, at this year’s American Gastroenterological Association’s Shark Tank pitch competition, one product clearly demonstrated Ockham’s razor – that sometimes the simplest solution is best – and came away as the winner at the 2021 AGA Tech Summit sponsored by the AGA Center for GI Innovation and Technology.

Courtesy Dr. Toufic Kachaamy

Out of five innovative products, ranging from an educational app to a high-tech anorectal sensor, all aimed at improving outcomes in patients with gastrointestinal disorders, the winner was ... drumroll please ...

A needle.

That’s it. A needle. But not like any other needle.


 

Winner: Toufic Kachaamy, MD, FASGE, AGAF – An EUS-guided access needle

This EUS-guided access needle, invented by Dr. Kachaamy, enterprise clinical leader at Cancer Treatment Centers of America, Phoenix, is a simple device that overcomes a longstanding challenge presented by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP): biliary access.

Many “ERCPs are considered difficult, and sometimes fail, depending on the center and the endoscopist,” Dr. Kachaamy said during a virtual presentation. “Most failures are due to failed initial access to the bile duct.”

Indeed, one study cited a failure rate in ductal cannulation of 5%-15% even among experienced hands.

Failure can have several consequences, Dr. Kachaamy noted, including increased complications, higher cost, delayed care, longer hospitalization, and greater likelihood of patient transfer.

He went on to explain why biliary access can be so challenging and how this EUS-guided access needle helps address these issues.

“[The] two main limitations [during endoscopic ultrasound–guided biliary access] are directing the wire into the narrowed areas and the wire shearing as we are manipulating the wire to get it to where we want it,” Dr. Kachaamy said. “[This EUS-guided access needle] is a 19-22 gauge, rotatable needle with a smooth, side exit for the wire to allow wire manipulation and direction without shearing.”

Dr. Kachaamy highlighted the simple design, which will keep the production cost below $300 per unit, and suggested that failed ERCPs are just the first potential indication of many. Future uses may include gallbladder access, peri-GI collection, gastrojejunostomy, and others.

In an interview, Dr. Kachaamy reacted to the win, which follows 2 years of collaborative development with Cancer Treatment Centers of America.

“For people who are innovators, there’s nothing that feels more rewarding than their ideas being recognized as adding something to the field and potentially helping people and patients,” Dr. Kachaamy said. “So [this is] very, very, very exciting. Very rewarding. Pride would probably be the best way I’d describe it.”

Dr. Kachaamy anticipates that this EUS-guided access needle will be commercially available within 1-2 years, pending regulatory approval. In the meantime, he and his colleagues are seeking a strategic partner.


 

A shark speaks

V. Raman Muthusamy, MD, AGAF, immediate past chair of the AGA Center for GI Innovation and Technology and director of endoscopy at UCLA Health System, moderated the Shark Tank session, calling it “the highlight” of the AGA Tech Summit.

Dr. Muthusamy and four other “sharks,” including a gastroenterologist, venture capitalist, regulatory device reviewer, and entrepreneur, scored the pitches using three equally weighted categories: the quality of the pitch, the level of innovation and impact on the field, and the quality of the business plan and overall feasibility.

“We saw a full spectrum [of innovations],” Dr. Muthusamy said. “I think it was an enjoyable session.”

Behind closed doors, the sharks narrowed the field to two top contenders. Ultimately, however, there could be only one winner: Dr. Kachaamy. Their decision aligned with a “Fan Favorite” audience poll.

“A lot of [Dr. Kachaamy’s win] had to do with the potential applications and commonality of the problem,” Dr. Muthusamy said in an interview. He highlighted how the EUS-guided access needle allows for an immediate response to ERCP failure without the need for a second procedure.

Dr. Muthusamy also noted that several product designs previously failed to achieve what the EUS-guided access needle has the potential to do.

“I think the feeling was that this seemed to be a way that may address some of the limitations and challenges that we’ve had with earlier [attempts at solving this problem],” Dr. Muthusamy said.

For innovators who didn’t make the cut this year, or those with products still in development, Dr. Muthusamy suggested applying next year.

“We encourage our colleagues and members of the AGA to continue to apply to this program,” Dr. Muthusamy said.
 

Other fish in the sea

Four other innovators entered the AGA Shark Tank this year. Here are snippets of their pitches:

Hans Gregersen, MD, PhD, MPH – Fecobionics
“Fecobionics is a simulated electronic stool with the consistency and shape of normal stool,” Dr. Gregersen said.

The balloon device, which contains multiple sensors, provides “real-time, quantitative, and mechanistic insights by simulating defecation.”

“It ... is inserted into the rectum,” Dr. Gregersen said. “It measures multiple pressures; it has gyroscopes that measure orientation; we can compute the bending of the device; and we can calculate the shape of the device.”

According to Dr. Gregersen, Fecobionics has “diagnostic potential for patients with fecal incontinence and for subtyping patients with constipation.” He highlighted fewer false-positives than current technology, alongside greater efficiency and lower cost.

Dr. Gregersen is a research professor at California Medical Innovations Institute, San Diego.

Mary J. Pattison, RN – Trans-Abdominal Gastric Surgical System (TAGSS)
TAGSS is a trans-abdominal gastric access device that “represents a novel and exciting means to address multiple gastrointestinal conditions that are without a standardized approach,” Ms. Pattison said. “Placed as simply as a [percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube], TAGSS offers disruptive technology to address [gastroesophageal reflux disease], fundoplication, achalasia, gastroparesis, gastric tumors, and even obesity in a safe, efficient, and cost effective manner. TAGSS offers the first true hybrid approach for endoscopic/laparoscopic collaboration.”

Ms. Pattison is a nurse clinician and endoscopy assistant at WestGlen GI Consultants, Weston, Mo.

Pankaj Rajvanshi, MD, FAASLD – Healthswim App
“At this time, most patient education is provided by Dr. Google,” Dr. Rajvanshi said, “and we want to change that. We have built a platform which allows you, the physician, to create custom, curated, credible content that can be delivered seamlessly to your patients on an ongoing basis.”

Through the Healthswim app, patients subscribe to their providers, allowing access physician-approved content. Subscribers also receive provider updates through their social media feeds.

Dr. Rajvanshi is a gastroenterologist at Swedish Medical Center, Seattle.

Ali S. Karakurum, MD, FACP, FACG – A Device for Removal of Esophageal Food Impactions
“I would like to propose a device which consists of a clear overtube, a collapsible plastic cylindrical basket secured to the distal end of the overtube ... and a snare wire attached to the distal end of the basket which is controlled by the snare handle externally,” Dr. Karakurum said. “The device is ... gradually advanced over the scope for the basket to encompass the food bolus under direct visualization. Once the food bolus is within the basket, the wire loop at the end of the basket is closed via the external handle, securing the food bolus in the basket for safe removal.”

Dr. Karakurum is a gastroenterologist at Advanced Gastroenterology & Endoscopy, Port Jefferson, N.Y.

This article was updated 5/14/21.

William of Ockham would have been proud because, at this year’s American Gastroenterological Association’s Shark Tank pitch competition, one product clearly demonstrated Ockham’s razor – that sometimes the simplest solution is best – and came away as the winner at the 2021 AGA Tech Summit sponsored by the AGA Center for GI Innovation and Technology.

Courtesy Dr. Toufic Kachaamy

Out of five innovative products, ranging from an educational app to a high-tech anorectal sensor, all aimed at improving outcomes in patients with gastrointestinal disorders, the winner was ... drumroll please ...

A needle.

That’s it. A needle. But not like any other needle.


 

Winner: Toufic Kachaamy, MD, FASGE, AGAF – An EUS-guided access needle

This EUS-guided access needle, invented by Dr. Kachaamy, enterprise clinical leader at Cancer Treatment Centers of America, Phoenix, is a simple device that overcomes a longstanding challenge presented by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP): biliary access.

Many “ERCPs are considered difficult, and sometimes fail, depending on the center and the endoscopist,” Dr. Kachaamy said during a virtual presentation. “Most failures are due to failed initial access to the bile duct.”

Indeed, one study cited a failure rate in ductal cannulation of 5%-15% even among experienced hands.

Failure can have several consequences, Dr. Kachaamy noted, including increased complications, higher cost, delayed care, longer hospitalization, and greater likelihood of patient transfer.

He went on to explain why biliary access can be so challenging and how this EUS-guided access needle helps address these issues.

“[The] two main limitations [during endoscopic ultrasound–guided biliary access] are directing the wire into the narrowed areas and the wire shearing as we are manipulating the wire to get it to where we want it,” Dr. Kachaamy said. “[This EUS-guided access needle] is a 19-22 gauge, rotatable needle with a smooth, side exit for the wire to allow wire manipulation and direction without shearing.”

Dr. Kachaamy highlighted the simple design, which will keep the production cost below $300 per unit, and suggested that failed ERCPs are just the first potential indication of many. Future uses may include gallbladder access, peri-GI collection, gastrojejunostomy, and others.

In an interview, Dr. Kachaamy reacted to the win, which follows 2 years of collaborative development with Cancer Treatment Centers of America.

“For people who are innovators, there’s nothing that feels more rewarding than their ideas being recognized as adding something to the field and potentially helping people and patients,” Dr. Kachaamy said. “So [this is] very, very, very exciting. Very rewarding. Pride would probably be the best way I’d describe it.”

Dr. Kachaamy anticipates that this EUS-guided access needle will be commercially available within 1-2 years, pending regulatory approval. In the meantime, he and his colleagues are seeking a strategic partner.


 

A shark speaks

V. Raman Muthusamy, MD, AGAF, immediate past chair of the AGA Center for GI Innovation and Technology and director of endoscopy at UCLA Health System, moderated the Shark Tank session, calling it “the highlight” of the AGA Tech Summit.

Dr. Muthusamy and four other “sharks,” including a gastroenterologist, venture capitalist, regulatory device reviewer, and entrepreneur, scored the pitches using three equally weighted categories: the quality of the pitch, the level of innovation and impact on the field, and the quality of the business plan and overall feasibility.

“We saw a full spectrum [of innovations],” Dr. Muthusamy said. “I think it was an enjoyable session.”

Behind closed doors, the sharks narrowed the field to two top contenders. Ultimately, however, there could be only one winner: Dr. Kachaamy. Their decision aligned with a “Fan Favorite” audience poll.

“A lot of [Dr. Kachaamy’s win] had to do with the potential applications and commonality of the problem,” Dr. Muthusamy said in an interview. He highlighted how the EUS-guided access needle allows for an immediate response to ERCP failure without the need for a second procedure.

Dr. Muthusamy also noted that several product designs previously failed to achieve what the EUS-guided access needle has the potential to do.

“I think the feeling was that this seemed to be a way that may address some of the limitations and challenges that we’ve had with earlier [attempts at solving this problem],” Dr. Muthusamy said.

For innovators who didn’t make the cut this year, or those with products still in development, Dr. Muthusamy suggested applying next year.

“We encourage our colleagues and members of the AGA to continue to apply to this program,” Dr. Muthusamy said.
 

Other fish in the sea

Four other innovators entered the AGA Shark Tank this year. Here are snippets of their pitches:

Hans Gregersen, MD, PhD, MPH – Fecobionics
“Fecobionics is a simulated electronic stool with the consistency and shape of normal stool,” Dr. Gregersen said.

The balloon device, which contains multiple sensors, provides “real-time, quantitative, and mechanistic insights by simulating defecation.”

“It ... is inserted into the rectum,” Dr. Gregersen said. “It measures multiple pressures; it has gyroscopes that measure orientation; we can compute the bending of the device; and we can calculate the shape of the device.”

According to Dr. Gregersen, Fecobionics has “diagnostic potential for patients with fecal incontinence and for subtyping patients with constipation.” He highlighted fewer false-positives than current technology, alongside greater efficiency and lower cost.

Dr. Gregersen is a research professor at California Medical Innovations Institute, San Diego.

Mary J. Pattison, RN – Trans-Abdominal Gastric Surgical System (TAGSS)
TAGSS is a trans-abdominal gastric access device that “represents a novel and exciting means to address multiple gastrointestinal conditions that are without a standardized approach,” Ms. Pattison said. “Placed as simply as a [percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube], TAGSS offers disruptive technology to address [gastroesophageal reflux disease], fundoplication, achalasia, gastroparesis, gastric tumors, and even obesity in a safe, efficient, and cost effective manner. TAGSS offers the first true hybrid approach for endoscopic/laparoscopic collaboration.”

Ms. Pattison is a nurse clinician and endoscopy assistant at WestGlen GI Consultants, Weston, Mo.

Pankaj Rajvanshi, MD, FAASLD – Healthswim App
“At this time, most patient education is provided by Dr. Google,” Dr. Rajvanshi said, “and we want to change that. We have built a platform which allows you, the physician, to create custom, curated, credible content that can be delivered seamlessly to your patients on an ongoing basis.”

Through the Healthswim app, patients subscribe to their providers, allowing access physician-approved content. Subscribers also receive provider updates through their social media feeds.

Dr. Rajvanshi is a gastroenterologist at Swedish Medical Center, Seattle.

