User login
The Long, Controversial Search for a ‘Cancer Microbiome’
Last year, the controversy heightened when experts questioned a high-profile study — a 2020 analysis claiming that the tumors of 33 different cancers had their own unique microbiomes — on whether the “signature” of these bacterial compositions could help diagnose cancer.
The incident renewed the spotlight on “tumor microbiomes” because of the bold claims of the original paper and the strongly worded refutations of those claims. The broader field has focused primarily on ways the body’s microbiome interacts with cancers and cancer treatment.
This controversy has highlighted the challenges of making headway in a field where researchers may not even have the tools yet to puzzle-out the wide-ranging implications the microbiome holds for cancer diagnosis and treatment.
But it is also part of a provocative question within that larger field: whether tumors in the body, far from the natural microbiome in the gut, have their own thriving communities of bacteria, viruses, and fungi. And, if they do, how do those tumor microbiomes affect the development and progression of the cancer and the effectiveness of cancer therapies?
Cancer Controversy
The evidence is undeniable that some microbes can directly cause certain cancers and that the human gut microbiome can influence the effectiveness of certain therapies. Beyond that established science, however, the research has raised as many questions as answers about what we do and don’t know about microbiota and cancer.
The only confirmed microbiomes are on the skin and in the gut, mouth, and vagina, which are all areas with an easy direct route for bacteria to enter and grow in or on the body. A series of papers in recent years have suggested that other internal organs, and tumors within them, may have their own microbiomes.
“Whether microbes exist in tumors of internal organs beyond body surfaces exposed to the environment is a different matter,” said Ivan Vujkovic-Cvijin, PhD, an assistant professor of biomedical sciences and gastroenterology at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, whose lab studies how human gut microbes affect inflammatory diseases. “We’ve only recently had the tools to study that question on a molecular level, and the reported results have been conflicting.”
For example, research allegedly identified microbiota in the human placenta nearly one decade ago. But subsequent research contradicted those claims and showed that the source of the “placental microbiome” was actually contamination. Subsequent similar studies for other parts of the body faced the same scrutiny and, often, eventual debunking.
“Most likely, our immune system has undergone selective pressure to eliminate everything that crosses the gut barrier because there’s not much benefit to the body to have bacteria run amok in our internal organs,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. “That can only disrupt the functioning of our tissues, to have an external organism living inside them.”
The controversy that erupted last summer, surrounding research from the lab of Rob Knight, PhD, at the University of California, San Diego, centered on a slightly different but related question: Could tumors harbor their own microbiomes?
This news organization spoke with two of the authors who published a paper contesting Dr. Knight’s findings: Steven Salzberg, PhD, a professor of biomedical engineering at John Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, and Abraham Gihawi, PhD, a research fellow at Norwich Medical School at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom.
Dr. Salzberg described two major problems with Dr. Knight’s study.
“What they found were false positives because of contamination in the database and flaws in their methods,” Dr. Salzberg said. “I can’t prove there’s no cancer microbiome, but I can say the cancer microbiomes that they reported don’t exist because the species they were finding aren’t there.”
Dr. Knight disagrees with Dr. Salzberg’s findings, noting that Dr. Salzberg and his co-authors did not examine the publicly available databases used in his study. In a written response, he said that his team’s examination of the database revealed that less than 1% of the microbial genomes overlapped with human ones and that removing them did not change their findings.
Dr. Knight also noted that his team could still “distinguish cancer types by their microbiome” even after running their analysis without the technique that Dr. Salzberg found fault with.
Dr. Salzberg said that the database linked above is not the one Dr. Knight’s study used, however. “The primary database in their study was never made public (it’s too large, they said), and it has/had about 69,000 genomes,” Dr. Salzberg said by email. “But even if we did, this is irrelevant. He’s trying to distract from the primary errors in their study,” which Dr. Salzberg said Dr. Knight’s team has not addressed.
The critiques Dr. Salzberg raised have been leveled at other studies investigating microbiomes specifically within tumors and independent of the body’s microbiome.
For example, a 2019 study in Nature described a fungal microbiome in pancreatic cancer that a Nature paper 4 years later directly contradicted, citing flaws that invalidated the original findings. A different 2019 study in Cell examined pancreatic tumor microbiota and patient outcomes, but it’s unclear whether the microorganisms moved from the gut to the pancreas or “constitute a durably colonized community that lives inside the tumor,” which remains a matter of debate, Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said.
A 2020 study in Science suggested diverse microbial communities in seven tumor types, but those findings were similarly called into question. That study stated that “bacteria were first detected in human tumors more than 100 years ago” and that “bacteria are well-known residents in human tumors,” but Dr. Salzberg considers those statements misleading.
It’s true that bacteria and viruses have been detected in tumors because “there’s very good evidence that an acute infection caused by a very small number of viruses and bacteria can cause a tumor,” Dr. Salzberg said. Human papillomavirus, for example, can cause six different types of cancer. Inflammation and ulcers caused by Helicobacter pylori may progress to stomach cancer, and Fusobacterium nucleatum and Enterococcus faecalis have been shown to contribute to colorectal cancer. Those examples differ from a microbiome; this “a community of bacteria and possibly other microscopic bugs, like fungi, that are happily living in the tumor” the same way microbes reside in our guts, he said.
Dr. Knight said that many bacteria his team identified “have been confirmed independently in subsequent work.” He acknowledged, however, that more research is needed.
Several of the contested studies above were among a lengthy list that Dr. Knight provided, noting that most of the disagreements “have two sides to them, and critiques from one particular group does not immediately invalidate a reported finding.”
Yet, many of the papers Dr. Knight listed are precisely the types that skeptics like Dr. Salzberg believe are too flawed to draw reliable conclusions.
“I think many agree that microbes may exist within tumors that are exposed to the environment, like tumors of the skin, gut, and mouth,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. It’s less clear, however, whether tumors further from the body’s microbiome harbor any microbes or where they came from if they do. Microbial signals in organs elsewhere in the body become faint quickly, he said.
Underdeveloped Technology
Though Dr. Salzberg said that the concept of a tumor microbiome is “implausible” because there’s no easy route for bacteria to reach internal organs, it’s unclear whether scientists have the technology yet to adequately answer this question.
For one thing, samples in these types of studies are typically “ultra-low biomass samples, where the signal — the amount of microbes in the sample — is so low that it’s comparable to how much would be expected to be found in reagents and environmental contamination through processing,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin explained. Many polymerases used to amplify a DNA signal, for example, are made in bacteria and may retain trace amounts identified in these studies.
Dr. Knight agreed that low biomass is a challenge in this field but is not an unsurmountable one.
Another challenge is that study samples, as with Dr. Knight’s work, were collected during routine surgeries without the intent to find a microbial signal. Simply using a scalpel to cut through the skin means cutting through a layer of bacteria, and surgery rooms are not designed to eliminate all bacteria. Some work has even shown there is a “hospital microbiome,” so “you can easily have that creep into your signal and mistake it for tumor-resident bacteria,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said.
Dr. Knight asserted that the samples are taken under sterile conditions, but other researchers do not think the level of sterility necessary for completely clean samples is possible.
“Just because it’s in your sample doesn’t mean it was in your tumor,” Dr. Gihawi said.
Even if scientists can retrieve a reliable sample without contamination, analyzing it requires comparing the genetic material to existing databases of microbial genomes. Yet, contamination and misclassification of genetic sequences can be problems in those reference genomes too, Dr. Gihawi explained.
Machine learning algorithms have a role in interpreting data, but “we need to be careful of what we use them for,” he added.
“These techniques are in their infancy, and we’re starting to chase them down, which is why we need to move microbiome research in a way that can be used clinically,” Dr. Gihawi said.
Influence on Cancer Treatment Outcomes
Again, however, the question of whether microbiomes exist within tumors is only one slice of the much larger field looking at microbiomes and cancer, including its influence on cancer treatment outcomes. Although much remains to be learned, less controversy exists over the thousands of studies in the past two decades that have gradually revealed how the body’s microbiome can affect both the course of a cancer and the effectiveness of different treatments.
The growing research showing the importance of the gut microbiome in cancer treatments is not surprising given its role in immunity more broadly. Because the human immune system must recognize and defend against microbes, the microbiome helps train it, Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said.
Some bacteria can escape the gut — a phenomenon called bacterial translocation — and may aid in fighting tumors. To grow large enough to be seen on imaging, tumors need to evolve several abilities, such as growing enough vascularization to receive blood flow and shutting down local immune responses.
“Any added boost, like immunotherapy, has a chance of breaking through that immune forcefield and killing the tumor cells,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. Escaped gut bacteria may provide that boost.
“There’s a lot of evidence that depletion of the gut microbiome impairs immunotherapy and chemotherapy. The thinking behind some of those studies is that gut microbes can cross the gut barrier and when they do, they activate the immune system,” he said.
In mice engineered to have sterile guts, for example, the lack of bacteria results in less effective immune systems, Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin pointed out. A host of research has shown that antibiotic exposure during and even 6 months before immunotherapy dramatically reduces survival rates. “That’s pretty convincing to me that gut microbes are important,” he said.
Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin cautioned that there continues to be controversy on understanding which bacteria are important for response to immunotherapy. “The field is still in its infancy in terms of understanding which bacteria are most important for these effects,” he said.
Dr. Knight suggested that escaped bacteria may be the genesis of the ones that he and other researchers believe exist in tumors. “Because tumor microbes must come from somewhere, it is to be expected that some of those microbes will be co-opted from body-site specific commensals.”
It’s also possible that metabolites released from gut bacteria escape the gut and could theoretically affect distant tumor growth, Dr. Gihawi said. The most promising avenue of research in this area is metabolites being used as biomarkers, added Dr. Gihawi, whose lab published research on a link between bacteria detected in men’s urine and a more aggressive subset of prostate cancers. But that research is not far enough along to develop lab tests for clinical use, he noted.
No Consensus Yet
Even before the controversy erupted around Dr. Knight’s research, he co-founded the company Micronoma to develop cancer tests based on his microbe findings. The company has raised $17.5 million from private investors as of August 2023 and received the US Food and Drug Administration’s Breakthrough Device designation, allowing the firm to fast-track clinical trials testing the technology. The recent critiques have not changed the company’s plans.