Ali S. Karakurum, MD, FACP, FACG – A Device for Removal of Esophageal Food Impactions
“I would like to propose a device which consists of a clear overtube, a collapsible plastic cylindrical basket secured to the distal end of the overtube ... and a snare wire attached to the distal end of the basket which is controlled by the snare handle externally,” Dr. Karakurum said. “The device is ... gradually advanced over the scope for the basket to encompass the food bolus under direct visualization. Once the food bolus is within the basket, the wire loop at the end of the basket is closed via the external handle, securing the food bolus in the basket for safe removal.”

Dr. Karakurum is a gastroenterologist at Advanced Gastroenterology & Endoscopy, Port Jefferson, N.Y.

This article was updated 5/14/21.

William of Ockham would have been proud because, at this year’s American Gastroenterological Association’s Shark Tank pitch competition, one product clearly demonstrated Ockham’s razor – that sometimes the simplest solution is best – and came away as the winner at the 2021 AGA Tech Summit sponsored by the AGA Center for GI Innovation and Technology.

Courtesy Dr. Toufic Kachaamy

Out of five innovative products, ranging from an educational app to a high-tech anorectal sensor, all aimed at improving outcomes in patients with gastrointestinal disorders, the winner was ... drumroll please ...

A needle.

That’s it. A needle. But not like any other needle.


 

Winner: Toufic Kachaamy, MD, FASGE, AGAF – An EUS-guided access needle

This EUS-guided access needle, invented by Dr. Kachaamy, enterprise clinical leader at Cancer Treatment Centers of America, Phoenix, is a simple device that overcomes a longstanding challenge presented by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP): biliary access.

Many “ERCPs are considered difficult, and sometimes fail, depending on the center and the endoscopist,” Dr. Kachaamy said during a virtual presentation. “Most failures are due to failed initial access to the bile duct.”

Indeed, one study cited a failure rate in ductal cannulation of 5%-15% even among experienced hands.

Failure can have several consequences, Dr. Kachaamy noted, including increased complications, higher cost, delayed care, longer hospitalization, and greater likelihood of patient transfer.

He went on to explain why biliary access can be so challenging and how this EUS-guided access needle helps address these issues.

“[The] two main limitations [during endoscopic ultrasound–guided biliary access] are directing the wire into the narrowed areas and the wire shearing as we are manipulating the wire to get it to where we want it,” Dr. Kachaamy said. “[This EUS-guided access needle] is a 19-22 gauge, rotatable needle with a smooth, side exit for the wire to allow wire manipulation and direction without shearing.”

Dr. Kachaamy highlighted the simple design, which will keep the production cost below $300 per unit, and suggested that failed ERCPs are just the first potential indication of many. Future uses may include gallbladder access, peri-GI collection, gastrojejunostomy, and others.

In an interview, Dr. Kachaamy reacted to the win, which follows 2 years of collaborative development with Cancer Treatment Centers of America.

“For people who are innovators, there’s nothing that feels more rewarding than their ideas being recognized as adding something to the field and potentially helping people and patients,” Dr. Kachaamy said. “So [this is] very, very, very exciting. Very rewarding. Pride would probably be the best way I’d describe it.”

Dr. Kachaamy anticipates that this EUS-guided access needle will be commercially available within 1-2 years, pending regulatory approval. In the meantime, he and his colleagues are seeking a strategic partner.


 

A shark speaks

V. Raman Muthusamy, MD, AGAF, immediate past chair of the AGA Center for GI Innovation and Technology and director of endoscopy at UCLA Health System, moderated the Shark Tank session, calling it “the highlight” of the AGA Tech Summit.

Dr. Muthusamy and four other “sharks,” including a gastroenterologist, venture capitalist, regulatory device reviewer, and entrepreneur, scored the pitches using three equally weighted categories: the quality of the pitch, the level of innovation and impact on the field, and the quality of the business plan and overall feasibility.

“We saw a full spectrum [of innovations],” Dr. Muthusamy said. “I think it was an enjoyable session.”

Behind closed doors, the sharks narrowed the field to two top contenders. Ultimately, however, there could be only one winner: Dr. Kachaamy. Their decision aligned with a “Fan Favorite” audience poll.

“A lot of [Dr. Kachaamy’s win] had to do with the potential applications and commonality of the problem,” Dr. Muthusamy said in an interview. He highlighted how the EUS-guided access needle allows for an immediate response to ERCP failure without the need for a second procedure.

Dr. Muthusamy also noted that several product designs previously failed to achieve what the EUS-guided access needle has the potential to do.

“I think the feeling was that this seemed to be a way that may address some of the limitations and challenges that we’ve had with earlier [attempts at solving this problem],” Dr. Muthusamy said.

For innovators who didn’t make the cut this year, or those with products still in development, Dr. Muthusamy suggested applying next year.

“We encourage our colleagues and members of the AGA to continue to apply to this program,” Dr. Muthusamy said.
 

Other fish in the sea

Four other innovators entered the AGA Shark Tank this year. Here are snippets of their pitches:

Hans Gregersen, MD, PhD, MPH – Fecobionics
“Fecobionics is a simulated electronic stool with the consistency and shape of normal stool,” Dr. Gregersen said.

The balloon device, which contains multiple sensors, provides “real-time, quantitative, and mechanistic insights by simulating defecation.”

“It ... is inserted into the rectum,” Dr. Gregersen said. “It measures multiple pressures; it has gyroscopes that measure orientation; we can compute the bending of the device; and we can calculate the shape of the device.”

According to Dr. Gregersen, Fecobionics has “diagnostic potential for patients with fecal incontinence and for subtyping patients with constipation.” He highlighted fewer false-positives than current technology, alongside greater efficiency and lower cost.

Dr. Gregersen is a research professor at California Medical Innovations Institute, San Diego.

Mary J. Pattison, RN – Trans-Abdominal Gastric Surgical System (TAGSS)
TAGSS is a trans-abdominal gastric access device that “represents a novel and exciting means to address multiple gastrointestinal conditions that are without a standardized approach,” Ms. Pattison said. “Placed as simply as a [percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube], TAGSS offers disruptive technology to address [gastroesophageal reflux disease], fundoplication, achalasia, gastroparesis, gastric tumors, and even obesity in a safe, efficient, and cost effective manner. TAGSS offers the first true hybrid approach for endoscopic/laparoscopic collaboration.”

Ms. Pattison is a nurse clinician and endoscopy assistant at WestGlen GI Consultants, Weston, Mo.

Pankaj Rajvanshi, MD, FAASLD – Healthswim App
“At this time, most patient education is provided by Dr. Google,” Dr. Rajvanshi said, “and we want to change that. We have built a platform which allows you, the physician, to create custom, curated, credible content that can be delivered seamlessly to your patients on an ongoing basis.”

Through the Healthswim app, patients subscribe to their providers, allowing access physician-approved content. Subscribers also receive provider updates through their social media feeds.

Dr. Rajvanshi is a gastroenterologist at Swedish Medical Center, Seattle.

Ali S. Karakurum, MD, FACP, FACG – A Device for Removal of Esophageal Food Impactions
“I would like to propose a device which consists of a clear overtube, a collapsible plastic cylindrical basket secured to the distal end of the overtube ... and a snare wire attached to the distal end of the basket which is controlled by the snare handle externally,” Dr. Karakurum said. “The device is ... gradually advanced over the scope for the basket to encompass the food bolus under direct visualization. Once the food bolus is within the basket, the wire loop at the end of the basket is closed via the external handle, securing the food bolus in the basket for safe removal.”

Dr. Karakurum is a gastroenterologist at Advanced Gastroenterology & Endoscopy, Port Jefferson, N.Y.

This article was updated 5/14/21.

Among patients with locally advanced resectable esophageal or junctional cancer, the overall survival benefit conferred by preoperative chemoradiotherapy persists for at least 10 years, according to long-term results of the Chemoradiotherapy for Esophageal Cancer Followed by Surgery Study (CROSS). As a result of earlier publication of CROSS data, chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery has become one of the standards of care for patients with locally advanced resectable esophageal cancer, stated lead author Ben M. Eyck, MD, of Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and colleagues in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

In the multicenter, randomized trial, initiated in 2004, 178 patients randomized to chemoradiotherapy with subsequent surgery and 188 patients randomized to surgery alone were followed with overall survival as the primary, and cause-specific survival and risks of locoregional and distant relapse as the secondary endpoints. Chemoradiotherapy consisted of 5 weekly cycles of carboplatin (area under the curve of 2 mg/mL/min) and paclitaxel (50 mg/m² body surface area on days 1, 8, 15, 22, and 29) with concurrent radiotherapy (41.4 Gy in 23 fractions, 5 days per week. Mean age was 60 years (around 78% male), with squamous cell carcinoma (23%) and adenocarcinoma (75%) as the predominant histologies.

The first analysis showed low short-term toxicity and 2-year survival increased from 50% for patients receiving surgery alone to 67% for neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy plus surgery. Five-year follow-up data were consistent with initial reporting. Long-term benefits and harms of this regimen remain unclear, according to the researchers. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy’s side effects could lead to long-term death from other causes than esophageal cancer, and may not be preventing but rather merely postponing cancer-related death. The aim of the current analysis was to determine whether the observed benefits persisted beyond 5 years.

As of Dec. 31, 2018, 117/178 patients in the chemoradiotherapy-surgery arm and 144/188 in the surgery arm had died. Median follow-up for surviving patients was 147 months. Patients in the chemoradiotherapy surgery arm had better overall survival than patients in the surgery arm (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.55-0.89; P = .004), with a 10-year overall survival of 38% (95% CI, 31-45) and 25% (95% CI, 19-32), respectively. No significant subgroup differences were observed for overall survival. Also, there was no evidence of a time-dependent effect of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy on overall survival. The major effect of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, landmark analyses showed, was in the first 5 years of follow-up, with the effect on overall survival stabilized thereafter, with a hazard ratio approaching 1.00.
 

Cause-specific mortality

Eighty-four of 178 patients in the chemoradiotherapy-surgery arm died of esophageal cancer, with 32 dying of other causes. In the surgery arm, 121/188 died of esophageal cancer and 22 of other causes. The hazard ratio for esophageal cancer death in the chemoradiotherapy-surgery arm was 0.60 (95% CI, 0.46 to 0.80), with 10-year absolute risks of 47% (95% CI, 40-54) and 64% (95% CI,57-71), respectively, in the two arms. Death from other causes was comparable, with 10-year absolute risks of 15% (95% CI, 10-21) and 11% (95% CI, 7-16), respectively, for chemoradiotherapy-surgery versus surgery alone.

Locoregional relapse

Locoregional relapse rates were 8% (15/178) and 18% (33/188) in the chemoradiotherapy-surgery and surgery arms, respectively (HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.21-0.72). Eighty-seven percent of those developed within 3 years of follow-up in the chemoradiotherapy arm, with the median relapse-free interval at 3.9 months. In the surgery arm, 28 of 33 relapses (85%) developed within 3 years and the median relapse-free interval was 7.1 months. Beyond 6 years, there were no further relapses in either arm.

While synchronous distant plus locoregional relapse developed in 23 of 178 patients (13%) in the chemoradiotherapy-surgery arm and in 42 of 188 patients (22%) in the surgery arm (HR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.26-0.72), isolated distant relapse developed at similar rates (around 27.5%) in both groups. Risk of distant relapse (with or without locoregional relapse) was lower in the chemoradiotherapy-surgery arm (HR, 0.61; 95%CI, 0.45-0.84). The median relapse-free interval was 15.1 months (interquartile range, 9.3-27.6) in the chemoradiotherapy-surgery arm and 9.0 months (IQR, 5.3-19.7) in the surgery arm.
 

Safety and health-related quality of life

The combination of paclitaxel and carboplatin with concurrent 41.4 Gy radiotherapy before surgery seems safe in the long term and does not significantly increase the risk of toxicity-related death, the researchers stated. Within the CROSS trial, short-term and long-term health-related quality of life after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy plus surgery for surviving patients was comparable to that after surgery alone.

Long-term persistent overall survival benefit

Ten-year CROSS results show that “for locally advanced resectable cancer of the esophagus or esophagogastric junction, preoperative chemoradiotherapy induces a long-term persistent improvement in overall survival.” Also, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy does not lead to an increased risk of death from other causes, and the survival benefit of long-term survivors is not compromised, compared with surgery alone. Furthermore, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy plus surgery according to CROSS can still be regarded as a standard of care, the researchers added.

Dr. Eyck and colleagues are currently performing the phase II TNT-OES-1 trial. It combines FLOT (fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin and docetaxel) chemotherapy followed by CROSS chemoradiotherapy in patients with advanced esophageal and junctional adenocarcinoma. If this regimen appears to be safe in advanced cancer, they plan to perform a phase III trial with this regimen in locally advanced cancer. In addition, they are currently evaluating the implementation of adjuvant nivolumab in clinical practice for patients with pathologically residual disease after CROSS + surgery, based on the recently published CheckMate 577 trial .

“If possible, we prefer adding better systemic therapy to chemoradiotherapy rather than replacing chemoradiotherapy with systemic therapy alone,” Dr. Eyck said in an interview. “The reason for this is that we would like to allow patients with a complete response to neoadjuvant therapy to undergo active surveillance instead of surgery in the near future. … Since the pathologically complete response rate after regimens containing radiotherapy is substantially higher, we still prefer the addition of radiotherapy.”

The study was funded by the Dutch Cancer Foundation (KWF Kankerbestrijding). Dr. Eyck reported no disclosures. Several of the coauthors reported consulting and advisory roles with a variety of pharmaceutical companies.

Among patients with locally advanced resectable esophageal or junctional cancer, the overall survival benefit conferred by preoperative chemoradiotherapy persists for at least 10 years, according to long-term results of the Chemoradiotherapy for Esophageal Cancer Followed by Surgery Study (CROSS). As a result of earlier publication of CROSS data, chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery has become one of the standards of care for patients with locally advanced resectable esophageal cancer, stated lead author Ben M. Eyck, MD, of Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and colleagues in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

In the multicenter, randomized trial, initiated in 2004, 178 patients randomized to chemoradiotherapy with subsequent surgery and 188 patients randomized to surgery alone were followed with overall survival as the primary, and cause-specific survival and risks of locoregional and distant relapse as the secondary endpoints. Chemoradiotherapy consisted of 5 weekly cycles of carboplatin (area under the curve of 2 mg/mL/min) and paclitaxel (50 mg/m² body surface area on days 1, 8, 15, 22, and 29) with concurrent radiotherapy (41.4 Gy in 23 fractions, 5 days per week. Mean age was 60 years (around 78% male), with squamous cell carcinoma (23%) and adenocarcinoma (75%) as the predominant histologies.

The first analysis showed low short-term toxicity and 2-year survival increased from 50% for patients receiving surgery alone to 67% for neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy plus surgery. Five-year follow-up data were consistent with initial reporting. Long-term benefits and harms of this regimen remain unclear, according to the researchers. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy’s side effects could lead to long-term death from other causes than esophageal cancer, and may not be preventing but rather merely postponing cancer-related death. The aim of the current analysis was to determine whether the observed benefits persisted beyond 5 years.

As of Dec. 31, 2018, 117/178 patients in the chemoradiotherapy-surgery arm and 144/188 in the surgery arm had died. Median follow-up for surviving patients was 147 months. Patients in the chemoradiotherapy surgery arm had better overall survival than patients in the surgery arm (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.55-0.89; P = .004), with a 10-year overall survival of 38% (95% CI, 31-45) and 25% (95% CI, 19-32), respectively. No significant subgroup differences were observed for overall survival. Also, there was no evidence of a time-dependent effect of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy on overall survival. The major effect of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, landmark analyses showed, was in the first 5 years of follow-up, with the effect on overall survival stabilized thereafter, with a hazard ratio approaching 1.00.
 

Cause-specific mortality

Eighty-four of 178 patients in the chemoradiotherapy-surgery arm died of esophageal cancer, with 32 dying of other causes. In the surgery arm, 121/188 died of esophageal cancer and 22 of other causes. The hazard ratio for esophageal cancer death in the chemoradiotherapy-surgery arm was 0.60 (95% CI, 0.46 to 0.80), with 10-year absolute risks of 47% (95% CI, 40-54) and 64% (95% CI,57-71), respectively, in the two arms. Death from other causes was comparable, with 10-year absolute risks of 15% (95% CI, 10-21) and 11% (95% CI, 7-16), respectively, for chemoradiotherapy-surgery versus surgery alone.

Locoregional relapse

Locoregional relapse rates were 8% (15/178) and 18% (33/188) in the chemoradiotherapy-surgery and surgery arms, respectively (HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.21-0.72). Eighty-seven percent of those developed within 3 years of follow-up in the chemoradiotherapy arm, with the median relapse-free interval at 3.9 months. In the surgery arm, 28 of 33 relapses (85%) developed within 3 years and the median relapse-free interval was 7.1 months. Beyond 6 years, there were no further relapses in either arm.

While synchronous distant plus locoregional relapse developed in 23 of 178 patients (13%) in the chemoradiotherapy-surgery arm and in 42 of 188 patients (22%) in the surgery arm (HR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.26-0.72), isolated distant relapse developed at similar rates (around 27.5%) in both groups. Risk of distant relapse (with or without locoregional relapse) was lower in the chemoradiotherapy-surgery arm (HR, 0.61; 95%CI, 0.45-0.84). The median relapse-free interval was 15.1 months (interquartile range, 9.3-27.6) in the chemoradiotherapy-surgery arm and 9.0 months (IQR, 5.3-19.7) in the surgery arm.
 

Safety and health-related quality of life

The combination of paclitaxel and carboplatin with concurrent 41.4 Gy radiotherapy before surgery seems safe in the long term and does not significantly increase the risk of toxicity-related death, the researchers stated. Within the CROSS trial, short-term and long-term health-related quality of life after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy plus surgery for surviving patients was comparable to that after surgery alone.

Long-term persistent overall survival benefit

Ten-year CROSS results show that “for locally advanced resectable cancer of the esophagus or esophagogastric junction, preoperative chemoradiotherapy induces a long-term persistent improvement in overall survival.” Also, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy does not lead to an increased risk of death from other causes, and the survival benefit of long-term survivors is not compromised, compared with surgery alone. Furthermore, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy plus surgery according to CROSS can still be regarded as a standard of care, the researchers added.

Dr. Eyck and colleagues are currently performing the phase II TNT-OES-1 trial. It combines FLOT (fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin and docetaxel) chemotherapy followed by CROSS chemoradiotherapy in patients with advanced esophageal and junctional adenocarcinoma. If this regimen appears to be safe in advanced cancer, they plan to perform a phase III trial with this regimen in locally advanced cancer. In addition, they are currently evaluating the implementation of adjuvant nivolumab in clinical practice for patients with pathologically residual disease after CROSS + surgery, based on the recently published CheckMate 577 trial .

“If possible, we prefer adding better systemic therapy to chemoradiotherapy rather than replacing chemoradiotherapy with systemic therapy alone,” Dr. Eyck said in an interview. “The reason for this is that we would like to allow patients with a complete response to neoadjuvant therapy to undergo active surveillance instead of surgery in the near future. … Since the pathologically complete response rate after regimens containing radiotherapy is substantially higher, we still prefer the addition of radiotherapy.”

The study was funded by the Dutch Cancer Foundation (KWF Kankerbestrijding). Dr. Eyck reported no disclosures. Several of the coauthors reported consulting and advisory roles with a variety of pharmaceutical companies.

Among patients with locally advanced resectable esophageal or junctional cancer, the overall survival benefit conferred by preoperative chemoradiotherapy persists for at least 10 years, according to long-term results of the Chemoradiotherapy for Esophageal Cancer Followed by Surgery Study (CROSS). As a result of earlier publication of CROSS data, chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery has become one of the standards of care for patients with locally advanced resectable esophageal cancer, stated lead author Ben M. Eyck, MD, of Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and colleagues in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

In the multicenter, randomized trial, initiated in 2004, 178 patients randomized to chemoradiotherapy with subsequent surgery and 188 patients randomized to surgery alone were followed with overall survival as the primary, and cause-specific survival and risks of locoregional and distant relapse as the secondary endpoints. Chemoradiotherapy consisted of 5 weekly cycles of carboplatin (area under the curve of 2 mg/mL/min) and paclitaxel (50 mg/m² body surface area on days 1, 8, 15, 22, and 29) with concurrent radiotherapy (41.4 Gy in 23 fractions, 5 days per week. Mean age was 60 years (around 78% male), with squamous cell carcinoma (23%) and adenocarcinoma (75%) as the predominant histologies.

The first analysis showed low short-term toxicity and 2-year survival increased from 50% for patients receiving surgery alone to 67% for neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy plus surgery. Five-year follow-up data were consistent with initial reporting. Long-term benefits and harms of this regimen remain unclear, according to the researchers. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy’s side effects could lead to long-term death from other causes than esophageal cancer, and may not be preventing but rather merely postponing cancer-related death. The aim of the current analysis was to determine whether the observed benefits persisted beyond 5 years.

As of Dec. 31, 2018, 117/178 patients in the chemoradiotherapy-surgery arm and 144/188 in the surgery arm had died. Median follow-up for surviving patients was 147 months. Patients in the chemoradiotherapy surgery arm had better overall survival than patients in the surgery arm (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.55-0.89; P = .004), with a 10-year overall survival of 38% (95% CI, 31-45) and 25% (95% CI, 19-32), respectively. No significant subgroup differences were observed for overall survival. Also, there was no evidence of a time-dependent effect of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy on overall survival. The major effect of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, landmark analyses showed, was in the first 5 years of follow-up, with the effect on overall survival stabilized thereafter, with a hazard ratio approaching 1.00.
 

Cause-specific mortality

Eighty-four of 178 patients in the chemoradiotherapy-surgery arm died of esophageal cancer, with 32 dying of other causes. In the surgery arm, 121/188 died of esophageal cancer and 22 of other causes. The hazard ratio for esophageal cancer death in the chemoradiotherapy-surgery arm was 0.60 (95% CI, 0.46 to 0.80), with 10-year absolute risks of 47% (95% CI, 40-54) and 64% (95% CI,57-71), respectively, in the two arms. Death from other causes was comparable, with 10-year absolute risks of 15% (95% CI, 10-21) and 11% (95% CI, 7-16), respectively, for chemoradiotherapy-surgery versus surgery alone.

Locoregional relapse

Locoregional relapse rates were 8% (15/178) and 18% (33/188) in the chemoradiotherapy-surgery and surgery arms, respectively (HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.21-0.72). Eighty-seven percent of those developed within 3 years of follow-up in the chemoradiotherapy arm, with the median relapse-free interval at 3.9 months. In the surgery arm, 28 of 33 relapses (85%) developed within 3 years and the median relapse-free interval was 7.1 months. Beyond 6 years, there were no further relapses in either arm.

While synchronous distant plus locoregional relapse developed in 23 of 178 patients (13%) in the chemoradiotherapy-surgery arm and in 42 of 188 patients (22%) in the surgery arm (HR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.26-0.72), isolated distant relapse developed at similar rates (around 27.5%) in both groups. Risk of distant relapse (with or without locoregional relapse) was lower in the chemoradiotherapy-surgery arm (HR, 0.61; 95%CI, 0.45-0.84). The median relapse-free interval was 15.1 months (interquartile range, 9.3-27.6) in the chemoradiotherapy-surgery arm and 9.0 months (IQR, 5.3-19.7) in the surgery arm.
 

Safety and health-related quality of life

The combination of paclitaxel and carboplatin with concurrent 41.4 Gy radiotherapy before surgery seems safe in the long term and does not significantly increase the risk of toxicity-related death, the researchers stated. Within the CROSS trial, short-term and long-term health-related quality of life after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy plus surgery for surviving patients was comparable to that after surgery alone.

Long-term persistent overall survival benefit

Ten-year CROSS results show that “for locally advanced resectable cancer of the esophagus or esophagogastric junction, preoperative chemoradiotherapy induces a long-term persistent improvement in overall survival.” Also, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy does not lead to an increased risk of death from other causes, and the survival benefit of long-term survivors is not compromised, compared with surgery alone. Furthermore, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy plus surgery according to CROSS can still be regarded as a standard of care, the researchers added.

Dr. Eyck and colleagues are currently performing the phase II TNT-OES-1 trial. It combines FLOT (fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin and docetaxel) chemotherapy followed by CROSS chemoradiotherapy in patients with advanced esophageal and junctional adenocarcinoma. If this regimen appears to be safe in advanced cancer, they plan to perform a phase III trial with this regimen in locally advanced cancer. In addition, they are currently evaluating the implementation of adjuvant nivolumab in clinical practice for patients with pathologically residual disease after CROSS + surgery, based on the recently published CheckMate 577 trial .

“If possible, we prefer adding better systemic therapy to chemoradiotherapy rather than replacing chemoradiotherapy with systemic therapy alone,” Dr. Eyck said in an interview. “The reason for this is that we would like to allow patients with a complete response to neoadjuvant therapy to undergo active surveillance instead of surgery in the near future. … Since the pathologically complete response rate after regimens containing radiotherapy is substantially higher, we still prefer the addition of radiotherapy.”

The study was funded by the Dutch Cancer Foundation (KWF Kankerbestrijding). Dr. Eyck reported no disclosures. Several of the coauthors reported consulting and advisory roles with a variety of pharmaceutical companies.

Participants in the Alliance for Headache Disorders Advocacy session requested federal funding for headache research and treatment. While patients told their stories, a noted advocate said headache is “an eminently solvable problem, but the urgency is now.”

It is going to take more than a pandemic to stop key headache advocacy stakeholders from raising awareness of the devastating impact of migraine and cluster headache and to motivate Congress to act.

With COVID-19 still very much a part of our lives, the Alliance for Headache Disorders Advocacy (AHDA)—a nonprofit dedicated to advocating for equitable policies for people with headache disorders—moved forward with its annual Headache on the Hill advocacy day, which took place virtually for the first time via videoconferencing on March 23, 2021.

While participants missed the opportunity to travel to Washington to meet with key legislators face-to-face, optimists saw it as a chance to involve more patients, providers, researchers, and caregivers who otherwise would not be able to participate. Indeed, more were involved than ever before: 217 individuals from 47 states and 178 Congressional districts attended, meeting with influential lawmakers, including Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), chair of the Appropriations Committee; Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL), vice chair of the Appropriations Committee; Rep. Rose DeLauro (D-CT), chair of the House Committee on Appropriations; Senator Jon Tester (D-MT), chair of Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs; Senator Jerry Moran (R-KS), ranking member of the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs; Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), chair of the Senate HELP Committee; and Senator Richard Burr (R-NC), ranking member of the Senate HELP Committee.