It’s safe to say that scientists will continue to research and debate the possibility of tumor microbiomes until a consensus emerges.
“The field is evolving and studies testing the reproducibility of tumor-resident microbial signals are essential for developing our understanding in this area,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said.
Even if that path ultimately leads nowhere, as Dr. Salzberg expects, research into microbiomes and cancer has plenty of other directions to go.
“I’m actually quite an optimist,” Dr. Gihawi said. “I think there’s a lot of scope for some really good research here, especially in the sites where we know there is a strong microbiome, such as the gastrointestinal tract.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Last year, the controversy heightened when experts questioned a high-profile study — a 2020 analysis claiming that the tumors of 33 different cancers had their own unique microbiomes — on whether the “signature” of these bacterial compositions could help diagnose cancer.
The incident renewed the spotlight on “tumor microbiomes” because of the bold claims of the original paper and the strongly worded refutations of those claims. The broader field has focused primarily on ways the body’s microbiome interacts with cancers and cancer treatment.
This controversy has highlighted the challenges of making headway in a field where researchers may not even have the tools yet to puzzle-out the wide-ranging implications the microbiome holds for cancer diagnosis and treatment.
But it is also part of a provocative question within that larger field: whether tumors in the body, far from the natural microbiome in the gut, have their own thriving communities of bacteria, viruses, and fungi. And, if they do, how do those tumor microbiomes affect the development and progression of the cancer and the effectiveness of cancer therapies?
Cancer Controversy
The evidence is undeniable that some microbes can directly cause certain cancers and that the human gut microbiome can influence the effectiveness of certain therapies. Beyond that established science, however, the research has raised as many questions as answers about what we do and don’t know about microbiota and cancer.
The only confirmed microbiomes are on the skin and in the gut, mouth, and vagina, which are all areas with an easy direct route for bacteria to enter and grow in or on the body. A series of papers in recent years have suggested that other internal organs, and tumors within them, may have their own microbiomes.
“Whether microbes exist in tumors of internal organs beyond body surfaces exposed to the environment is a different matter,” said Ivan Vujkovic-Cvijin, PhD, an assistant professor of biomedical sciences and gastroenterology at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, whose lab studies how human gut microbes affect inflammatory diseases. “We’ve only recently had the tools to study that question on a molecular level, and the reported results have been conflicting.”
For example, research allegedly identified microbiota in the human placenta nearly one decade ago. But subsequent research contradicted those claims and showed that the source of the “placental microbiome” was actually contamination. Subsequent similar studies for other parts of the body faced the same scrutiny and, often, eventual debunking.
“Most likely, our immune system has undergone selective pressure to eliminate everything that crosses the gut barrier because there’s not much benefit to the body to have bacteria run amok in our internal organs,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. “That can only disrupt the functioning of our tissues, to have an external organism living inside them.”
The controversy that erupted last summer, surrounding research from the lab of Rob Knight, PhD, at the University of California, San Diego, centered on a slightly different but related question: Could tumors harbor their own microbiomes?
This news organization spoke with two of the authors who published a paper contesting Dr. Knight’s findings: Steven Salzberg, PhD, a professor of biomedical engineering at John Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, and Abraham Gihawi, PhD, a research fellow at Norwich Medical School at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom.
Dr. Salzberg described two major problems with Dr. Knight’s study.
“What they found were false positives because of contamination in the database and flaws in their methods,” Dr. Salzberg said. “I can’t prove there’s no cancer microbiome, but I can say the cancer microbiomes that they reported don’t exist because the species they were finding aren’t there.”
Dr. Knight disagrees with Dr. Salzberg’s findings, noting that Dr. Salzberg and his co-authors did not examine the publicly available databases used in his study. In a written response, he said that his team’s examination of the database revealed that less than 1% of the microbial genomes overlapped with human ones and that removing them did not change their findings.
Dr. Knight also noted that his team could still “distinguish cancer types by their microbiome” even after running their analysis without the technique that Dr. Salzberg found fault with.
Dr. Salzberg said that the database linked above is not the one Dr. Knight’s study used, however. “The primary database in their study was never made public (it’s too large, they said), and it has/had about 69,000 genomes,” Dr. Salzberg said by email. “But even if we did, this is irrelevant. He’s trying to distract from the primary errors in their study,” which Dr. Salzberg said Dr. Knight’s team has not addressed.
The critiques Dr. Salzberg raised have been leveled at other studies investigating microbiomes specifically within tumors and independent of the body’s microbiome.
For example, a 2019 study in Nature described a fungal microbiome in pancreatic cancer that a Nature paper 4 years later directly contradicted, citing flaws that invalidated the original findings. A different 2019 study in Cell examined pancreatic tumor microbiota and patient outcomes, but it’s unclear whether the microorganisms moved from the gut to the pancreas or “constitute a durably colonized community that lives inside the tumor,” which remains a matter of debate, Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said.
A 2020 study in Science suggested diverse microbial communities in seven tumor types, but those findings were similarly called into question. That study stated that “bacteria were first detected in human tumors more than 100 years ago” and that “bacteria are well-known residents in human tumors,” but Dr. Salzberg considers those statements misleading.
It’s true that bacteria and viruses have been detected in tumors because “there’s very good evidence that an acute infection caused by a very small number of viruses and bacteria can cause a tumor,” Dr. Salzberg said. Human papillomavirus, for example, can cause six different types of cancer. Inflammation and ulcers caused by Helicobacter pylori may progress to stomach cancer, and Fusobacterium nucleatum and Enterococcus faecalis have been shown to contribute to colorectal cancer. Those examples differ from a microbiome; this “a community of bacteria and possibly other microscopic bugs, like fungi, that are happily living in the tumor” the same way microbes reside in our guts, he said.
Dr. Knight said that many bacteria his team identified “have been confirmed independently in subsequent work.” He acknowledged, however, that more research is needed.
Several of the contested studies above were among a lengthy list that Dr. Knight provided, noting that most of the disagreements “have two sides to them, and critiques from one particular group does not immediately invalidate a reported finding.”
Yet, many of the papers Dr. Knight listed are precisely the types that skeptics like Dr. Salzberg believe are too flawed to draw reliable conclusions.
“I think many agree that microbes may exist within tumors that are exposed to the environment, like tumors of the skin, gut, and mouth,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. It’s less clear, however, whether tumors further from the body’s microbiome harbor any microbes or where they came from if they do. Microbial signals in organs elsewhere in the body become faint quickly, he said.
Underdeveloped Technology
Though Dr. Salzberg said that the concept of a tumor microbiome is “implausible” because there’s no easy route for bacteria to reach internal organs, it’s unclear whether scientists have the technology yet to adequately answer this question.
For one thing, samples in these types of studies are typically “ultra-low biomass samples, where the signal — the amount of microbes in the sample — is so low that it’s comparable to how much would be expected to be found in reagents and environmental contamination through processing,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin explained. Many polymerases used to amplify a DNA signal, for example, are made in bacteria and may retain trace amounts identified in these studies.
Dr. Knight agreed that low biomass is a challenge in this field but is not an unsurmountable one.
Another challenge is that study samples, as with Dr. Knight’s work, were collected during routine surgeries without the intent to find a microbial signal. Simply using a scalpel to cut through the skin means cutting through a layer of bacteria, and surgery rooms are not designed to eliminate all bacteria. Some work has even shown there is a “hospital microbiome,” so “you can easily have that creep into your signal and mistake it for tumor-resident bacteria,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said.
Dr. Knight asserted that the samples are taken under sterile conditions, but other researchers do not think the level of sterility necessary for completely clean samples is possible.
“Just because it’s in your sample doesn’t mean it was in your tumor,” Dr. Gihawi said.
Even if scientists can retrieve a reliable sample without contamination, analyzing it requires comparing the genetic material to existing databases of microbial genomes. Yet, contamination and misclassification of genetic sequences can be problems in those reference genomes too, Dr. Gihawi explained.
Machine learning algorithms have a role in interpreting data, but “we need to be careful of what we use them for,” he added.
“These techniques are in their infancy, and we’re starting to chase them down, which is why we need to move microbiome research in a way that can be used clinically,” Dr. Gihawi said.
Influence on Cancer Treatment Outcomes
Again, however, the question of whether microbiomes exist within tumors is only one slice of the much larger field looking at microbiomes and cancer, including its influence on cancer treatment outcomes. Although much remains to be learned, less controversy exists over the thousands of studies in the past two decades that have gradually revealed how the body’s microbiome can affect both the course of a cancer and the effectiveness of different treatments.
The growing research showing the importance of the gut microbiome in cancer treatments is not surprising given its role in immunity more broadly. Because the human immune system must recognize and defend against microbes, the microbiome helps train it, Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said.
Some bacteria can escape the gut — a phenomenon called bacterial translocation — and may aid in fighting tumors. To grow large enough to be seen on imaging, tumors need to evolve several abilities, such as growing enough vascularization to receive blood flow and shutting down local immune responses.
“Any added boost, like immunotherapy, has a chance of breaking through that immune forcefield and killing the tumor cells,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. Escaped gut bacteria may provide that boost.
“There’s a lot of evidence that depletion of the gut microbiome impairs immunotherapy and chemotherapy. The thinking behind some of those studies is that gut microbes can cross the gut barrier and when they do, they activate the immune system,” he said.
In mice engineered to have sterile guts, for example, the lack of bacteria results in less effective immune systems, Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin pointed out. A host of research has shown that antibiotic exposure during and even 6 months before immunotherapy dramatically reduces survival rates. “That’s pretty convincing to me that gut microbes are important,” he said.
Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin cautioned that there continues to be controversy on understanding which bacteria are important for response to immunotherapy. “The field is still in its infancy in terms of understanding which bacteria are most important for these effects,” he said.
Dr. Knight suggested that escaped bacteria may be the genesis of the ones that he and other researchers believe exist in tumors. “Because tumor microbes must come from somewhere, it is to be expected that some of those microbes will be co-opted from body-site specific commensals.”
It’s also possible that metabolites released from gut bacteria escape the gut and could theoretically affect distant tumor growth, Dr. Gihawi said. The most promising avenue of research in this area is metabolites being used as biomarkers, added Dr. Gihawi, whose lab published research on a link between bacteria detected in men’s urine and a more aggressive subset of prostate cancers. But that research is not far enough along to develop lab tests for clinical use, he noted.