I have had the privilege of being a part of Headache on the Hill for 13 years and was pleased to participate in this year’s virtual event. Though the setting was different, our mission remained the same: to make our important legislative requests (“asks”) of as many offices in Congress as possible. This year, we had 2 asks that aim to improve headache research and access to treatment, especially for our Veterans:

• Increased research funding: The group requested that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Helping to End Addiction Long-Term (HEAL) initiative focus on headache disorders to reduce disease burden and opioid prescribing. This would make more funding available for headache research.

• Improved treatment access: The group also asked Congress to fully fund Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Headache Disorders Centers of Excellence (HCoE), facilitating equitable access to care for disabled veterans. This would double the number of VA Centers of Excellence to treat headache disorders in our veterans.

Of course, getting results means more than simply asking. The request to our congresspeople and their staff is more likely to succeed if it is well-reasoned and backed by evidence; and the Headache on the Hill contingent delivered on these requirements.

Why Congress should direct HEAL to focus on headache disorders:

• Headache disorders are extraordinarily burdensome. As most of us know (but not all legislators are aware), 60 million Americans suffer from migraine headache; it is the second leading cause of disability lifetime in the world.¹ Additionally, cluster headache is thought to be the most severe type of pain humans can experience.²

• There is a critical need for more effective and safer treatments for headache disorders. Opioid use is known to worsen migraine frequency and severity for some and make medications for headache less effective.³ Guidelines uniformly recommend against treating migraine with opioids; yet somehow 10% of migraine sufferers actively use opioids,⁴ and nearly 60% receive opioids during visits to the emergency room.⁵

• NIH has underfunded research on headache disorders. NIH has not prioritized programs for headache disorders research despite the fact that since 2009, 17 appropriations report language statements have strongly urged NIH to do so.⁶ In fact, headache is the least-funded research area among the most burdensome diseases.^7,8 Instead, other important disorders were funded, even though Headache on the Hill advocacy arranged for the report language for headache.

• Statutory authority for the HEAL initiative calls for disease burden to be a “crucial consideration” in prioritizing research programs. Less than 1% of HEAL grants have been for headache disorders research.¹⁰ If disease burden was used as the only gauge for funding, NIH investment for migraine research would likely be 15 times higher than the roughly $20 million that has historically been allocated.⁹ We hope our work this year will get us where we need to be.

Why Congress should fully fund VHA Headache Disorders Centers of Excellence  

• Headache disorders are a major health issue for veterans. Some 350,000 Global War on Terror (GWOT) veterans have sustained traumatic brain injuries. Many of them experience headaches. In fact, research shows that half of these veterans reported 15 or more headache days per month 4 to 11 years after sustaining traumatic brain injury. Nine of every 10 veterans met the criteria for migraine.¹⁰ Moreover, 3 million GWOT veterans have been exposed to toxic open burn pits.¹¹ These individuals have been found to be twice as likely to experience functional limitations due to migraine than those who did not have burn pit duties.¹²

• Headache Centers of Excellence (HCoEs) work. In 2018, $10 million was appropriated to establish at least 5 HCoEs that provided 1) comprehensive direct patient specialized headache medicine care within the VHA; 2) consultation and referral specialized headache care centers within the VHA; 3) education and training of VHA healthcare providers in headache medicine; and 4) research to improve the quality of headache disorders care for veterans and civilians.¹³

• Fourteen sites now exist, and success continues to be demonstrated. Last year more than 400,000 veterans sought specialty care for headache disorders from the VHA.¹⁴ However, only half of these vets are within reasonable reach of a HCoE.

The asks

Armed with this evidence, we made specific asks of the House and Senate with respect to annual appropriations spending bills:

1. Legislators were asked to sign on to a letter or send their own letter to officials on the House and Senate Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies appropriations subcommittees to allocate $50 million from the HEAL initiative for headache disorders research in fiscal year 2022.

2. Similarly, lawmakers were asked to sign onto a letter or send their own letter to members of the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs subcommittee to appropriate $25 million to fund a doubling of HCoEs from 14 to 28 to improve access to those seeking care for headache disorders.

Stories from Americans nationwide

Headache on the Hill is about more than just presenting evidence and making requests. If that were the case, there is a pretty good chance that, before long, legislators would be looking at their watches, checking their smartphones, and flashing knowing glances at their aides in an effort to cut things short. However, humanizing the topic by sharing stories of the toll migraine and cluster headaches take on individuals is compelling testimony that hopefully will lead to meaningful action and positive outcomes. Here is a sampling of the stories told during and after the Headache on the Hill session:

• Rachel Koh and Ronetta Stokes: Koh registered for both the 2019 and 2020 Headache on the Hill sessions, only to be forced to cancel due to migraine attacks. But this year, according to the American Migraine Foundation, she was able to participate virtually and tell her representatives why increased funding was important for her, as well as veterans, including her father and uncle. Meanwhile, Stokes, a first-time participant, said she was struck by the conversations she had with legislators. Most knew someone with migraine, and some were sufferers themselves. “The more we share and spread the word, the sooner we can end the stigma,” Stokes told the American Migraine Foundation.

• Mia Maysack: Maysack wrote about her experience in a column for Pain News Network. “I live with both migraine disease and cluster headaches, which are called ‘suicide headaches’ for good reason,” she wrote. “There’s no limit to the chaos, interruption, inconvenience, and discomfort these conditions have caused in my life, requiring my full-time attention just to manage the symptoms. The difficult experiences I and countless others have faced in seeking, finding, and attempting different forms of treatment is why I continue to advocate—even when I don't feel up to it.” Maysack added that although it is relatively easy for her to receive a medication prescription for her condition, she’d like to see more consideration given to treatments such as water therapy, massage, oxygen, and mindful meditation.

• Chloe Vruno: Vruno, a 21-year-old college student, has suffered with migraine since the age of 15. “Some days are worse than others,” she noted in an article in her local newspaper, the Steuben County, IN Herald Republican. “Most days I have to push through a migraine to make it to class, but some days are so severe that I cannot make it to classes. On days I cannot make it, I use my accommodation for attendance flexibility, or now with COVID, I Zoom into class from my room.” Vruno wanted to make her representatives aware of these types of disruptions, a regular occurrence for migraine sufferers like her. This was her second Headache on the Hill event, and she found lawmakers whom she spoke with to be “extremely attentive, engaged, and excited.”

“A moral imperative”

Stories like these from regular individuals across the United States who suffer from headache disorders go a long way in convincing legislators to act. It also helps to tap into a celebrity’s endorsement when you can. Headache on the Hill did not disappoint in this regard, with Jon Stewart, the former host of The Daily Show, appearing as a special guest during a policy panel discussion on chronic headache disorders and toxic exposure. The session, which took place virtually as part of Headache on the Hill, featured Stewart, a national advocate for service personnel with toxic exposures, and Rep. Mark Takano (D-CA), who delivered the keynote address. The panel discussion included first responders, veterans, and clinicians.

Stewart summed up the sentiments of all Headache on the Hill stakeholders this way: “This is an eminently solvable problem, but the urgency is now. People will continue to suffer needlessly if we don’t get this done. It is a moral imperative that we pass a bill on presumption as soon as possible.”

I always enjoy going to Washington on cold days in February to be part of Headache on the Hill, and I hope we will be back in-person next year. We have tripled the number of attendees over the last 13 years and have a higher percentage of great patients and advocates now. I have to give a special thanks to Dr. Bob Shapiro, Professor of Neurology at the University of Vermont, who started and has guided this phenomenal effort over the years, to Dr. Chris Gottschalk, Professor of Neurology at Yale, who is gradually taking over the reins, and to Katie MacDonald who runs the entire show, even though she suffers from chronic migraine on a daily basis.

Participants in the Alliance for Headache Disorders Advocacy session requested federal funding for headache research and treatment. While patients told their stories, a noted advocate said headache is “an eminently solvable problem, but the urgency is now.”

It is going to take more than a pandemic to stop key headache advocacy stakeholders from raising awareness of the devastating impact of migraine and cluster headache and to motivate Congress to act.

With COVID-19 still very much a part of our lives, the Alliance for Headache Disorders Advocacy (AHDA)—a nonprofit dedicated to advocating for equitable policies for people with headache disorders—moved forward with its annual Headache on the Hill advocacy day, which took place virtually for the first time via videoconferencing on March 23, 2021.

While participants missed the opportunity to travel to Washington to meet with key legislators face-to-face, optimists saw it as a chance to involve more patients, providers, researchers, and caregivers who otherwise would not be able to participate. Indeed, more were involved than ever before: 217 individuals from 47 states and 178 Congressional districts attended, meeting with influential lawmakers, including Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), chair of the Appropriations Committee; Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL), vice chair of the Appropriations Committee; Rep. Rose DeLauro (D-CT), chair of the House Committee on Appropriations; Senator Jon Tester (D-MT), chair of Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs; Senator Jerry Moran (R-KS), ranking member of the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs; Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), chair of the Senate HELP Committee; and Senator Richard Burr (R-NC), ranking member of the Senate HELP Committee.

I have had the privilege of being a part of Headache on the Hill for 13 years and was pleased to participate in this year’s virtual event. Though the setting was different, our mission remained the same: to make our important legislative requests (“asks”) of as many offices in Congress as possible. This year, we had 2 asks that aim to improve headache research and access to treatment, especially for our Veterans:

• Increased research funding: The group requested that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Helping to End Addiction Long-Term (HEAL) initiative focus on headache disorders to reduce disease burden and opioid prescribing. This would make more funding available for headache research.

• Improved treatment access: The group also asked Congress to fully fund Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Headache Disorders Centers of Excellence (HCoE), facilitating equitable access to care for disabled veterans. This would double the number of VA Centers of Excellence to treat headache disorders in our veterans.

Of course, getting results means more than simply asking. The request to our congresspeople and their staff is more likely to succeed if it is well-reasoned and backed by evidence; and the Headache on the Hill contingent delivered on these requirements.

Why Congress should direct HEAL to focus on headache disorders:

• Headache disorders are extraordinarily burdensome. As most of us know (but not all legislators are aware), 60 million Americans suffer from migraine headache; it is the second leading cause of disability lifetime in the world.¹ Additionally, cluster headache is thought to be the most severe type of pain humans can experience.²

• There is a critical need for more effective and safer treatments for headache disorders. Opioid use is known to worsen migraine frequency and severity for some and make medications for headache less effective.³ Guidelines uniformly recommend against treating migraine with opioids; yet somehow 10% of migraine sufferers actively use opioids,⁴ and nearly 60% receive opioids during visits to the emergency room.⁵

• NIH has underfunded research on headache disorders. NIH has not prioritized programs for headache disorders research despite the fact that since 2009, 17 appropriations report language statements have strongly urged NIH to do so.⁶ In fact, headache is the least-funded research area among the most burdensome diseases.^7,8 Instead, other important disorders were funded, even though Headache on the Hill advocacy arranged for the report language for headache.

• Statutory authority for the HEAL initiative calls for disease burden to be a “crucial consideration” in prioritizing research programs. Less than 1% of HEAL grants have been for headache disorders research.¹⁰ If disease burden was used as the only gauge for funding, NIH investment for migraine research would likely be 15 times higher than the roughly $20 million that has historically been allocated.⁹ We hope our work this year will get us where we need to be.

Why Congress should fully fund VHA Headache Disorders Centers of Excellence  

• Headache disorders are a major health issue for veterans. Some 350,000 Global War on Terror (GWOT) veterans have sustained traumatic brain injuries. Many of them experience headaches. In fact, research shows that half of these veterans reported 15 or more headache days per month 4 to 11 years after sustaining traumatic brain injury. Nine of every 10 veterans met the criteria for migraine.¹⁰ Moreover, 3 million GWOT veterans have been exposed to toxic open burn pits.¹¹ These individuals have been found to be twice as likely to experience functional limitations due to migraine than those who did not have burn pit duties.¹²

• Headache Centers of Excellence (HCoEs) work. In 2018, $10 million was appropriated to establish at least 5 HCoEs that provided 1) comprehensive direct patient specialized headache medicine care within the VHA; 2) consultation and referral specialized headache care centers within the VHA; 3) education and training of VHA healthcare providers in headache medicine; and 4) research to improve the quality of headache disorders care for veterans and civilians.¹³

• Fourteen sites now exist, and success continues to be demonstrated. Last year more than 400,000 veterans sought specialty care for headache disorders from the VHA.¹⁴ However, only half of these vets are within reasonable reach of a HCoE.

The asks

Armed with this evidence, we made specific asks of the House and Senate with respect to annual appropriations spending bills:

1. Legislators were asked to sign on to a letter or send their own letter to officials on the House and Senate Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies appropriations subcommittees to allocate $50 million from the HEAL initiative for headache disorders research in fiscal year 2022.

2. Similarly, lawmakers were asked to sign onto a letter or send their own letter to members of the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs subcommittee to appropriate $25 million to fund a doubling of HCoEs from 14 to 28 to improve access to those seeking care for headache disorders.

Stories from Americans nationwide

Headache on the Hill is about more than just presenting evidence and making requests. If that were the case, there is a pretty good chance that, before long, legislators would be looking at their watches, checking their smartphones, and flashing knowing glances at their aides in an effort to cut things short. However, humanizing the topic by sharing stories of the toll migraine and cluster headaches take on individuals is compelling testimony that hopefully will lead to meaningful action and positive outcomes. Here is a sampling of the stories told during and after the Headache on the Hill session:

• Rachel Koh and Ronetta Stokes: Koh registered for both the 2019 and 2020 Headache on the Hill sessions, only to be forced to cancel due to migraine attacks. But this year, according to the American Migraine Foundation, she was able to participate virtually and tell her representatives why increased funding was important for her, as well as veterans, including her father and uncle. Meanwhile, Stokes, a first-time participant, said she was struck by the conversations she had with legislators. Most knew someone with migraine, and some were sufferers themselves. “The more we share and spread the word, the sooner we can end the stigma,” Stokes told the American Migraine Foundation.

• Mia Maysack: Maysack wrote about her experience in a column for Pain News Network. “I live with both migraine disease and cluster headaches, which are called ‘suicide headaches’ for good reason,” she wrote. “There’s no limit to the chaos, interruption, inconvenience, and discomfort these conditions have caused in my life, requiring my full-time attention just to manage the symptoms. The difficult experiences I and countless others have faced in seeking, finding, and attempting different forms of treatment is why I continue to advocate—even when I don't feel up to it.” Maysack added that although it is relatively easy for her to receive a medication prescription for her condition, she’d like to see more consideration given to treatments such as water therapy, massage, oxygen, and mindful meditation.

• Chloe Vruno: Vruno, a 21-year-old college student, has suffered with migraine since the age of 15. “Some days are worse than others,” she noted in an article in her local newspaper, the Steuben County, IN Herald Republican. “Most days I have to push through a migraine to make it to class, but some days are so severe that I cannot make it to classes. On days I cannot make it, I use my accommodation for attendance flexibility, or now with COVID, I Zoom into class from my room.” Vruno wanted to make her representatives aware of these types of disruptions, a regular occurrence for migraine sufferers like her. This was her second Headache on the Hill event, and she found lawmakers whom she spoke with to be “extremely attentive, engaged, and excited.”

“A moral imperative”

Stories like these from regular individuals across the United States who suffer from headache disorders go a long way in convincing legislators to act. It also helps to tap into a celebrity’s endorsement when you can. Headache on the Hill did not disappoint in this regard, with Jon Stewart, the former host of The Daily Show, appearing as a special guest during a policy panel discussion on chronic headache disorders and toxic exposure. The session, which took place virtually as part of Headache on the Hill, featured Stewart, a national advocate for service personnel with toxic exposures, and Rep. Mark Takano (D-CA), who delivered the keynote address. The panel discussion included first responders, veterans, and clinicians.

Stewart summed up the sentiments of all Headache on the Hill stakeholders this way: “This is an eminently solvable problem, but the urgency is now. People will continue to suffer needlessly if we don’t get this done. It is a moral imperative that we pass a bill on presumption as soon as possible.”

I always enjoy going to Washington on cold days in February to be part of Headache on the Hill, and I hope we will be back in-person next year. We have tripled the number of attendees over the last 13 years and have a higher percentage of great patients and advocates now. I have to give a special thanks to Dr. Bob Shapiro, Professor of Neurology at the University of Vermont, who started and has guided this phenomenal effort over the years, to Dr. Chris Gottschalk, Professor of Neurology at Yale, who is gradually taking over the reins, and to Katie MacDonald who runs the entire show, even though she suffers from chronic migraine on a daily basis.

Participants in the Alliance for Headache Disorders Advocacy session requested federal funding for headache research and treatment. While patients told their stories, a noted advocate said headache is “an eminently solvable problem, but the urgency is now.”

It is going to take more than a pandemic to stop key headache advocacy stakeholders from raising awareness of the devastating impact of migraine and cluster headache and to motivate Congress to act.

With COVID-19 still very much a part of our lives, the Alliance for Headache Disorders Advocacy (AHDA)—a nonprofit dedicated to advocating for equitable policies for people with headache disorders—moved forward with its annual Headache on the Hill advocacy day, which took place virtually for the first time via videoconferencing on March 23, 2021.

While participants missed the opportunity to travel to Washington to meet with key legislators face-to-face, optimists saw it as a chance to involve more patients, providers, researchers, and caregivers who otherwise would not be able to participate. Indeed, more were involved than ever before: 217 individuals from 47 states and 178 Congressional districts attended, meeting with influential lawmakers, including Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), chair of the Appropriations Committee; Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL), vice chair of the Appropriations Committee; Rep. Rose DeLauro (D-CT), chair of the House Committee on Appropriations; Senator Jon Tester (D-MT), chair of Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs; Senator Jerry Moran (R-KS), ranking member of the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs; Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), chair of the Senate HELP Committee; and Senator Richard Burr (R-NC), ranking member of the Senate HELP Committee.

I have had the privilege of being a part of Headache on the Hill for 13 years and was pleased to participate in this year’s virtual event. Though the setting was different, our mission remained the same: to make our important legislative requests (“asks”) of as many offices in Congress as possible. This year, we had 2 asks that aim to improve headache research and access to treatment, especially for our Veterans:

• Increased research funding: The group requested that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Helping to End Addiction Long-Term (HEAL) initiative focus on headache disorders to reduce disease burden and opioid prescribing. This would make more funding available for headache research.

• Improved treatment access: The group also asked Congress to fully fund Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Headache Disorders Centers of Excellence (HCoE), facilitating equitable access to care for disabled veterans. This would double the number of VA Centers of Excellence to treat headache disorders in our veterans.

Of course, getting results means more than simply asking. The request to our congresspeople and their staff is more likely to succeed if it is well-reasoned and backed by evidence; and the Headache on the Hill contingent delivered on these requirements.

Why Congress should direct HEAL to focus on headache disorders:

• Headache disorders are extraordinarily burdensome. As most of us know (but not all legislators are aware), 60 million Americans suffer from migraine headache; it is the second leading cause of disability lifetime in the world.¹ Additionally, cluster headache is thought to be the most severe type of pain humans can experience.²

• There is a critical need for more effective and safer treatments for headache disorders. Opioid use is known to worsen migraine frequency and severity for some and make medications for headache less effective.³ Guidelines uniformly recommend against treating migraine with opioids; yet somehow 10% of migraine sufferers actively use opioids,⁴ and nearly 60% receive opioids during visits to the emergency room.⁵

• NIH has underfunded research on headache disorders. NIH has not prioritized programs for headache disorders research despite the fact that since 2009, 17 appropriations report language statements have strongly urged NIH to do so.⁶ In fact, headache is the least-funded research area among the most burdensome diseases.^7,8 Instead, other important disorders were funded, even though Headache on the Hill advocacy arranged for the report language for headache.

• Statutory authority for the HEAL initiative calls for disease burden to be a “crucial consideration” in prioritizing research programs. Less than 1% of HEAL grants have been for headache disorders research.¹⁰ If disease burden was used as the only gauge for funding, NIH investment for migraine research would likely be 15 times higher than the roughly $20 million that has historically been allocated.⁹ We hope our work this year will get us where we need to be.

Why Congress should fully fund VHA Headache Disorders Centers of Excellence  

• Headache disorders are a major health issue for veterans. Some 350,000 Global War on Terror (GWOT) veterans have sustained traumatic brain injuries. Many of them experience headaches. In fact, research shows that half of these veterans reported 15 or more headache days per month 4 to 11 years after sustaining traumatic brain injury. Nine of every 10 veterans met the criteria for migraine.¹⁰ Moreover, 3 million GWOT veterans have been exposed to toxic open burn pits.¹¹ These individuals have been found to be twice as likely to experience functional limitations due to migraine than those who did not have burn pit duties.¹²

• Headache Centers of Excellence (HCoEs) work. In 2018, $10 million was appropriated to establish at least 5 HCoEs that provided 1) comprehensive direct patient specialized headache medicine care within the VHA; 2) consultation and referral specialized headache care centers within the VHA; 3) education and training of VHA healthcare providers in headache medicine; and 4) research to improve the quality of headache disorders care for veterans and civilians.¹³

• Fourteen sites now exist, and success continues to be demonstrated. Last year more than 400,000 veterans sought specialty care for headache disorders from the VHA.¹⁴ However, only half of these vets are within reasonable reach of a HCoE.

The asks

Armed with this evidence, we made specific asks of the House and Senate with respect to annual appropriations spending bills:

1. Legislators were asked to sign on to a letter or send their own letter to officials on the House and Senate Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies appropriations subcommittees to allocate $50 million from the HEAL initiative for headache disorders research in fiscal year 2022.

2. Similarly, lawmakers were asked to sign onto a letter or send their own letter to members of the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs subcommittee to appropriate $25 million to fund a doubling of HCoEs from 14 to 28 to improve access to those seeking care for headache disorders.

Stories from Americans nationwide

Headache on the Hill is about more than just presenting evidence and making requests. If that were the case, there is a pretty good chance that, before long, legislators would be looking at their watches, checking their smartphones, and flashing knowing glances at their aides in an effort to cut things short. However, humanizing the topic by sharing stories of the toll migraine and cluster headaches take on individuals is compelling testimony that hopefully will lead to meaningful action and positive outcomes. Here is a sampling of the stories told during and after the Headache on the Hill session:

• Rachel Koh and Ronetta Stokes: Koh registered for both the 2019 and 2020 Headache on the Hill sessions, only to be forced to cancel due to migraine attacks. But this year, according to the American Migraine Foundation, she was able to participate virtually and tell her representatives why increased funding was important for her, as well as veterans, including her father and uncle. Meanwhile, Stokes, a first-time participant, said she was struck by the conversations she had with legislators. Most knew someone with migraine, and some were sufferers themselves. “The more we share and spread the word, the sooner we can end the stigma,” Stokes told the American Migraine Foundation.

• Mia Maysack: Maysack wrote about her experience in a column for Pain News Network. “I live with both migraine disease and cluster headaches, which are called ‘suicide headaches’ for good reason,” she wrote. “There’s no limit to the chaos, interruption, inconvenience, and discomfort these conditions have caused in my life, requiring my full-time attention just to manage the symptoms. The difficult experiences I and countless others have faced in seeking, finding, and attempting different forms of treatment is why I continue to advocate—even when I don't feel up to it.” Maysack added that although it is relatively easy for her to receive a medication prescription for her condition, she’d like to see more consideration given to treatments such as water therapy, massage, oxygen, and mindful meditation.

• Chloe Vruno: Vruno, a 21-year-old college student, has suffered with migraine since the age of 15. “Some days are worse than others,” she noted in an article in her local newspaper, the Steuben County, IN Herald Republican. “Most days I have to push through a migraine to make it to class, but some days are so severe that I cannot make it to classes. On days I cannot make it, I use my accommodation for attendance flexibility, or now with COVID, I Zoom into class from my room.” Vruno wanted to make her representatives aware of these types of disruptions, a regular occurrence for migraine sufferers like her. This was her second Headache on the Hill event, and she found lawmakers whom she spoke with to be “extremely attentive, engaged, and excited.”

“A moral imperative”

Stories like these from regular individuals across the United States who suffer from headache disorders go a long way in convincing legislators to act. It also helps to tap into a celebrity’s endorsement when you can. Headache on the Hill did not disappoint in this regard, with Jon Stewart, the former host of The Daily Show, appearing as a special guest during a policy panel discussion on chronic headache disorders and toxic exposure. The session, which took place virtually as part of Headache on the Hill, featured Stewart, a national advocate for service personnel with toxic exposures, and Rep. Mark Takano (D-CA), who delivered the keynote address. The panel discussion included first responders, veterans, and clinicians.

Stewart summed up the sentiments of all Headache on the Hill stakeholders this way: “This is an eminently solvable problem, but the urgency is now. People will continue to suffer needlessly if we don’t get this done. It is a moral imperative that we pass a bill on presumption as soon as possible.”

I always enjoy going to Washington on cold days in February to be part of Headache on the Hill, and I hope we will be back in-person next year. We have tripled the number of attendees over the last 13 years and have a higher percentage of great patients and advocates now. I have to give a special thanks to Dr. Bob Shapiro, Professor of Neurology at the University of Vermont, who started and has guided this phenomenal effort over the years, to Dr. Chris Gottschalk, Professor of Neurology at Yale, who is gradually taking over the reins, and to Katie MacDonald who runs the entire show, even though she suffers from chronic migraine on a daily basis.

For children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, taking a weekend or summer break from methylphenidate may have some benefits. A drug “holiday” can help assess whether a drug is still useful and possibly help with drug tolerance, weight gain, and growth suppression. But drug holidays are not without their problems, Lily Hechtman, MD, FRCP, professor at the department of psychiatry, McGill University, Montreal, said during a session at the World Congress on ADHD – Virtual Event.

Ceasing a medication can have repercussions from a health and social standpoint, cautioned Dr. Hechtman, a presenter and moderator of the session, “Unsolved mysteries in the treatment of ADHD with psychostimulants.”

The rate of drug holidays is somewhere between 30% and 40% in ADHD patients. Patients have multiple reasons for taking them, said Dr. Hechtman. The American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychology as well as the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence recommend this method to assess whether a medication is still necessary. Parents may opt for a drug holiday because most would prefer their children to take less medication.