No Consensus Yet
Even before the controversy erupted around Dr. Knight’s research, he co-founded the company Micronoma to develop cancer tests based on his microbe findings. The company has raised $17.5 million from private investors as of August 2023 and received the US Food and Drug Administration’s Breakthrough Device designation, allowing the firm to fast-track clinical trials testing the technology. The recent critiques have not changed the company’s plans.
It’s safe to say that scientists will continue to research and debate the possibility of tumor microbiomes until a consensus emerges.
“The field is evolving and studies testing the reproducibility of tumor-resident microbial signals are essential for developing our understanding in this area,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said.
Even if that path ultimately leads nowhere, as Dr. Salzberg expects, research into microbiomes and cancer has plenty of other directions to go.
“I’m actually quite an optimist,” Dr. Gihawi said. “I think there’s a lot of scope for some really good research here, especially in the sites where we know there is a strong microbiome, such as the gastrointestinal tract.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Last year, the controversy heightened when experts questioned a high-profile study — a 2020 analysis claiming that the tumors of 33 different cancers had their own unique microbiomes — on whether the “signature” of these bacterial compositions could help diagnose cancer.
The incident renewed the spotlight on “tumor microbiomes” because of the bold claims of the original paper and the strongly worded refutations of those claims. The broader field has focused primarily on ways the body’s microbiome interacts with cancers and cancer treatment.
This controversy has highlighted the challenges of making headway in a field where researchers may not even have the tools yet to puzzle-out the wide-ranging implications the microbiome holds for cancer diagnosis and treatment.
But it is also part of a provocative question within that larger field: whether tumors in the body, far from the natural microbiome in the gut, have their own thriving communities of bacteria, viruses, and fungi. And, if they do, how do those tumor microbiomes affect the development and progression of the cancer and the effectiveness of cancer therapies?
Cancer Controversy
The evidence is undeniable that some microbes can directly cause certain cancers and that the human gut microbiome can influence the effectiveness of certain therapies. Beyond that established science, however, the research has raised as many questions as answers about what we do and don’t know about microbiota and cancer.
The only confirmed microbiomes are on the skin and in the gut, mouth, and vagina, which are all areas with an easy direct route for bacteria to enter and grow in or on the body. A series of papers in recent years have suggested that other internal organs, and tumors within them, may have their own microbiomes.
“Whether microbes exist in tumors of internal organs beyond body surfaces exposed to the environment is a different matter,” said Ivan Vujkovic-Cvijin, PhD, an assistant professor of biomedical sciences and gastroenterology at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, whose lab studies how human gut microbes affect inflammatory diseases. “We’ve only recently had the tools to study that question on a molecular level, and the reported results have been conflicting.”
For example, research allegedly identified microbiota in the human placenta nearly one decade ago. But subsequent research contradicted those claims and showed that the source of the “placental microbiome” was actually contamination. Subsequent similar studies for other parts of the body faced the same scrutiny and, often, eventual debunking.
“Most likely, our immune system has undergone selective pressure to eliminate everything that crosses the gut barrier because there’s not much benefit to the body to have bacteria run amok in our internal organs,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. “That can only disrupt the functioning of our tissues, to have an external organism living inside them.”
The controversy that erupted last summer, surrounding research from the lab of Rob Knight, PhD, at the University of California, San Diego, centered on a slightly different but related question: Could tumors harbor their own microbiomes?
This news organization spoke with two of the authors who published a paper contesting Dr. Knight’s findings: Steven Salzberg, PhD, a professor of biomedical engineering at John Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, and Abraham Gihawi, PhD, a research fellow at Norwich Medical School at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom.
Dr. Salzberg described two major problems with Dr. Knight’s study.
“What they found were false positives because of contamination in the database and flaws in their methods,” Dr. Salzberg said. “I can’t prove there’s no cancer microbiome, but I can say the cancer microbiomes that they reported don’t exist because the species they were finding aren’t there.”
Dr. Knight disagrees with Dr. Salzberg’s findings, noting that Dr. Salzberg and his co-authors did not examine the publicly available databases used in his study. In a written response, he said that his team’s examination of the database revealed that less than 1% of the microbial genomes overlapped with human ones and that removing them did not change their findings.
Dr. Knight also noted that his team could still “distinguish cancer types by their microbiome” even after running their analysis without the technique that Dr. Salzberg found fault with.
Dr. Salzberg said that the database linked above is not the one Dr. Knight’s study used, however. “The primary database in their study was never made public (it’s too large, they said), and it has/had about 69,000 genomes,” Dr. Salzberg said by email. “But even if we did, this is irrelevant. He’s trying to distract from the primary errors in their study,” which Dr. Salzberg said Dr. Knight’s team has not addressed.
The critiques Dr. Salzberg raised have been leveled at other studies investigating microbiomes specifically within tumors and independent of the body’s microbiome.
For example, a 2019 study in Nature described a fungal microbiome in pancreatic cancer that a Nature paper 4 years later directly contradicted, citing flaws that invalidated the original findings. A different 2019 study in Cell examined pancreatic tumor microbiota and patient outcomes, but it’s unclear whether the microorganisms moved from the gut to the pancreas or “constitute a durably colonized community that lives inside the tumor,” which remains a matter of debate, Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said.
A 2020 study in Science suggested diverse microbial communities in seven tumor types, but those findings were similarly called into question. That study stated that “bacteria were first detected in human tumors more than 100 years ago” and that “bacteria are well-known residents in human tumors,” but Dr. Salzberg considers those statements misleading.
It’s true that bacteria and viruses have been detected in tumors because “there’s very good evidence that an acute infection caused by a very small number of viruses and bacteria can cause a tumor,” Dr. Salzberg said. Human papillomavirus, for example, can cause six different types of cancer. Inflammation and ulcers caused by Helicobacter pylori may progress to stomach cancer, and Fusobacterium nucleatum and Enterococcus faecalis have been shown to contribute to colorectal cancer. Those examples differ from a microbiome; this “a community of bacteria and possibly other microscopic bugs, like fungi, that are happily living in the tumor” the same way microbes reside in our guts, he said.
Dr. Knight said that many bacteria his team identified “have been confirmed independently in subsequent work.” He acknowledged, however, that more research is needed.
Several of the contested studies above were among a lengthy list that Dr. Knight provided, noting that most of the disagreements “have two sides to them, and critiques from one particular group does not immediately invalidate a reported finding.”
Yet, many of the papers Dr. Knight listed are precisely the types that skeptics like Dr. Salzberg believe are too flawed to draw reliable conclusions.
“I think many agree that microbes may exist within tumors that are exposed to the environment, like tumors of the skin, gut, and mouth,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. It’s less clear, however, whether tumors further from the body’s microbiome harbor any microbes or where they came from if they do. Microbial signals in organs elsewhere in the body become faint quickly, he said.
Underdeveloped Technology
Though Dr. Salzberg said that the concept of a tumor microbiome is “implausible” because there’s no easy route for bacteria to reach internal organs, it’s unclear whether scientists have the technology yet to adequately answer this question.
For one thing, samples in these types of studies are typically “ultra-low biomass samples, where the signal — the amount of microbes in the sample — is so low that it’s comparable to how much would be expected to be found in reagents and environmental contamination through processing,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin explained. Many polymerases used to amplify a DNA signal, for example, are made in bacteria and may retain trace amounts identified in these studies.
Dr. Knight agreed that low biomass is a challenge in this field but is not an unsurmountable one.
Another challenge is that study samples, as with Dr. Knight’s work, were collected during routine surgeries without the intent to find a microbial signal. Simply using a scalpel to cut through the skin means cutting through a layer of bacteria, and surgery rooms are not designed to eliminate all bacteria. Some work has even shown there is a “hospital microbiome,” so “you can easily have that creep into your signal and mistake it for tumor-resident bacteria,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said.
Dr. Knight asserted that the samples are taken under sterile conditions, but other researchers do not think the level of sterility necessary for completely clean samples is possible.
“Just because it’s in your sample doesn’t mean it was in your tumor,” Dr. Gihawi said.
Even if scientists can retrieve a reliable sample without contamination, analyzing it requires comparing the genetic material to existing databases of microbial genomes. Yet, contamination and misclassification of genetic sequences can be problems in those reference genomes too, Dr. Gihawi explained.
Machine learning algorithms have a role in interpreting data, but “we need to be careful of what we use them for,” he added.
“These techniques are in their infancy, and we’re starting to chase them down, which is why we need to move microbiome research in a way that can be used clinically,” Dr. Gihawi said.
Influence on Cancer Treatment Outcomes
Again, however, the question of whether microbiomes exist within tumors is only one slice of the much larger field looking at microbiomes and cancer, including its influence on cancer treatment outcomes. Although much remains to be learned, less controversy exists over the thousands of studies in the past two decades that have gradually revealed how the body’s microbiome can affect both the course of a cancer and the effectiveness of different treatments.
The growing research showing the importance of the gut microbiome in cancer treatments is not surprising given its role in immunity more broadly. Because the human immune system must recognize and defend against microbes, the microbiome helps train it, Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said.
Some bacteria can escape the gut — a phenomenon called bacterial translocation — and may aid in fighting tumors. To grow large enough to be seen on imaging, tumors need to evolve several abilities, such as growing enough vascularization to receive blood flow and shutting down local immune responses.
“Any added boost, like immunotherapy, has a chance of breaking through that immune forcefield and killing the tumor cells,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. Escaped gut bacteria may provide that boost.
“There’s a lot of evidence that depletion of the gut microbiome impairs immunotherapy and chemotherapy. The thinking behind some of those studies is that gut microbes can cross the gut barrier and when they do, they activate the immune system,” he said.
In mice engineered to have sterile guts, for example, the lack of bacteria results in less effective immune systems, Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin pointed out. A host of research has shown that antibiotic exposure during and even 6 months before immunotherapy dramatically reduces survival rates. “That’s pretty convincing to me that gut microbes are important,” he said.
Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin cautioned that there continues to be controversy on understanding which bacteria are important for response to immunotherapy. “The field is still in its infancy in terms of understanding which bacteria are most important for these effects,” he said.
Dr. Knight suggested that escaped bacteria may be the genesis of the ones that he and other researchers believe exist in tumors. “Because tumor microbes must come from somewhere, it is to be expected that some of those microbes will be co-opted from body-site specific commensals.”
It’s also possible that metabolites released from gut bacteria escape the gut and could theoretically affect distant tumor growth, Dr. Gihawi said. The most promising avenue of research in this area is metabolites being used as biomarkers, added Dr. Gihawi, whose lab published research on a link between bacteria detected in men’s urine and a more aggressive subset of prostate cancers. But that research is not far enough along to develop lab tests for clinical use, he noted.
No Consensus Yet
Even before the controversy erupted around Dr. Knight’s research, he co-founded the company Micronoma to develop cancer tests based on his microbe findings. The company has raised $17.5 million from private investors as of August 2023 and received the US Food and Drug Administration’s Breakthrough Device designation, allowing the firm to fast-track clinical trials testing the technology. The recent critiques have not changed the company’s plans.
It’s safe to say that scientists will continue to research and debate the possibility of tumor microbiomes until a consensus emerges.
“The field is evolving and studies testing the reproducibility of tumor-resident microbial signals are essential for developing our understanding in this area,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said.
Even if that path ultimately leads nowhere, as Dr. Salzberg expects, research into microbiomes and cancer has plenty of other directions to go.
“I’m actually quite an optimist,” Dr. Gihawi said. “I think there’s a lot of scope for some really good research here, especially in the sites where we know there is a strong microbiome, such as the gastrointestinal tract.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Cervical Cancer Screening: US Clinicians Unclear About Best Practices
In 2020, the American Cancer Society (ACS) updated its cervical screening guidelines, proposing two major changes: start cervical cancer screening at age 25, rather than 21, and perform primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing, instead of a Pap test.
First, healthcare providers in the US may be unsure how to reconcile conflicting cervical cancer screening guidelines from another major organization — the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), which published guidelines in 2018.
Although the ACS guidelines are based on an analysis of the latest evidence,
the recommendations challenge those from the USPSTF, which dictates insurance coverage in the US. Last year, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) aligned its guidelines with those from the USPSTF.
The USPSTF recommends average-risk individuals start Pap, not HPV, testing at age 21, and broadens the options to primary HPV testing, Pap testing, or both together starting at age 30. The ACS, on the other hand, says primary HPV testing is the preferred screening approach from the start, which should be age 25.
Because the ACS guidelines marked a notable departure from prevailing practice, a team of researchers from five US universities decided to find out if anyone was following them.
The results, published in the journal Cancer in March, revealed that most healthcare providers had not changed practice.
Lead author Rebecca Perkins, MD, MSc, and colleagues found that, among the 70 respondents, few were starting screening at age 25, and none had switched to primary HPV testing.
The survey then probed clinicians’ willingness to adopt the ACS guidelines as well as their reservations and barriers to doing so.
Notably, more than half of the survey participants said they would be willing to adopt the ACS guidelines if the best evidence supported the changes and other professional medical organizations endorsed them.
On the age change, participants highlighted a range of benefits to moving to a later screening age, including that earlier screening may not be valuable and delaying screening could reduce overtreatment.
One participant noted: “We know that cervical cancer is usually a slow‐growing, long‐term progressive disease that does not typically show up that early in life, and we also know that, if infected, oftentimes their immune system can fight off the virus. So, it sounds reasonable at first glance [to delay screening to age 25 years].”
Others, however, brought up barriers to initiating screening at age 25. Some mentioned that later screening may not work for high‐risk populations and others voiced concerns about missing high‐grade precancer or cancer. “It’s not unusual for us to see women in their early 20s that have already had 10 or 15 partners. … a lot of them smoke too … they just have a lot of bad habits that put them at more risk,” one respondent noted.
On the HPV vs Pap testing front, many participants described a growing confidence in HPV tests after trying co-testing. One participant said, “Honestly, I do look more at the HPV results than the cytology. I put more faith in knowing what their HPV status is than anything.”
The main barriers to primary HPV testing, however, included lack of autonomy when working in a large health system, concerns about the efficacy of HPV testing, and a belief that cytology was valuable.
Some clinicians were worried about missing high-grade lesions or cancer. One healthcare provider said, “My only concern with primary HPV screening is occasionally you will pick up endometrial abnormalities on a Pap that you’re not going to pick up with HPV screening.”
Logistics and finances also played a role in clinicians’ hesitancy to switch to the ACS recommendation. Labs that could handle primary HPV tests were not available to some participants, and lack of insurance coverage was a barrier for others. One respondent noted, for instance, that his institution has a “cytology infrastructure that already exists in the lab and I can’t really see them switching.”
Many survey respondents also said they were waiting for endorsement from organizations, such as ACOG and USPSTF. “We run by the USPSTF and … ACOG. We don’t run by the ACS guidelines,” one person said.
Finally, some participants were not aware of the ACS recommendations at all or the data behind them but said they would be willing to change to primary HPV testing in the future.
Overall, Dr. Perkins said she was happy to see that more than half of the respondents would be willing to shift to the ACS screening guidelines, but noted that many remain reluctant to do so until the USPSTF and ACOG change their guidelines.
“It’s really just a matter of the USPSTF and ACOG endorsing” the ACS guidelines, said Dr. Perkins, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Boston University.
The USPSTF is currently updating its cervical screening guidelines, which could potentially help reconcile this discord between the guidelines and close the gaps in practice patterns.
The USPSTF’s review of the evidence, which led to the 2018 guidelines, did highlight the effectiveness of HPV testing. The review authors concluded that “the evidence was consistent across trials” that primary, high-risk HPV screening increased detection of grade 3 or worse cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in the initial round of screening “by as much as 2 to 3 times when compared with cytology.”
However, Joy Melnikow, MD, MPH, first author on the USPSTF evidence review, explained that the reviewers factored in access to HPV testing when making their final recommendations.
“The consideration was making sure that a recommendation could be inclusive of all providers and all populations and not restricting access for clinics that couldn’t afford or didn’t have the machine to do [HPV testing],” Dr. Melnikow, director of the Center for Healthcare Policy and Research and professor of family and community medicine at the University of California Davis, told this news organization.
The ACS, however, did not consider potential access problems in its analysis of the evidence.
Although the ACS evidence is “excellent,” Dr. Perkins said, “it’s really just a matter of the USPSTF and ACOG endorsing that, and then it seems like a lot of people are willing to make the change.”
Dr. Perkins reports no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
In 2020, the American Cancer Society (ACS) updated its cervical screening guidelines, proposing two major changes: start cervical cancer screening at age 25, rather than 21, and perform primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing, instead of a Pap test.
First, healthcare providers in the US may be unsure how to reconcile conflicting cervical cancer screening guidelines from another major organization — the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), which published guidelines in 2018.
Although the ACS guidelines are based on an analysis of the latest evidence,
the recommendations challenge those from the USPSTF, which dictates insurance coverage in the US. Last year, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) aligned its guidelines with those from the USPSTF.
The USPSTF recommends average-risk individuals start Pap, not HPV, testing at age 21, and broadens the options to primary HPV testing, Pap testing, or both together starting at age 30. The ACS, on the other hand, says primary HPV testing is the preferred screening approach from the start, which should be age 25.
Because the ACS guidelines marked a notable departure from prevailing practice, a team of researchers from five US universities decided to find out if anyone was following them.
The results, published in the journal Cancer in March, revealed that most healthcare providers had not changed practice.
Lead author Rebecca Perkins, MD, MSc, and colleagues found that, among the 70 respondents, few were starting screening at age 25, and none had switched to primary HPV testing.
The survey then probed clinicians’ willingness to adopt the ACS guidelines as well as their reservations and barriers to doing so.
Notably, more than half of the survey participants said they would be willing to adopt the ACS guidelines if the best evidence supported the changes and other professional medical organizations endorsed them.
On the age change, participants highlighted a range of benefits to moving to a later screening age, including that earlier screening may not be valuable and delaying screening could reduce overtreatment.
One participant noted: “We know that cervical cancer is usually a slow‐growing, long‐term progressive disease that does not typically show up that early in life, and we also know that, if infected, oftentimes their immune system can fight off the virus. So, it sounds reasonable at first glance [to delay screening to age 25 years].”
Others, however, brought up barriers to initiating screening at age 25. Some mentioned that later screening may not work for high‐risk populations and others voiced concerns about missing high‐grade precancer or cancer. “It’s not unusual for us to see women in their early 20s that have already had 10 or 15 partners. … a lot of them smoke too … they just have a lot of bad habits that put them at more risk,” one respondent noted.
On the HPV vs Pap testing front, many participants described a growing confidence in HPV tests after trying co-testing. One participant said, “Honestly, I do look more at the HPV results than the cytology. I put more faith in knowing what their HPV status is than anything.”
The main barriers to primary HPV testing, however, included lack of autonomy when working in a large health system, concerns about the efficacy of HPV testing, and a belief that cytology was valuable.
Some clinicians were worried about missing high-grade lesions or cancer. One healthcare provider said, “My only concern with primary HPV screening is occasionally you will pick up endometrial abnormalities on a Pap that you’re not going to pick up with HPV screening.”
Logistics and finances also played a role in clinicians’ hesitancy to switch to the ACS recommendation. Labs that could handle primary HPV tests were not available to some participants, and lack of insurance coverage was a barrier for others. One respondent noted, for instance, that his institution has a “cytology infrastructure that already exists in the lab and I can’t really see them switching.”
Many survey respondents also said they were waiting for endorsement from organizations, such as ACOG and USPSTF. “We run by the USPSTF and … ACOG. We don’t run by the ACS guidelines,” one person said.
Finally, some participants were not aware of the ACS recommendations at all or the data behind them but said they would be willing to change to primary HPV testing in the future.
Overall, Dr. Perkins said she was happy to see that more than half of the respondents would be willing to shift to the ACS screening guidelines, but noted that many remain reluctant to do so until the USPSTF and ACOG change their guidelines.
“It’s really just a matter of the USPSTF and ACOG endorsing” the ACS guidelines, said Dr. Perkins, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Boston University.
The USPSTF is currently updating its cervical screening guidelines, which could potentially help reconcile this discord between the guidelines and close the gaps in practice patterns.
The USPSTF’s review of the evidence, which led to the 2018 guidelines, did highlight the effectiveness of HPV testing. The review authors concluded that “the evidence was consistent across trials” that primary, high-risk HPV screening increased detection of grade 3 or worse cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in the initial round of screening “by as much as 2 to 3 times when compared with cytology.”
However, Joy Melnikow, MD, MPH, first author on the USPSTF evidence review, explained that the reviewers factored in access to HPV testing when making their final recommendations.
“The consideration was making sure that a recommendation could be inclusive of all providers and all populations and not restricting access for clinics that couldn’t afford or didn’t have the machine to do [HPV testing],” Dr. Melnikow, director of the Center for Healthcare Policy and Research and professor of family and community medicine at the University of California Davis, told this news organization.
The ACS, however, did not consider potential access problems in its analysis of the evidence.
Although the ACS evidence is “excellent,” Dr. Perkins said, “it’s really just a matter of the USPSTF and ACOG endorsing that, and then it seems like a lot of people are willing to make the change.”
Dr. Perkins reports no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
In 2020, the American Cancer Society (ACS) updated its cervical screening guidelines, proposing two major changes: start cervical cancer screening at age 25, rather than 21, and perform primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing, instead of a Pap test.
First, healthcare providers in the US may be unsure how to reconcile conflicting cervical cancer screening guidelines from another major organization — the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), which published guidelines in 2018.
Although the ACS guidelines are based on an analysis of the latest evidence,
the recommendations challenge those from the USPSTF, which dictates insurance coverage in the US. Last year, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) aligned its guidelines with those from the USPSTF.
The USPSTF recommends average-risk individuals start Pap, not HPV, testing at age 21, and broadens the options to primary HPV testing, Pap testing, or both together starting at age 30. The ACS, on the other hand, says primary HPV testing is the preferred screening approach from the start, which should be age 25.
Because the ACS guidelines marked a notable departure from prevailing practice, a team of researchers from five US universities decided to find out if anyone was following them.
The results, published in the journal Cancer in March, revealed that most healthcare providers had not changed practice.
Lead author Rebecca Perkins, MD, MSc, and colleagues found that, among the 70 respondents, few were starting screening at age 25, and none had switched to primary HPV testing.
The survey then probed clinicians’ willingness to adopt the ACS guidelines as well as their reservations and barriers to doing so.
Notably, more than half of the survey participants said they would be willing to adopt the ACS guidelines if the best evidence supported the changes and other professional medical organizations endorsed them.
On the age change, participants highlighted a range of benefits to moving to a later screening age, including that earlier screening may not be valuable and delaying screening could reduce overtreatment.
One participant noted: “We know that cervical cancer is usually a slow‐growing, long‐term progressive disease that does not typically show up that early in life, and we also know that, if infected, oftentimes their immune system can fight off the virus. So, it sounds reasonable at first glance [to delay screening to age 25 years].”
Others, however, brought up barriers to initiating screening at age 25. Some mentioned that later screening may not work for high‐risk populations and others voiced concerns about missing high‐grade precancer or cancer. “It’s not unusual for us to see women in their early 20s that have already had 10 or 15 partners. … a lot of them smoke too … they just have a lot of bad habits that put them at more risk,” one respondent noted.
On the HPV vs Pap testing front, many participants described a growing confidence in HPV tests after trying co-testing. One participant said, “Honestly, I do look more at the HPV results than the cytology. I put more faith in knowing what their HPV status is than anything.”
The main barriers to primary HPV testing, however, included lack of autonomy when working in a large health system, concerns about the efficacy of HPV testing, and a belief that cytology was valuable.
Some clinicians were worried about missing high-grade lesions or cancer. One healthcare provider said, “My only concern with primary HPV screening is occasionally you will pick up endometrial abnormalities on a Pap that you’re not going to pick up with HPV screening.”
Logistics and finances also played a role in clinicians’ hesitancy to switch to the ACS recommendation. Labs that could handle primary HPV tests were not available to some participants, and lack of insurance coverage was a barrier for others. One respondent noted, for instance, that his institution has a “cytology infrastructure that already exists in the lab and I can’t really see them switching.”
Many survey respondents also said they were waiting for endorsement from organizations, such as ACOG and USPSTF. “We run by the USPSTF and … ACOG. We don’t run by the ACS guidelines,” one person said.
Finally, some participants were not aware of the ACS recommendations at all or the data behind them but said they would be willing to change to primary HPV testing in the future.
Overall, Dr. Perkins said she was happy to see that more than half of the respondents would be willing to shift to the ACS screening guidelines, but noted that many remain reluctant to do so until the USPSTF and ACOG change their guidelines.
“It’s really just a matter of the USPSTF and ACOG endorsing” the ACS guidelines, said Dr. Perkins, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Boston University.
The USPSTF is currently updating its cervical screening guidelines, which could potentially help reconcile this discord between the guidelines and close the gaps in practice patterns.
The USPSTF’s review of the evidence, which led to the 2018 guidelines, did highlight the effectiveness of HPV testing. The review authors concluded that “the evidence was consistent across trials” that primary, high-risk HPV screening increased detection of grade 3 or worse cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in the initial round of screening “by as much as 2 to 3 times when compared with cytology.”
However, Joy Melnikow, MD, MPH, first author on the USPSTF evidence review, explained that the reviewers factored in access to HPV testing when making their final recommendations.
“The consideration was making sure that a recommendation could be inclusive of all providers and all populations and not restricting access for clinics that couldn’t afford or didn’t have the machine to do [HPV testing],” Dr. Melnikow, director of the Center for Healthcare Policy and Research and professor of family and community medicine at the University of California Davis, told this news organization.
The ACS, however, did not consider potential access problems in its analysis of the evidence.
Although the ACS evidence is “excellent,” Dr. Perkins said, “it’s really just a matter of the USPSTF and ACOG endorsing that, and then it seems like a lot of people are willing to make the change.”
Dr. Perkins reports no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Potential Cure for Early BRCA-Mutated Breast Cancer?
SAN DIEGO —
In a small trial, 39 patients randomized to the regimen — a combination of standard chemotherapy with the poly(ADP-ribose)polymerase (PARP) inhibitor olaparib — were alive at 3 years vs 39 of 45 (87%) randomized to chemotherapy alone.
“A remarkable 100% of patients were still alive at 36 months, which is a significant landmark for these patients,” said chief investigator Jean Abraham, PhD, a breast oncologist at the University of Cambridge, England, who presented the findings at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.
It’s a “small but very powerful signal” of “what could be a potentially curative regimen that definitely does need to be confirmed in a larger study,” Dr. Abraham added.
The study, a part of the PARTNER trial, included 84 patients with T1-2 tumors of any hormone status. Just over 70% in both arms had BRCA 1 mutations, and the rest had BRCA 2 mutations.
Past attempts at combining chemotherapy with PARP inhibitors have been hampered by excess bone marrow toxicity. To counter the problem, patients randomized to the combination therapy received olaparib 48 hours after carboplatin to give their bone marrow a chance to recover.
The median age was 38 years in the control group and 47 years in the olaparib arm. A greater proportion of patients in the control arm (42% vs 23%) had axillary node involvement.
Overall, patients received neoadjuvant carboplatin on day 1 and paclitaxel on days 1, 8, and 15 every 3 weeks for four cycles, followed by anthracycline every 3 weeks for three cycles. In the study arm, olaparib 150 mg was administered twice daily starting on day 3 continuing to day 14 during the first four cycles. Almost 90% of patients received at least 80% of their planned olaparib dose.
Despite the delay in olaparib dosing, 56.4% of patients in the combination arm required a transfusion vs 48.9% with chemotherapy alone.
At a median follow-up of 40.7 months, 96% of patients in the combination arm demonstrated event-free survival, with one patient relapsing, vs 80% in the chemotherapy-alone group, with nine patients relapsing.
In the final analysis, 64% of patients who received olaparib had a pathological complete response compared with almost 70% in the chemotherapy group, though the difference was not statistically significant.
The trial was stopped short at 50% enrollment after the data monitoring safety committee determined that olaparib add-on was unlikely to improve pathological complete response rates, the trial’s primary endpoint.
However, pathological complete response rates did not appear to affect overall survival.
“It didn’t seem to matter whether you had a non-pathological complete response, you still survived 100%” with the combination, Dr. Abraham said, adding that this is not the first study to show a disconnect between response rates and survival.
Perhaps, this disconnect could be due to “doomed cells” that look like residual disease but are, in fact, dying and unable to metastasize, she said.
No patients in the combination arm and two in the control arm received olaparib, immunotherapy, or capecitabine after surgery. Both control participants relapsed, and one died.
Toxicity was more severe for patients in the combination arm. More patients who received olaparib (76.9%) experienced a grade 3 or worse adverse event vs 60% of patients in the control arm.
Study discussant Hope S. Rugo, MD, a breast oncologist at the University of California San Francisco, highlighted a few limitations and remaining questions.
First, “this is a very small population, so small differences in the biology of the tumor, the patients, and even stage that we can’t assess in the neoadjuvant setting could make a difference that would affect event-free and overall survival,” she said.
Second, two patients with pathological complete responses relapsed in the control arm and died, “which is quite unusual,” Dr. Rugo said. “Patients who achieve a pathological complete response generally have an excellent outcome.”
Dr. Rugo noted that “gap sequencing doesn’t appear to avoid the toxicity of PARP inhibitors.”
However, she said, “the efficacy results are intriguing” and would need confirmation in a larger randomized trial, perhaps with newer, more selective PARP inhibitors.
The work was funded by AstraZeneca, maker of olaparib. Researchers included AstraZeneca employees. Dr. Abraham is an adviser to and disclosed grants, travel costs, and honoraria from the company. Dr. Rugo disclosed research funding from AstraZeneca and other companies.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
SAN DIEGO —
In a small trial, 39 patients randomized to the regimen — a combination of standard chemotherapy with the poly(ADP-ribose)polymerase (PARP) inhibitor olaparib — were alive at 3 years vs 39 of 45 (87%) randomized to chemotherapy alone.