A drug holiday can counteract some of the key side effects of stimulant medication such as decreased appetite and weight loss, and the moodiness and irritability that accompanies the medication, as well as sleep problems.

It may also be used to avoid drug tolerance, the need to increase dosage as medication continues. A 2002 study of 166 children and adolescents treated with methylphenidate revealed that 60% had developed drug tolerance. Drug tolerance increases with duration. “So, the longer the child is on medication, the more likely he or she will develop some drug tolerance,” said Dr. Hechtman.

It is hypothesized that a drug holiday results in the resensitization of the neurons in the brain because they aren’t exposed to the stimulation of dopamine release and dopamine exposure.

The minimum time a patient needs a drug holiday to deal with some drug tolerance is about a month. “Even if you have a drug holiday and your drug tolerance has been decreased, it can reoccur with increasing dosages, once medication resumes” after the holiday, said Dr. Hechtman.
 

The growth factor

A drug holiday can also address concerns about growth suppression. “Some studies show that drug holidays help with growth suppression and others do not,” said Dr. Hechtman.

The Multimodal Treatment of ADHD (MTA) study, which followed children with ADHD from childhood to adolescence into adulthood, offers some key insights on the effects of treatment on growth.

Over a 10-year period, “you could see that the rate of medication use decreased significantly with time” among participants, said Dr. Hechtman, a coauthor of the MTA research. Only 10% who began the study aged 7-9 years were still using stimulants 10 years later. Looking at short-term effects on growth among these children, those who never went on stimulants to begin with had no growth suppression at all, whereas those who underwent early and consistent treatment experienced the greatest growth suppression.

Comparatively, inconsistently medicated participants had less growth suppression than those who remained on medication. “They were pretty close to the controls,” said Dr. Hechtman.

These patterns continued in a 16-year follow-up, as these patients became adults. Based on the results in the inconsistently treated group, this suggests that drug holidays can limit the effects of growth suppression, at least to a certain extent, said Dr. Hechtman.

Other studies have yielded varying results on the impact of drug holidays on height and weight. “The evidence for the utility of drug holidays for medication side effects is there for decreased appetite and weight, but not so much for decreased height,” summarized Dr. Hechtman.

One recent study of 230 children by James Waxmonsky and colleagues that examined drug holidays on weekends and summers showed that drug holidays did increase weight but interestingly, not height. Older studies Dr. Hechtman cited had inconsistent results on height and weight gain and loss. A 2012 study suggested that drug holidays resulted in a slight improvement in appetite for both weekend and school holidays. But only 9% of the children in the sample (n = 51) saw their appetite return to normal levels.
 

‘Negative things can happen’

The downside of drug holidays is parents may rationalize that their child is doing fine without the medication, and discontinue it. The process of stopping and starting medication can lead to other problems. “Negative things can happen during drug holidays,” said Dr. Hechtman.

The large variability of doses over the weekend can result in rebound and side effects.

A child may go from a full dose, which could be 50-60 mg of stimulant to zero from Friday to Saturday. As a result they have a lot of rebound on that Saturday. Similarly, they go from zero on Sunday to full dose on the Monday, causing lots of side effects. “Also, they will never have a stable effective dose because of the roller-coaster effect of being on and off the drugs,” she noted.

The lack of consistency and accommodation to the side effects can lead to discontinuation of the medication.

Off medication, the child may be more accident prone or have more injuries. “Their behavior off the medication may be such that it leads to social problems,” Dr. Hechtman continued. Weekend activities that require medication such as homework or school projects, family or religious gatherings, or sports and social activities with family and peers may be affected. If the child is behaving poorly off the medication, they may be expelled from such activities. If it’s a summer drug holiday, they may get kicked out of camp or the swimming pool.

If the child’s condition is already worsening, and a drug holiday takes place on top of this, the child may experience a rebound or relapse, in which the condition looks a lot worse than it did with the drugs.
 

Do drug holidays matter?

Another session speaker, James Swanson, PhD, who noted that the “emergence of tolerance may limit and eventually undermine initial relative benefit” of stimulants, said there may be instances in which drug holidays may be impractical.

Given the poor adherence to ADHD medication, “most treated ADHD cases stop medication anyway and these patients do not have an opportunity for drug holidays,” he said in an interview.

“If tolerance does emerge, then for long-term treatment the concept of drug holiday seems difficult to evaluate to me,” said Dr. Swanson, director of the Child Development Center at the University of California, Irvine.

Planned medication breaks may not be a good way to evaluate efficacy unless it is performed under “double-blind” conditions, he offered. The MTA used an approach of switching between short periods of time, with and without medication. “We did this to compare medication to placebo and to compare doses of medication to optimize the short-term benefit,” said Dr. Swanson, a coauthor of the MTA study.

Dr. Hechtman receives funding from The Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Swanson has two patents: (PIXA4), which uses a “time-of-flight” camera to measure growth on infants, and a provisional patent on the mechanism of tolerance to stimulant medication (PATSMTA).

For children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, taking a weekend or summer break from methylphenidate may have some benefits. A drug “holiday” can help assess whether a drug is still useful and possibly help with drug tolerance, weight gain, and growth suppression. But drug holidays are not without their problems, Lily Hechtman, MD, FRCP, professor at the department of psychiatry, McGill University, Montreal, said during a session at the World Congress on ADHD – Virtual Event.

Ceasing a medication can have repercussions from a health and social standpoint, cautioned Dr. Hechtman, a presenter and moderator of the session, “Unsolved mysteries in the treatment of ADHD with psychostimulants.”

The rate of drug holidays is somewhere between 30% and 40% in ADHD patients. Patients have multiple reasons for taking them, said Dr. Hechtman. The American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychology as well as the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence recommend this method to assess whether a medication is still necessary. Parents may opt for a drug holiday because most would prefer their children to take less medication.

A drug holiday can counteract some of the key side effects of stimulant medication such as decreased appetite and weight loss, and the moodiness and irritability that accompanies the medication, as well as sleep problems.

It may also be used to avoid drug tolerance, the need to increase dosage as medication continues. A 2002 study of 166 children and adolescents treated with methylphenidate revealed that 60% had developed drug tolerance. Drug tolerance increases with duration. “So, the longer the child is on medication, the more likely he or she will develop some drug tolerance,” said Dr. Hechtman.

It is hypothesized that a drug holiday results in the resensitization of the neurons in the brain because they aren’t exposed to the stimulation of dopamine release and dopamine exposure.

The minimum time a patient needs a drug holiday to deal with some drug tolerance is about a month. “Even if you have a drug holiday and your drug tolerance has been decreased, it can reoccur with increasing dosages, once medication resumes” after the holiday, said Dr. Hechtman.
 

The growth factor

A drug holiday can also address concerns about growth suppression. “Some studies show that drug holidays help with growth suppression and others do not,” said Dr. Hechtman.

The Multimodal Treatment of ADHD (MTA) study, which followed children with ADHD from childhood to adolescence into adulthood, offers some key insights on the effects of treatment on growth.

Over a 10-year period, “you could see that the rate of medication use decreased significantly with time” among participants, said Dr. Hechtman, a coauthor of the MTA research. Only 10% who began the study aged 7-9 years were still using stimulants 10 years later. Looking at short-term effects on growth among these children, those who never went on stimulants to begin with had no growth suppression at all, whereas those who underwent early and consistent treatment experienced the greatest growth suppression.

Comparatively, inconsistently medicated participants had less growth suppression than those who remained on medication. “They were pretty close to the controls,” said Dr. Hechtman.

These patterns continued in a 16-year follow-up, as these patients became adults. Based on the results in the inconsistently treated group, this suggests that drug holidays can limit the effects of growth suppression, at least to a certain extent, said Dr. Hechtman.

Other studies have yielded varying results on the impact of drug holidays on height and weight. “The evidence for the utility of drug holidays for medication side effects is there for decreased appetite and weight, but not so much for decreased height,” summarized Dr. Hechtman.

One recent study of 230 children by James Waxmonsky and colleagues that examined drug holidays on weekends and summers showed that drug holidays did increase weight but interestingly, not height. Older studies Dr. Hechtman cited had inconsistent results on height and weight gain and loss. A 2012 study suggested that drug holidays resulted in a slight improvement in appetite for both weekend and school holidays. But only 9% of the children in the sample (n = 51) saw their appetite return to normal levels.
 

‘Negative things can happen’

The downside of drug holidays is parents may rationalize that their child is doing fine without the medication, and discontinue it. The process of stopping and starting medication can lead to other problems. “Negative things can happen during drug holidays,” said Dr. Hechtman.

The large variability of doses over the weekend can result in rebound and side effects.

A child may go from a full dose, which could be 50-60 mg of stimulant to zero from Friday to Saturday. As a result they have a lot of rebound on that Saturday. Similarly, they go from zero on Sunday to full dose on the Monday, causing lots of side effects. “Also, they will never have a stable effective dose because of the roller-coaster effect of being on and off the drugs,” she noted.

The lack of consistency and accommodation to the side effects can lead to discontinuation of the medication.

Off medication, the child may be more accident prone or have more injuries. “Their behavior off the medication may be such that it leads to social problems,” Dr. Hechtman continued. Weekend activities that require medication such as homework or school projects, family or religious gatherings, or sports and social activities with family and peers may be affected. If the child is behaving poorly off the medication, they may be expelled from such activities. If it’s a summer drug holiday, they may get kicked out of camp or the swimming pool.

If the child’s condition is already worsening, and a drug holiday takes place on top of this, the child may experience a rebound or relapse, in which the condition looks a lot worse than it did with the drugs.
 

Do drug holidays matter?

Another session speaker, James Swanson, PhD, who noted that the “emergence of tolerance may limit and eventually undermine initial relative benefit” of stimulants, said there may be instances in which drug holidays may be impractical.

Given the poor adherence to ADHD medication, “most treated ADHD cases stop medication anyway and these patients do not have an opportunity for drug holidays,” he said in an interview.

“If tolerance does emerge, then for long-term treatment the concept of drug holiday seems difficult to evaluate to me,” said Dr. Swanson, director of the Child Development Center at the University of California, Irvine.

Planned medication breaks may not be a good way to evaluate efficacy unless it is performed under “double-blind” conditions, he offered. The MTA used an approach of switching between short periods of time, with and without medication. “We did this to compare medication to placebo and to compare doses of medication to optimize the short-term benefit,” said Dr. Swanson, a coauthor of the MTA study.

Dr. Hechtman receives funding from The Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Swanson has two patents: (PIXA4), which uses a “time-of-flight” camera to measure growth on infants, and a provisional patent on the mechanism of tolerance to stimulant medication (PATSMTA).

For children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, taking a weekend or summer break from methylphenidate may have some benefits. A drug “holiday” can help assess whether a drug is still useful and possibly help with drug tolerance, weight gain, and growth suppression. But drug holidays are not without their problems, Lily Hechtman, MD, FRCP, professor at the department of psychiatry, McGill University, Montreal, said during a session at the World Congress on ADHD – Virtual Event.

Ceasing a medication can have repercussions from a health and social standpoint, cautioned Dr. Hechtman, a presenter and moderator of the session, “Unsolved mysteries in the treatment of ADHD with psychostimulants.”

The rate of drug holidays is somewhere between 30% and 40% in ADHD patients. Patients have multiple reasons for taking them, said Dr. Hechtman. The American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychology as well as the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence recommend this method to assess whether a medication is still necessary. Parents may opt for a drug holiday because most would prefer their children to take less medication.

A drug holiday can counteract some of the key side effects of stimulant medication such as decreased appetite and weight loss, and the moodiness and irritability that accompanies the medication, as well as sleep problems.

It may also be used to avoid drug tolerance, the need to increase dosage as medication continues. A 2002 study of 166 children and adolescents treated with methylphenidate revealed that 60% had developed drug tolerance. Drug tolerance increases with duration. “So, the longer the child is on medication, the more likely he or she will develop some drug tolerance,” said Dr. Hechtman.

It is hypothesized that a drug holiday results in the resensitization of the neurons in the brain because they aren’t exposed to the stimulation of dopamine release and dopamine exposure.

The minimum time a patient needs a drug holiday to deal with some drug tolerance is about a month. “Even if you have a drug holiday and your drug tolerance has been decreased, it can reoccur with increasing dosages, once medication resumes” after the holiday, said Dr. Hechtman.
 

The growth factor

A drug holiday can also address concerns about growth suppression. “Some studies show that drug holidays help with growth suppression and others do not,” said Dr. Hechtman.

The Multimodal Treatment of ADHD (MTA) study, which followed children with ADHD from childhood to adolescence into adulthood, offers some key insights on the effects of treatment on growth.

Over a 10-year period, “you could see that the rate of medication use decreased significantly with time” among participants, said Dr. Hechtman, a coauthor of the MTA research. Only 10% who began the study aged 7-9 years were still using stimulants 10 years later. Looking at short-term effects on growth among these children, those who never went on stimulants to begin with had no growth suppression at all, whereas those who underwent early and consistent treatment experienced the greatest growth suppression.

Comparatively, inconsistently medicated participants had less growth suppression than those who remained on medication. “They were pretty close to the controls,” said Dr. Hechtman.

These patterns continued in a 16-year follow-up, as these patients became adults. Based on the results in the inconsistently treated group, this suggests that drug holidays can limit the effects of growth suppression, at least to a certain extent, said Dr. Hechtman.