“A remarkable 100% of patients were still alive at 36 months, which is a significant landmark for these patients,” said chief investigator Jean Abraham, PhD, a breast oncologist at the University of Cambridge, England, who presented the findings at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.
It’s a “small but very powerful signal” of “what could be a potentially curative regimen that definitely does need to be confirmed in a larger study,” Dr. Abraham added.
The study, a part of the PARTNER trial, included 84 patients with T1-2 tumors of any hormone status. Just over 70% in both arms had BRCA 1 mutations, and the rest had BRCA 2 mutations.
Past attempts at combining chemotherapy with PARP inhibitors have been hampered by excess bone marrow toxicity. To counter the problem, patients randomized to the combination therapy received olaparib 48 hours after carboplatin to give their bone marrow a chance to recover.
The median age was 38 years in the control group and 47 years in the olaparib arm. A greater proportion of patients in the control arm (42% vs 23%) had axillary node involvement.
Overall, patients received neoadjuvant carboplatin on day 1 and paclitaxel on days 1, 8, and 15 every 3 weeks for four cycles, followed by anthracycline every 3 weeks for three cycles. In the study arm, olaparib 150 mg was administered twice daily starting on day 3 continuing to day 14 during the first four cycles. Almost 90% of patients received at least 80% of their planned olaparib dose.
Despite the delay in olaparib dosing, 56.4% of patients in the combination arm required a transfusion vs 48.9% with chemotherapy alone.
At a median follow-up of 40.7 months, 96% of patients in the combination arm demonstrated event-free survival, with one patient relapsing, vs 80% in the chemotherapy-alone group, with nine patients relapsing.
In the final analysis, 64% of patients who received olaparib had a pathological complete response compared with almost 70% in the chemotherapy group, though the difference was not statistically significant.
The trial was stopped short at 50% enrollment after the data monitoring safety committee determined that olaparib add-on was unlikely to improve pathological complete response rates, the trial’s primary endpoint.
However, pathological complete response rates did not appear to affect overall survival.
“It didn’t seem to matter whether you had a non-pathological complete response, you still survived 100%” with the combination, Dr. Abraham said, adding that this is not the first study to show a disconnect between response rates and survival.
Perhaps, this disconnect could be due to “doomed cells” that look like residual disease but are, in fact, dying and unable to metastasize, she said.
No patients in the combination arm and two in the control arm received olaparib, immunotherapy, or capecitabine after surgery. Both control participants relapsed, and one died.
Toxicity was more severe for patients in the combination arm. More patients who received olaparib (76.9%) experienced a grade 3 or worse adverse event vs 60% of patients in the control arm.
Study discussant Hope S. Rugo, MD, a breast oncologist at the University of California San Francisco, highlighted a few limitations and remaining questions.
First, “this is a very small population, so small differences in the biology of the tumor, the patients, and even stage that we can’t assess in the neoadjuvant setting could make a difference that would affect event-free and overall survival,” she said.
Second, two patients with pathological complete responses relapsed in the control arm and died, “which is quite unusual,” Dr. Rugo said. “Patients who achieve a pathological complete response generally have an excellent outcome.”
Dr. Rugo noted that “gap sequencing doesn’t appear to avoid the toxicity of PARP inhibitors.”
However, she said, “the efficacy results are intriguing” and would need confirmation in a larger randomized trial, perhaps with newer, more selective PARP inhibitors.
The work was funded by AstraZeneca, maker of olaparib. Researchers included AstraZeneca employees. Dr. Abraham is an adviser to and disclosed grants, travel costs, and honoraria from the company. Dr. Rugo disclosed research funding from AstraZeneca and other companies.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
SAN DIEGO —
In a small trial, 39 patients randomized to the regimen — a combination of standard chemotherapy with the poly(ADP-ribose)polymerase (PARP) inhibitor olaparib — were alive at 3 years vs 39 of 45 (87%) randomized to chemotherapy alone.
“A remarkable 100% of patients were still alive at 36 months, which is a significant landmark for these patients,” said chief investigator Jean Abraham, PhD, a breast oncologist at the University of Cambridge, England, who presented the findings at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.
It’s a “small but very powerful signal” of “what could be a potentially curative regimen that definitely does need to be confirmed in a larger study,” Dr. Abraham added.
The study, a part of the PARTNER trial, included 84 patients with T1-2 tumors of any hormone status. Just over 70% in both arms had BRCA 1 mutations, and the rest had BRCA 2 mutations.
Past attempts at combining chemotherapy with PARP inhibitors have been hampered by excess bone marrow toxicity. To counter the problem, patients randomized to the combination therapy received olaparib 48 hours after carboplatin to give their bone marrow a chance to recover.
The median age was 38 years in the control group and 47 years in the olaparib arm. A greater proportion of patients in the control arm (42% vs 23%) had axillary node involvement.
Overall, patients received neoadjuvant carboplatin on day 1 and paclitaxel on days 1, 8, and 15 every 3 weeks for four cycles, followed by anthracycline every 3 weeks for three cycles. In the study arm, olaparib 150 mg was administered twice daily starting on day 3 continuing to day 14 during the first four cycles. Almost 90% of patients received at least 80% of their planned olaparib dose.
Despite the delay in olaparib dosing, 56.4% of patients in the combination arm required a transfusion vs 48.9% with chemotherapy alone.
At a median follow-up of 40.7 months, 96% of patients in the combination arm demonstrated event-free survival, with one patient relapsing, vs 80% in the chemotherapy-alone group, with nine patients relapsing.
In the final analysis, 64% of patients who received olaparib had a pathological complete response compared with almost 70% in the chemotherapy group, though the difference was not statistically significant.
The trial was stopped short at 50% enrollment after the data monitoring safety committee determined that olaparib add-on was unlikely to improve pathological complete response rates, the trial’s primary endpoint.
However, pathological complete response rates did not appear to affect overall survival.
“It didn’t seem to matter whether you had a non-pathological complete response, you still survived 100%” with the combination, Dr. Abraham said, adding that this is not the first study to show a disconnect between response rates and survival.
Perhaps, this disconnect could be due to “doomed cells” that look like residual disease but are, in fact, dying and unable to metastasize, she said.
No patients in the combination arm and two in the control arm received olaparib, immunotherapy, or capecitabine after surgery. Both control participants relapsed, and one died.
Toxicity was more severe for patients in the combination arm. More patients who received olaparib (76.9%) experienced a grade 3 or worse adverse event vs 60% of patients in the control arm.
Study discussant Hope S. Rugo, MD, a breast oncologist at the University of California San Francisco, highlighted a few limitations and remaining questions.
First, “this is a very small population, so small differences in the biology of the tumor, the patients, and even stage that we can’t assess in the neoadjuvant setting could make a difference that would affect event-free and overall survival,” she said.
Second, two patients with pathological complete responses relapsed in the control arm and died, “which is quite unusual,” Dr. Rugo said. “Patients who achieve a pathological complete response generally have an excellent outcome.”
Dr. Rugo noted that “gap sequencing doesn’t appear to avoid the toxicity of PARP inhibitors.”
However, she said, “the efficacy results are intriguing” and would need confirmation in a larger randomized trial, perhaps with newer, more selective PARP inhibitors.
The work was funded by AstraZeneca, maker of olaparib. Researchers included AstraZeneca employees. Dr. Abraham is an adviser to and disclosed grants, travel costs, and honoraria from the company. Dr. Rugo disclosed research funding from AstraZeneca and other companies.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AACR 2024
Major Gaps in Care and Management of Neurologic Diseases
DENVER –
Investigators led by Nikki Win, PhD, medical manager/team lead, OMNI Scientific Strategy and Collaborations, US Medical Affairs, Genentech/Roche, found that patients with Parkinson’s disease were referred to a specialist most often, followed by those with MS and those with AD.
The findings were presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology (AAN).
National Neurologist Shortage
The national neurologist shortage, coupled with the growing incidence of Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, MS, and other conditions has led the AAN and other organizations to call for expanding the role of primary care physicians in the diagnosis and management of neurologic disorders, the leading global cause of disability.
“These neurological conditions are increasing in prevalence and there’s a limited number of neurologists, so we wanted to understand what this looks like in the US,” Dr. Win said.
“There is a need to understand the patient journey from primary care to neurology care, from presentation of a suspected neurological disorder to diagnosis, referral to a specialist, and the time elapsed before the specialist visit for Alzheimer’s disease, MS, and Parkinson’s disease in the US,” Dr. Win added.
Timely and accurate diagnoses of neurologic disorders can optimize treatment outcomes. Because many of these diseases are first detected during a visit with a primary care physician, it is important to understand the timeline from the initial visit to a specialist referral, the investigators noted.
Analyzing Trends in Specialist Referrals
Using claims data from the Optum Normative Health Information database, researchers identified 48,525 adults with Alzheimer’s disease, 26,431 with Parkinson’s disease, and 8169 with MS who received a diagnosis from a primary care physician between 2016 and 2021.
They examined the proportion, timing, and demographic factors associated with referrals from primary care clinicians or other healthcare providers to specialists including neurologists, neurosurgeons, psychiatrists, and geriatric medicine specialists.
Results showed that patients with Parkinson’s disease were referred to a specialist most often (53%), followed by those with MS (42%) and those with Alzheimer’s disease (27%).
Individuals with Alzheimer’s disease waited the longest for a specialist referral, with a median of 10 months between the time of referral and the first specialist visit compared with 5.7 months for patients with Parkinson’s disease and 2.6 months for MS patients.
“Some patients with common conditions like Alzheimer’s disease, MS, and Parkinson’s disease don’t see a neurologist, and when they do, it can take as long as 10 months,” said Dr. Win.
Using zip code heatmaps, researchers found that the proportion of referrals for all neurologic disorders was higher in the Midwest and Northeast, whereas patients in the South and West were less likely to receive a referral.
Referrals for Alzheimer’s disease were low nationwide, except for some areas of Michigan and New England. California had the lowest referral rate for MS, followed by regions in the South and Northeast. Patients with Parkinson’s disease living in the Midwest and Northeast were more likely than those in the West to receive a specialist referral.