Other studies have yielded varying results on the impact of drug holidays on height and weight. “The evidence for the utility of drug holidays for medication side effects is there for decreased appetite and weight, but not so much for decreased height,” summarized Dr. Hechtman.

One recent study of 230 children by James Waxmonsky and colleagues that examined drug holidays on weekends and summers showed that drug holidays did increase weight but interestingly, not height. Older studies Dr. Hechtman cited had inconsistent results on height and weight gain and loss. A 2012 study suggested that drug holidays resulted in a slight improvement in appetite for both weekend and school holidays. But only 9% of the children in the sample (n = 51) saw their appetite return to normal levels.
 

‘Negative things can happen’

The downside of drug holidays is parents may rationalize that their child is doing fine without the medication, and discontinue it. The process of stopping and starting medication can lead to other problems. “Negative things can happen during drug holidays,” said Dr. Hechtman.

The large variability of doses over the weekend can result in rebound and side effects.

A child may go from a full dose, which could be 50-60 mg of stimulant to zero from Friday to Saturday. As a result they have a lot of rebound on that Saturday. Similarly, they go from zero on Sunday to full dose on the Monday, causing lots of side effects. “Also, they will never have a stable effective dose because of the roller-coaster effect of being on and off the drugs,” she noted.

The lack of consistency and accommodation to the side effects can lead to discontinuation of the medication.

Off medication, the child may be more accident prone or have more injuries. “Their behavior off the medication may be such that it leads to social problems,” Dr. Hechtman continued. Weekend activities that require medication such as homework or school projects, family or religious gatherings, or sports and social activities with family and peers may be affected. If the child is behaving poorly off the medication, they may be expelled from such activities. If it’s a summer drug holiday, they may get kicked out of camp or the swimming pool.

If the child’s condition is already worsening, and a drug holiday takes place on top of this, the child may experience a rebound or relapse, in which the condition looks a lot worse than it did with the drugs.
 

Do drug holidays matter?

Another session speaker, James Swanson, PhD, who noted that the “emergence of tolerance may limit and eventually undermine initial relative benefit” of stimulants, said there may be instances in which drug holidays may be impractical.

Given the poor adherence to ADHD medication, “most treated ADHD cases stop medication anyway and these patients do not have an opportunity for drug holidays,” he said in an interview.

“If tolerance does emerge, then for long-term treatment the concept of drug holiday seems difficult to evaluate to me,” said Dr. Swanson, director of the Child Development Center at the University of California, Irvine.

Planned medication breaks may not be a good way to evaluate efficacy unless it is performed under “double-blind” conditions, he offered. The MTA used an approach of switching between short periods of time, with and without medication. “We did this to compare medication to placebo and to compare doses of medication to optimize the short-term benefit,” said Dr. Swanson, a coauthor of the MTA study.

Dr. Hechtman receives funding from The Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Swanson has two patents: (PIXA4), which uses a “time-of-flight” camera to measure growth on infants, and a provisional patent on the mechanism of tolerance to stimulant medication (PATSMTA).

Six months after mild SARS-CoV-2 infection in a representative health care workforce, no long-term cardiovascular sequelae were detected, compared with a matched SARS-CoV-2 seronegative group.

“Mild COVID-19 left no measurable cardiovascular impact on LV structure, function, scar burden, aortic stiffness, or serum biomarkers,” the researchers reported in an article published online May 8 in JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging.

“We provide societal reassurance and support for the position that screening in asymptomatic individuals following mild disease is not indicated,” first author George Joy, MBBS, University College London, said in presenting the results at EuroCMR, the annual CMR congress of the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI).

Briefing comoderator Leyla Elif Sade, MD, University of Baskent, Ankara, Turkey, said, “This is the hot topic of our time because of obvious reasons and I think [this] study is quite important to avoid unnecessary further testing, surveillance testing, and to avoid a significant burden of health care costs.”
 

‘Alarming’ early data

Early cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) studies in patients recovered from mild COVID-19 were “alarming,” Dr. Joy said.

As previously reported, one study showed cardiac abnormalities after mild COVID-19 in up to 78% of patients, with evidence of ongoing myocardial inflammation in 60%. The CMR findings correlated with elevations in troponin T by high-sensitivity assay (hs-TnT).

To investigate further, Dr. Joy and colleagues did a nested case-control study within the COVIDsortium, a prospective study of 731 health care workers from three London hospitals who underwent weekly symptom, polymerase chain reaction, and serology assessment over 4 months during the first wave of the pandemic.

A total of 157 (21.5%) participants seroconverted during the study period.

Six months after infection, 74 seropositive (median age, 39; 62% women) and 75 age-, sex-, and ethnicity-matched seronegative controls underwent cardiovascular phenotyping (comprehensive phantom-calibrated CMR and blood biomarkers). The analysis was blinded, using objective artificial intelligence analytics when available.

The results showed no statistically significant differences between seropositive and seronegative participants in cardiac structure (left ventricular volumes, mass, atrial area), function (ejection fraction, global longitudinal shortening, aortic distensibility), tissue characterization (T1, T2, extracellular volume fraction mapping, late gadolinium enhancement) or biomarkers (troponin, N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide).

Cardiovascular abnormalities were no more common in seropositive than seronegative otherwise healthy health care workers 6 months post mild SARS-CoV-2 infection. Measured abnormalities were “evenly distributed between both groups,” Dr. Joy said.

Therefore, it’s “important to reassure patients with mild SARS-CoV-2 infection regarding its cardiovascular effects,” Dr. Joy and colleagues concluded.
 

Limitations and caveats

They caution, however, that the study provides insight only into the short- to medium-term sequelae of patients aged 18-69 with mild COVID-19 who did not require hospitalization and had low numbers of comorbidities.

The study does not address the cardiovascular effects after severe COVID-19 infection requiring hospitalization or in those with multiple comorbid conditions, they noted. It also does not prove that apparently mild SARS-CoV-2 never causes chronic myocarditis.

“The study design would not distinguish between people who had sustained completely healed myocarditis and pericarditis and those in whom the heart had never been affected,” the researchers noted.

They pointed to a recent cross-sectional study of athletes 1-month post mild COVID-19 that found significant pericardial involvement (late enhancement and/or pericardial effusion), although no baseline pre-COVID-19 imaging was performed. In the current study at 6 months post infection the pericardium was normal.

The coauthors of a linked editorial say this study provides “welcome, reassuring information that in healthy individuals who experience mild infection with COVID-19, persisting evidence of cardiovascular complications is very uncommon. The results do not support cardiovascular screening in individuals with mild or asymptomatic infection with COVID-19.”  

Colin Berry, PhD, and Kenneth Mangion, PhD, both from University of Glasgow, cautioned that the population is restricted to health care workers; therefore, the findings may not necessarily be generalized to a community population .

“Healthcare workers do not reflect the population of individuals most clinically affected by COVID-19 illness. The severity of acute COVID-19 infection is greatest in older individuals and those with preexisting health problems. Healthcare workers are not representative of the wider, unselected, at-risk, community population,” they pointed out.

Cardiovascular risk factors and concomitant health problems (heart and respiratory disease) may be more common in the community than in health care workers, and prior studies have highlighted their potential impact for disease pathogenesis in COVID-19.

Dr. Berry and Dr. Mangion also noted that women made up nearly two-thirds of the seropositive group. This may reflect a selection bias or may naturally reflect the fact that proportionately more women are asymptomatic or have milder forms of illness, whereas severe SARS-CoV-2 infection requiring hospitalization affects men to a greater degree.

COVIDsortium funding was donated by individuals, charitable trusts, and corporations including Goldman Sachs, Citadel and Citadel Securities, The Guy Foundation, GW Pharmaceuticals, Kusuma Trust, and Jagclif Charitable Trust, and enabled by Barts Charity with support from UCLH Charity. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Six months after mild SARS-CoV-2 infection in a representative health care workforce, no long-term cardiovascular sequelae were detected, compared with a matched SARS-CoV-2 seronegative group.

“Mild COVID-19 left no measurable cardiovascular impact on LV structure, function, scar burden, aortic stiffness, or serum biomarkers,” the researchers reported in an article published online May 8 in JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging.

“We provide societal reassurance and support for the position that screening in asymptomatic individuals following mild disease is not indicated,” first author George Joy, MBBS, University College London, said in presenting the results at EuroCMR, the annual CMR congress of the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI).

Briefing comoderator Leyla Elif Sade, MD, University of Baskent, Ankara, Turkey, said, “This is the hot topic of our time because of obvious reasons and I think [this] study is quite important to avoid unnecessary further testing, surveillance testing, and to avoid a significant burden of health care costs.”
 

‘Alarming’ early data

Early cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) studies in patients recovered from mild COVID-19 were “alarming,” Dr. Joy said.

As previously reported, one study showed cardiac abnormalities after mild COVID-19 in up to 78% of patients, with evidence of ongoing myocardial inflammation in 60%. The CMR findings correlated with elevations in troponin T by high-sensitivity assay (hs-TnT).

To investigate further, Dr. Joy and colleagues did a nested case-control study within the COVIDsortium, a prospective study of 731 health care workers from three London hospitals who underwent weekly symptom, polymerase chain reaction, and serology assessment over 4 months during the first wave of the pandemic.

A total of 157 (21.5%) participants seroconverted during the study period.

Six months after infection, 74 seropositive (median age, 39; 62% women) and 75 age-, sex-, and ethnicity-matched seronegative controls underwent cardiovascular phenotyping (comprehensive phantom-calibrated CMR and blood biomarkers). The analysis was blinded, using objective artificial intelligence analytics when available.

The results showed no statistically significant differences between seropositive and seronegative participants in cardiac structure (left ventricular volumes, mass, atrial area), function (ejection fraction, global longitudinal shortening, aortic distensibility), tissue characterization (T1, T2, extracellular volume fraction mapping, late gadolinium enhancement) or biomarkers (troponin, N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide).

Cardiovascular abnormalities were no more common in seropositive than seronegative otherwise healthy health care workers 6 months post mild SARS-CoV-2 infection. Measured abnormalities were “evenly distributed between both groups,” Dr. Joy said.

Therefore, it’s “important to reassure patients with mild SARS-CoV-2 infection regarding its cardiovascular effects,” Dr. Joy and colleagues concluded.
 

Limitations and caveats

They caution, however, that the study provides insight only into the short- to medium-term sequelae of patients aged 18-69 with mild COVID-19 who did not require hospitalization and had low numbers of comorbidities.

The study does not address the cardiovascular effects after severe COVID-19 infection requiring hospitalization or in those with multiple comorbid conditions, they noted. It also does not prove that apparently mild SARS-CoV-2 never causes chronic myocarditis.

“The study design would not distinguish between people who had sustained completely healed myocarditis and pericarditis and those in whom the heart had never been affected,” the researchers noted.

They pointed to a recent cross-sectional study of athletes 1-month post mild COVID-19 that found significant pericardial involvement (late enhancement and/or pericardial effusion), although no baseline pre-COVID-19 imaging was performed. In the current study at 6 months post infection the pericardium was normal.

The coauthors of a linked editorial say this study provides “welcome, reassuring information that in healthy individuals who experience mild infection with COVID-19, persisting evidence of cardiovascular complications is very uncommon. The results do not support cardiovascular screening in individuals with mild or asymptomatic infection with COVID-19.”  

Colin Berry, PhD, and Kenneth Mangion, PhD, both from University of Glasgow, cautioned that the population is restricted to health care workers; therefore, the findings may not necessarily be generalized to a community population .

“Healthcare workers do not reflect the population of individuals most clinically affected by COVID-19 illness. The severity of acute COVID-19 infection is greatest in older individuals and those with preexisting health problems. Healthcare workers are not representative of the wider, unselected, at-risk, community population,” they pointed out.

Cardiovascular risk factors and concomitant health problems (heart and respiratory disease) may be more common in the community than in health care workers, and prior studies have highlighted their potential impact for disease pathogenesis in COVID-19.

Dr. Berry and Dr. Mangion also noted that women made up nearly two-thirds of the seropositive group. This may reflect a selection bias or may naturally reflect the fact that proportionately more women are asymptomatic or have milder forms of illness, whereas severe SARS-CoV-2 infection requiring hospitalization affects men to a greater degree.

COVIDsortium funding was donated by individuals, charitable trusts, and corporations including Goldman Sachs, Citadel and Citadel Securities, The Guy Foundation, GW Pharmaceuticals, Kusuma Trust, and Jagclif Charitable Trust, and enabled by Barts Charity with support from UCLH Charity. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Six months after mild SARS-CoV-2 infection in a representative health care workforce, no long-term cardiovascular sequelae were detected, compared with a matched SARS-CoV-2 seronegative group.

“Mild COVID-19 left no measurable cardiovascular impact on LV structure, function, scar burden, aortic stiffness, or serum biomarkers,” the researchers reported in an article published online May 8 in JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging.

“We provide societal reassurance and support for the position that screening in asymptomatic individuals following mild disease is not indicated,” first author George Joy, MBBS, University College London, said in presenting the results at EuroCMR, the annual CMR congress of the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI).

Briefing comoderator Leyla Elif Sade, MD, University of Baskent, Ankara, Turkey, said, “This is the hot topic of our time because of obvious reasons and I think [this] study is quite important to avoid unnecessary further testing, surveillance testing, and to avoid a significant burden of health care costs.”
 