Previous studies have reported regional shortages of neurologists, said Dr. Win. “Our data seem to correlate that in terms of the areas with lower referral patterns, but as to whether that is causative or correlative, we don’t know.”
Odds of referral were also influenced by demographic characteristics such as sex, age, race, and ethnicity, investigators found.
For example, there were fewer referrals with increasing age across all three neurologic disorders, and men were more likely than women to be referred for Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s disease. Compared with White patients, Parkinson’s disease referrals were less likely among African American, Asian, and Hispanic patients and Alzheimer’s disease referrals were less common among Asian and Hispanic patients.
Insurance status also affected referrals. People with MS and Parkinson’s disease who had commercial insurance were referred more often than were those with Medicare Advantage, said Dr. Win.
She also noted, “Additional research is needed to understand how being referred or not being referred to a neurologist actually impacts patient treatment, care and outcomes.”
Neurology Challenges
Commenting on the research, Thomas Vidic, MD, a community neurologist in Elkhart, Indiana, and clinical professor of neurology at Indiana University School of Medicine at South Bend, said that he was surprised by the variation in wait times for patients.
This, he said, could reflect a study limitation or a higher comfort level among primary care doctors in treating dementia.
With respect to MS, Dr. Vidic said that he believes primary care physicians may not be uncertain about prescribing the approved medications for the disease because there are so many of them.
In addition, patients with Alzheimer’s disease are older and perhaps less accepting of being referred to a specialist that may be hours away.
The bottom line for Dr. Vidic, though, is the lack of specialists. “It comes back to the fact we’re not doing a good job of having community neurologists available to take care of these problems,” he said.
The issue of community neurologist shortages was underlined by the study’s findings about geographic gaps in specialist referrals across the country, he said.
Neurologists make up about 2% of the medical workforce and this has remained static for some time, Dr. Vidic noted. Meanwhile, people are living longer and developing more neurologic diseases.
Dr. Vidic also pointed to the lack of neurology training programs. “There has not been a significant change in the number of programs in the last 10-15 years,” he said.
Study funding was not disclosed. Dr. Win reports receiving personal compensation for serving as an employee of Genentech and has stock in Genentech. Dr. Vidic reports no relevant financial disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
DENVER –
Investigators led by Nikki Win, PhD, medical manager/team lead, OMNI Scientific Strategy and Collaborations, US Medical Affairs, Genentech/Roche, found that patients with Parkinson’s disease were referred to a specialist most often, followed by those with MS and those with AD.
The findings were presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology (AAN).
National Neurologist Shortage
The national neurologist shortage, coupled with the growing incidence of Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, MS, and other conditions has led the AAN and other organizations to call for expanding the role of primary care physicians in the diagnosis and management of neurologic disorders, the leading global cause of disability.
“These neurological conditions are increasing in prevalence and there’s a limited number of neurologists, so we wanted to understand what this looks like in the US,” Dr. Win said.
“There is a need to understand the patient journey from primary care to neurology care, from presentation of a suspected neurological disorder to diagnosis, referral to a specialist, and the time elapsed before the specialist visit for Alzheimer’s disease, MS, and Parkinson’s disease in the US,” Dr. Win added.
Timely and accurate diagnoses of neurologic disorders can optimize treatment outcomes. Because many of these diseases are first detected during a visit with a primary care physician, it is important to understand the timeline from the initial visit to a specialist referral, the investigators noted.
Analyzing Trends in Specialist Referrals
Using claims data from the Optum Normative Health Information database, researchers identified 48,525 adults with Alzheimer’s disease, 26,431 with Parkinson’s disease, and 8169 with MS who received a diagnosis from a primary care physician between 2016 and 2021.
They examined the proportion, timing, and demographic factors associated with referrals from primary care clinicians or other healthcare providers to specialists including neurologists, neurosurgeons, psychiatrists, and geriatric medicine specialists.
Results showed that patients with Parkinson’s disease were referred to a specialist most often (53%), followed by those with MS (42%) and those with Alzheimer’s disease (27%).
Individuals with Alzheimer’s disease waited the longest for a specialist referral, with a median of 10 months between the time of referral and the first specialist visit compared with 5.7 months for patients with Parkinson’s disease and 2.6 months for MS patients.
“Some patients with common conditions like Alzheimer’s disease, MS, and Parkinson’s disease don’t see a neurologist, and when they do, it can take as long as 10 months,” said Dr. Win.
Using zip code heatmaps, researchers found that the proportion of referrals for all neurologic disorders was higher in the Midwest and Northeast, whereas patients in the South and West were less likely to receive a referral.
Referrals for Alzheimer’s disease were low nationwide, except for some areas of Michigan and New England. California had the lowest referral rate for MS, followed by regions in the South and Northeast. Patients with Parkinson’s disease living in the Midwest and Northeast were more likely than those in the West to receive a specialist referral.
Previous studies have reported regional shortages of neurologists, said Dr. Win. “Our data seem to correlate that in terms of the areas with lower referral patterns, but as to whether that is causative or correlative, we don’t know.”
Odds of referral were also influenced by demographic characteristics such as sex, age, race, and ethnicity, investigators found.
For example, there were fewer referrals with increasing age across all three neurologic disorders, and men were more likely than women to be referred for Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s disease. Compared with White patients, Parkinson’s disease referrals were less likely among African American, Asian, and Hispanic patients and Alzheimer’s disease referrals were less common among Asian and Hispanic patients.
Insurance status also affected referrals. People with MS and Parkinson’s disease who had commercial insurance were referred more often than were those with Medicare Advantage, said Dr. Win.
She also noted, “Additional research is needed to understand how being referred or not being referred to a neurologist actually impacts patient treatment, care and outcomes.”
Neurology Challenges
Commenting on the research, Thomas Vidic, MD, a community neurologist in Elkhart, Indiana, and clinical professor of neurology at Indiana University School of Medicine at South Bend, said that he was surprised by the variation in wait times for patients.
This, he said, could reflect a study limitation or a higher comfort level among primary care doctors in treating dementia.
With respect to MS, Dr. Vidic said that he believes primary care physicians may not be uncertain about prescribing the approved medications for the disease because there are so many of them.
In addition, patients with Alzheimer’s disease are older and perhaps less accepting of being referred to a specialist that may be hours away.
The bottom line for Dr. Vidic, though, is the lack of specialists. “It comes back to the fact we’re not doing a good job of having community neurologists available to take care of these problems,” he said.
The issue of community neurologist shortages was underlined by the study’s findings about geographic gaps in specialist referrals across the country, he said.
Neurologists make up about 2% of the medical workforce and this has remained static for some time, Dr. Vidic noted. Meanwhile, people are living longer and developing more neurologic diseases.
Dr. Vidic also pointed to the lack of neurology training programs. “There has not been a significant change in the number of programs in the last 10-15 years,” he said.
Study funding was not disclosed. Dr. Win reports receiving personal compensation for serving as an employee of Genentech and has stock in Genentech. Dr. Vidic reports no relevant financial disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
DENVER –
Investigators led by Nikki Win, PhD, medical manager/team lead, OMNI Scientific Strategy and Collaborations, US Medical Affairs, Genentech/Roche, found that patients with Parkinson’s disease were referred to a specialist most often, followed by those with MS and those with AD.
The findings were presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology (AAN).
National Neurologist Shortage
The national neurologist shortage, coupled with the growing incidence of Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, MS, and other conditions has led the AAN and other organizations to call for expanding the role of primary care physicians in the diagnosis and management of neurologic disorders, the leading global cause of disability.
“These neurological conditions are increasing in prevalence and there’s a limited number of neurologists, so we wanted to understand what this looks like in the US,” Dr. Win said.
“There is a need to understand the patient journey from primary care to neurology care, from presentation of a suspected neurological disorder to diagnosis, referral to a specialist, and the time elapsed before the specialist visit for Alzheimer’s disease, MS, and Parkinson’s disease in the US,” Dr. Win added.
Timely and accurate diagnoses of neurologic disorders can optimize treatment outcomes. Because many of these diseases are first detected during a visit with a primary care physician, it is important to understand the timeline from the initial visit to a specialist referral, the investigators noted.
Analyzing Trends in Specialist Referrals
Using claims data from the Optum Normative Health Information database, researchers identified 48,525 adults with Alzheimer’s disease, 26,431 with Parkinson’s disease, and 8169 with MS who received a diagnosis from a primary care physician between 2016 and 2021.
They examined the proportion, timing, and demographic factors associated with referrals from primary care clinicians or other healthcare providers to specialists including neurologists, neurosurgeons, psychiatrists, and geriatric medicine specialists.
Results showed that patients with Parkinson’s disease were referred to a specialist most often (53%), followed by those with MS (42%) and those with Alzheimer’s disease (27%).
Individuals with Alzheimer’s disease waited the longest for a specialist referral, with a median of 10 months between the time of referral and the first specialist visit compared with 5.7 months for patients with Parkinson’s disease and 2.6 months for MS patients.
“Some patients with common conditions like Alzheimer’s disease, MS, and Parkinson’s disease don’t see a neurologist, and when they do, it can take as long as 10 months,” said Dr. Win.
Using zip code heatmaps, researchers found that the proportion of referrals for all neurologic disorders was higher in the Midwest and Northeast, whereas patients in the South and West were less likely to receive a referral.
Referrals for Alzheimer’s disease were low nationwide, except for some areas of Michigan and New England. California had the lowest referral rate for MS, followed by regions in the South and Northeast. Patients with Parkinson’s disease living in the Midwest and Northeast were more likely than those in the West to receive a specialist referral.
Previous studies have reported regional shortages of neurologists, said Dr. Win. “Our data seem to correlate that in terms of the areas with lower referral patterns, but as to whether that is causative or correlative, we don’t know.”
Odds of referral were also influenced by demographic characteristics such as sex, age, race, and ethnicity, investigators found.
For example, there were fewer referrals with increasing age across all three neurologic disorders, and men were more likely than women to be referred for Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s disease. Compared with White patients, Parkinson’s disease referrals were less likely among African American, Asian, and Hispanic patients and Alzheimer’s disease referrals were less common among Asian and Hispanic patients.