‘Alarming’ early data

Early cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) studies in patients recovered from mild COVID-19 were “alarming,” Dr. Joy said.

As previously reported, one study showed cardiac abnormalities after mild COVID-19 in up to 78% of patients, with evidence of ongoing myocardial inflammation in 60%. The CMR findings correlated with elevations in troponin T by high-sensitivity assay (hs-TnT).

To investigate further, Dr. Joy and colleagues did a nested case-control study within the COVIDsortium, a prospective study of 731 health care workers from three London hospitals who underwent weekly symptom, polymerase chain reaction, and serology assessment over 4 months during the first wave of the pandemic.

A total of 157 (21.5%) participants seroconverted during the study period.

Six months after infection, 74 seropositive (median age, 39; 62% women) and 75 age-, sex-, and ethnicity-matched seronegative controls underwent cardiovascular phenotyping (comprehensive phantom-calibrated CMR and blood biomarkers). The analysis was blinded, using objective artificial intelligence analytics when available.

The results showed no statistically significant differences between seropositive and seronegative participants in cardiac structure (left ventricular volumes, mass, atrial area), function (ejection fraction, global longitudinal shortening, aortic distensibility), tissue characterization (T1, T2, extracellular volume fraction mapping, late gadolinium enhancement) or biomarkers (troponin, N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide).

Cardiovascular abnormalities were no more common in seropositive than seronegative otherwise healthy health care workers 6 months post mild SARS-CoV-2 infection. Measured abnormalities were “evenly distributed between both groups,” Dr. Joy said.

Therefore, it’s “important to reassure patients with mild SARS-CoV-2 infection regarding its cardiovascular effects,” Dr. Joy and colleagues concluded.
 

Limitations and caveats

They caution, however, that the study provides insight only into the short- to medium-term sequelae of patients aged 18-69 with mild COVID-19 who did not require hospitalization and had low numbers of comorbidities.

The study does not address the cardiovascular effects after severe COVID-19 infection requiring hospitalization or in those with multiple comorbid conditions, they noted. It also does not prove that apparently mild SARS-CoV-2 never causes chronic myocarditis.

“The study design would not distinguish between people who had sustained completely healed myocarditis and pericarditis and those in whom the heart had never been affected,” the researchers noted.

They pointed to a recent cross-sectional study of athletes 1-month post mild COVID-19 that found significant pericardial involvement (late enhancement and/or pericardial effusion), although no baseline pre-COVID-19 imaging was performed. In the current study at 6 months post infection the pericardium was normal.

The coauthors of a linked editorial say this study provides “welcome, reassuring information that in healthy individuals who experience mild infection with COVID-19, persisting evidence of cardiovascular complications is very uncommon. The results do not support cardiovascular screening in individuals with mild or asymptomatic infection with COVID-19.”  

Colin Berry, PhD, and Kenneth Mangion, PhD, both from University of Glasgow, cautioned that the population is restricted to health care workers; therefore, the findings may not necessarily be generalized to a community population .

“Healthcare workers do not reflect the population of individuals most clinically affected by COVID-19 illness. The severity of acute COVID-19 infection is greatest in older individuals and those with preexisting health problems. Healthcare workers are not representative of the wider, unselected, at-risk, community population,” they pointed out.

Cardiovascular risk factors and concomitant health problems (heart and respiratory disease) may be more common in the community than in health care workers, and prior studies have highlighted their potential impact for disease pathogenesis in COVID-19.

Dr. Berry and Dr. Mangion also noted that women made up nearly two-thirds of the seropositive group. This may reflect a selection bias or may naturally reflect the fact that proportionately more women are asymptomatic or have milder forms of illness, whereas severe SARS-CoV-2 infection requiring hospitalization affects men to a greater degree.

COVIDsortium funding was donated by individuals, charitable trusts, and corporations including Goldman Sachs, Citadel and Citadel Securities, The Guy Foundation, GW Pharmaceuticals, Kusuma Trust, and Jagclif Charitable Trust, and enabled by Barts Charity with support from UCLH Charity. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Key clinical point: RA patients who switched from oral to subcutaneous methotrexate reported an increased quality of life and reduced symptoms.

Major finding: The proportion of RA patients with symptom remission or low disease activity increased from 22.8% to 52.9% after changing from oral to subcutaneous delivery of methotrexate, combined with a dose increase in 34.8% of patients.

Study details: The data come from a prospective, observational study of 207 adults with RA who switched from oral to subcutaneous methotrexate; 6.7% were in remission and 15.5% had low disease activity at baseline.

Disclosures: The study was supported by NORDIC Pharma. Several study coauthors disclosed relationships with NORDIC Pharma, and several are employees of NORDIC Pharma.

Source: Senbel E et al. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2021 Apr 14. doi: 10.2147/PPA.S301010.

Key clinical point: RA patients who switched from oral to subcutaneous methotrexate reported an increased quality of life and reduced symptoms.

Major finding: The proportion of RA patients with symptom remission or low disease activity increased from 22.8% to 52.9% after changing from oral to subcutaneous delivery of methotrexate, combined with a dose increase in 34.8% of patients.

Study details: The data come from a prospective, observational study of 207 adults with RA who switched from oral to subcutaneous methotrexate; 6.7% were in remission and 15.5% had low disease activity at baseline.

Disclosures: The study was supported by NORDIC Pharma. Several study coauthors disclosed relationships with NORDIC Pharma, and several are employees of NORDIC Pharma.

Source: Senbel E et al. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2021 Apr 14. doi: 10.2147/PPA.S301010.

Key clinical point: RA patients who switched from oral to subcutaneous methotrexate reported an increased quality of life and reduced symptoms.

Major finding: The proportion of RA patients with symptom remission or low disease activity increased from 22.8% to 52.9% after changing from oral to subcutaneous delivery of methotrexate, combined with a dose increase in 34.8% of patients.

Study details: The data come from a prospective, observational study of 207 adults with RA who switched from oral to subcutaneous methotrexate; 6.7% were in remission and 15.5% had low disease activity at baseline.

Disclosures: The study was supported by NORDIC Pharma. Several study coauthors disclosed relationships with NORDIC Pharma, and several are employees of NORDIC Pharma.

Source: Senbel E et al. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2021 Apr 14. doi: 10.2147/PPA.S301010.

Key clinical point: Stimulation with IL-33 showed an increase in several mast cell lines in RA patients compared to controls, suggesting that inhibiting mast cells might be a therapeutic strategy to prevent joint deterioration in RA patients.

Major finding: Synovial tissues in RA patients showed more more c-kit- and FcεRI-positive mast cells, which are producers of both tryptase and chymase, compared to controls after stimulation with IL-33. In addition, IL-33-stimulated mast cells promoted more osteoclast differentiation than non-stimulated mast cells.

Study details: The data come from synovial fluid samples collected from 20 RA patients and 20 patients with osteoarthritis of knee joints who served as controls. 

Disclosures: The study was supported in part by grants from the National Research Foundation of Korea. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.  

Source: Kim K-W et al. Arthritis Res Ther. 2021 Apr 21. doi: 10.1186/s13075-021-02491-1.

Key clinical point: Stimulation with IL-33 showed an increase in several mast cell lines in RA patients compared to controls, suggesting that inhibiting mast cells might be a therapeutic strategy to prevent joint deterioration in RA patients.

Major finding: Synovial tissues in RA patients showed more more c-kit- and FcεRI-positive mast cells, which are producers of both tryptase and chymase, compared to controls after stimulation with IL-33. In addition, IL-33-stimulated mast cells promoted more osteoclast differentiation than non-stimulated mast cells.

Study details: The data come from synovial fluid samples collected from 20 RA patients and 20 patients with osteoarthritis of knee joints who served as controls. 

Disclosures: The study was supported in part by grants from the National Research Foundation of Korea. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.  

Source: Kim K-W et al. Arthritis Res Ther. 2021 Apr 21. doi: 10.1186/s13075-021-02491-1.

Key clinical point: Stimulation with IL-33 showed an increase in several mast cell lines in RA patients compared to controls, suggesting that inhibiting mast cells might be a therapeutic strategy to prevent joint deterioration in RA patients.

Major finding: Synovial tissues in RA patients showed more more c-kit- and FcεRI-positive mast cells, which are producers of both tryptase and chymase, compared to controls after stimulation with IL-33. In addition, IL-33-stimulated mast cells promoted more osteoclast differentiation than non-stimulated mast cells.

Study details: The data come from synovial fluid samples collected from 20 RA patients and 20 patients with osteoarthritis of knee joints who served as controls. 

Disclosures: The study was supported in part by grants from the National Research Foundation of Korea. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.  

Source: Kim K-W et al. Arthritis Res Ther. 2021 Apr 21. doi: 10.1186/s13075-021-02491-1.

Key clinical point: In an analysis of blood-derived CD19+ B cells, miRNAs may have regulatory functions in RA patients treated with methotrexate.

Major finding: Differences in expression were noted for 27 microRNAs between methotrexate patients and controls, but no significant differences between newly diagnosed patients and controls. Some of the differentially expressed miRNAs were dysregulated in RA patients including miR-223-3p, miR-486-3p and miR-23a-3p. 

Study details: The data come from small RNA sequencing of 10 newly diagnosed untreated RA patients (n=10), 18 successfully methotrexate (MTX) treated RA patients in remission, and 9 healthy controls.

Disclosures: The study was supported in part by Helse Sør-Øst Grants. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Source: Heinicke F et al. Front Immunol. 2021 Apr 9. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.663736.

Key clinical point: In an analysis of blood-derived CD19+ B cells, miRNAs may have regulatory functions in RA patients treated with methotrexate.

Major finding: Differences in expression were noted for 27 microRNAs between methotrexate patients and controls, but no significant differences between newly diagnosed patients and controls. Some of the differentially expressed miRNAs were dysregulated in RA patients including miR-223-3p, miR-486-3p and miR-23a-3p. 

Study details: The data come from small RNA sequencing of 10 newly diagnosed untreated RA patients (n=10), 18 successfully methotrexate (MTX) treated RA patients in remission, and 9 healthy controls.

Disclosures: The study was supported in part by Helse Sør-Øst Grants. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Source: Heinicke F et al. Front Immunol. 2021 Apr 9. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.663736.

Key clinical point: In an analysis of blood-derived CD19+ B cells, miRNAs may have regulatory functions in RA patients treated with methotrexate.

Major finding: Differences in expression were noted for 27 microRNAs between methotrexate patients and controls, but no significant differences between newly diagnosed patients and controls. Some of the differentially expressed miRNAs were dysregulated in RA patients including miR-223-3p, miR-486-3p and miR-23a-3p. 

Study details: The data come from small RNA sequencing of 10 newly diagnosed untreated RA patients (n=10), 18 successfully methotrexate (MTX) treated RA patients in remission, and 9 healthy controls.

Disclosures: The study was supported in part by Helse Sør-Øst Grants. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Source: Heinicke F et al. Front Immunol. 2021 Apr 9. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.663736.

Key clinical point: Rheumatoid arthritis patients taking a combination of methotrexate and JAKi showed no increased risk of malignancy compared to RA patients on methotrexate alone.

Major finding: No significant differences in overall malignancy appeared between methotrexate /JAKi combination patients compared to methotrexate-only patients (risk ratio 1.42); no differences appeared between the groups for nonmelanoma skin cancer (RR 1.44), malignancies excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer (RR 1.12), serious adverse events (RR 1.15), or deaths (RR 1.99).

Study details: The data come from a meta-analysis of 13 randomized, controlled trials with a total of 6,911 RA patients who received methotrexate and Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) 

Disclosures: The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Source: Solipuram V et al. Auto Immune Highlights. 2021 Apr 28. doi: 10.1186/s13317-021-00153-5.

Key clinical point: Rheumatoid arthritis patients taking a combination of methotrexate and JAKi showed no increased risk of malignancy compared to RA patients on methotrexate alone.

Major finding: No significant differences in overall malignancy appeared between methotrexate /JAKi combination patients compared to methotrexate-only patients (risk ratio 1.42); no differences appeared between the groups for nonmelanoma skin cancer (RR 1.44), malignancies excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer (RR 1.12), serious adverse events (RR 1.15), or deaths (RR 1.99).

Study details: The data come from a meta-analysis of 13 randomized, controlled trials with a total of 6,911 RA patients who received methotrexate and Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) 

Disclosures: The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Source: Solipuram V et al. Auto Immune Highlights. 2021 Apr 28. doi: 10.1186/s13317-021-00153-5.

Key clinical point: Rheumatoid arthritis patients taking a combination of methotrexate and JAKi showed no increased risk of malignancy compared to RA patients on methotrexate alone.

Major finding: No significant differences in overall malignancy appeared between methotrexate /JAKi combination patients compared to methotrexate-only patients (risk ratio 1.42); no differences appeared between the groups for nonmelanoma skin cancer (RR 1.44), malignancies excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer (RR 1.12), serious adverse events (RR 1.15), or deaths (RR 1.99).

Study details: The data come from a meta-analysis of 13 randomized, controlled trials with a total of 6,911 RA patients who received methotrexate and Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) 

Disclosures: The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Source: Solipuram V et al. Auto Immune Highlights. 2021 Apr 28. doi: 10.1186/s13317-021-00153-5.