Insurance status also affected referrals. People with MS and Parkinson’s disease who had commercial insurance were referred more often than were those with Medicare Advantage, said Dr. Win.
She also noted, “Additional research is needed to understand how being referred or not being referred to a neurologist actually impacts patient treatment, care and outcomes.”
Neurology Challenges
Commenting on the research, Thomas Vidic, MD, a community neurologist in Elkhart, Indiana, and clinical professor of neurology at Indiana University School of Medicine at South Bend, said that he was surprised by the variation in wait times for patients.
This, he said, could reflect a study limitation or a higher comfort level among primary care doctors in treating dementia.
With respect to MS, Dr. Vidic said that he believes primary care physicians may not be uncertain about prescribing the approved medications for the disease because there are so many of them.
In addition, patients with Alzheimer’s disease are older and perhaps less accepting of being referred to a specialist that may be hours away.
The bottom line for Dr. Vidic, though, is the lack of specialists. “It comes back to the fact we’re not doing a good job of having community neurologists available to take care of these problems,” he said.
The issue of community neurologist shortages was underlined by the study’s findings about geographic gaps in specialist referrals across the country, he said.
Neurologists make up about 2% of the medical workforce and this has remained static for some time, Dr. Vidic noted. Meanwhile, people are living longer and developing more neurologic diseases.
Dr. Vidic also pointed to the lack of neurology training programs. “There has not been a significant change in the number of programs in the last 10-15 years,” he said.
Study funding was not disclosed. Dr. Win reports receiving personal compensation for serving as an employee of Genentech and has stock in Genentech. Dr. Vidic reports no relevant financial disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AAN 2024
New Contraindications to Coadministration of Atazanavir
The Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) this week recommended new contraindications on the coadministration of the protease inhibitor atazanavir (Reyataz, Bristol-Myers Squibb) with antineoplastic agents encorafenib and ivosidenib (atazanavir may significantly increase blood levels and thus side effects), and with the anticonvulsants carbamazepine, phenobarbital, and phenytoin (which may decrease serum levels of atazanavir).
The new rules alter sections 4.3 and 4.5 of the summary of product characteristics (SmPC) to reclassify drug–drug interactions with the new contraindications.
Atazanavir is an orally administered drug, used in combination with low-dose ritonavir (Norvir) to boost its pharmacokinetics. It is indicated for the treatment of HIV-1 infected adults and pediatric patients 3 months of age and older in combination with other antiretroviral medicinal products. A combination preparation boosted with cobicistat (Evotaz) is also available.
The drug is an azapeptide HIV-1 protease inhibitor (PI) that selectively inhibits the virus-specific processing of viral Gag-Pol proteins in HIV-1 infected cells, thus preventing formation of mature virions and infection of other cells. This prevents the virus from multiplying and slows the spread of infection. Based on available virological and clinical data from adult patients, no benefit is expected in patients with HIV strains resistant to multiple protease inhibitors (four or more PI mutations).
Therapy with atazanavir is intended to be initiated by a physician experienced in the management of HIV infection, with the choice of atazanavir in treatment-experienced adult and pediatric patients based on individual viral resistance testing and the patient’s treatment history. The standard dose is 300 mg atazanavir taken with 100 mg ritonavir once daily with food.
Atazanavir is already contraindicated in combination or coadministration with a wide variety of other agents:
- Coadministration with simvastatin or lovastatin [statins – risk of increased blood levels with atazanavir].
- Combination with the anti-TB antibiotic rifampicin.
- Combination with the PDE5 inhibitor sildenafil when used for the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension only.
- Coadministration with substrates of the CYP3A4 isoform of cytochrome P450 that have narrow therapeutic windows (eg, quetiapine, lurasidone, alfuzosin, astemizole, terfenadine, cisapride, pimozide, quinidine, bepridil, triazolam, oral midazolam, lomitapide, and ergot alkaloids).
- Coadministration with grazoprevir-containing products, including elbasvir/grazoprevir fixed dose combination (hepatitis C drug combination; atazanavir increases its blood levels).
- Coadministration with glecaprevir/pibrentasvir fixed dose combination (hepatitis C drug combination; increased hepatotoxicity due to increased bilirubin concentration).
- Coadministration with products containing St. John’s wort (Hypericum perforatum).
The EMA said detailed recommendations for the use of atazanavir will be described in the updated SmPC, which will be published in the revised European public assessment report after a decision on this change to the marketing authorization has been granted by the European Commission.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) this week recommended new contraindications on the coadministration of the protease inhibitor atazanavir (Reyataz, Bristol-Myers Squibb) with antineoplastic agents encorafenib and ivosidenib (atazanavir may significantly increase blood levels and thus side effects), and with the anticonvulsants carbamazepine, phenobarbital, and phenytoin (which may decrease serum levels of atazanavir).
The new rules alter sections 4.3 and 4.5 of the summary of product characteristics (SmPC) to reclassify drug–drug interactions with the new contraindications.
Atazanavir is an orally administered drug, used in combination with low-dose ritonavir (Norvir) to boost its pharmacokinetics. It is indicated for the treatment of HIV-1 infected adults and pediatric patients 3 months of age and older in combination with other antiretroviral medicinal products. A combination preparation boosted with cobicistat (Evotaz) is also available.
The drug is an azapeptide HIV-1 protease inhibitor (PI) that selectively inhibits the virus-specific processing of viral Gag-Pol proteins in HIV-1 infected cells, thus preventing formation of mature virions and infection of other cells. This prevents the virus from multiplying and slows the spread of infection. Based on available virological and clinical data from adult patients, no benefit is expected in patients with HIV strains resistant to multiple protease inhibitors (four or more PI mutations).
Therapy with atazanavir is intended to be initiated by a physician experienced in the management of HIV infection, with the choice of atazanavir in treatment-experienced adult and pediatric patients based on individual viral resistance testing and the patient’s treatment history. The standard dose is 300 mg atazanavir taken with 100 mg ritonavir once daily with food.
Atazanavir is already contraindicated in combination or coadministration with a wide variety of other agents:
- Coadministration with simvastatin or lovastatin [statins – risk of increased blood levels with atazanavir].
- Combination with the anti-TB antibiotic rifampicin.
- Combination with the PDE5 inhibitor sildenafil when used for the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension only.
- Coadministration with substrates of the CYP3A4 isoform of cytochrome P450 that have narrow therapeutic windows (eg, quetiapine, lurasidone, alfuzosin, astemizole, terfenadine, cisapride, pimozide, quinidine, bepridil, triazolam, oral midazolam, lomitapide, and ergot alkaloids).
- Coadministration with grazoprevir-containing products, including elbasvir/grazoprevir fixed dose combination (hepatitis C drug combination; atazanavir increases its blood levels).
- Coadministration with glecaprevir/pibrentasvir fixed dose combination (hepatitis C drug combination; increased hepatotoxicity due to increased bilirubin concentration).
- Coadministration with products containing St. John’s wort (Hypericum perforatum).
The EMA said detailed recommendations for the use of atazanavir will be described in the updated SmPC, which will be published in the revised European public assessment report after a decision on this change to the marketing authorization has been granted by the European Commission.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) this week recommended new contraindications on the coadministration of the protease inhibitor atazanavir (Reyataz, Bristol-Myers Squibb) with antineoplastic agents encorafenib and ivosidenib (atazanavir may significantly increase blood levels and thus side effects), and with the anticonvulsants carbamazepine, phenobarbital, and phenytoin (which may decrease serum levels of atazanavir).
The new rules alter sections 4.3 and 4.5 of the summary of product characteristics (SmPC) to reclassify drug–drug interactions with the new contraindications.
Atazanavir is an orally administered drug, used in combination with low-dose ritonavir (Norvir) to boost its pharmacokinetics. It is indicated for the treatment of HIV-1 infected adults and pediatric patients 3 months of age and older in combination with other antiretroviral medicinal products. A combination preparation boosted with cobicistat (Evotaz) is also available.
The drug is an azapeptide HIV-1 protease inhibitor (PI) that selectively inhibits the virus-specific processing of viral Gag-Pol proteins in HIV-1 infected cells, thus preventing formation of mature virions and infection of other cells. This prevents the virus from multiplying and slows the spread of infection. Based on available virological and clinical data from adult patients, no benefit is expected in patients with HIV strains resistant to multiple protease inhibitors (four or more PI mutations).
Therapy with atazanavir is intended to be initiated by a physician experienced in the management of HIV infection, with the choice of atazanavir in treatment-experienced adult and pediatric patients based on individual viral resistance testing and the patient’s treatment history. The standard dose is 300 mg atazanavir taken with 100 mg ritonavir once daily with food.
Atazanavir is already contraindicated in combination or coadministration with a wide variety of other agents:
- Coadministration with simvastatin or lovastatin [statins – risk of increased blood levels with atazanavir].
- Combination with the anti-TB antibiotic rifampicin.
- Combination with the PDE5 inhibitor sildenafil when used for the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension only.
- Coadministration with substrates of the CYP3A4 isoform of cytochrome P450 that have narrow therapeutic windows (eg, quetiapine, lurasidone, alfuzosin, astemizole, terfenadine, cisapride, pimozide, quinidine, bepridil, triazolam, oral midazolam, lomitapide, and ergot alkaloids).
- Coadministration with grazoprevir-containing products, including elbasvir/grazoprevir fixed dose combination (hepatitis C drug combination; atazanavir increases its blood levels).
- Coadministration with glecaprevir/pibrentasvir fixed dose combination (hepatitis C drug combination; increased hepatotoxicity due to increased bilirubin concentration).
- Coadministration with products containing St. John’s wort (Hypericum perforatum).
The EMA said detailed recommendations for the use of atazanavir will be described in the updated SmPC, which will be published in the revised European public assessment report after a decision on this change to the marketing authorization has been granted by the European Commission.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Updated Sjögren Disease Guideline Advises Doing ‘the Little Things Well’
LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND — An updated guideline from the British Society for Rheumatology (BSR) on the management of Sjögren disease asks rheumatologists and other clinicians caring for patients with the condition to “do the little things well” rather than overly focusing on rheumatologic treatments. The guideline’s new format provides recommendations for specific clinical questions and now also includes recommendations for managing the disease in children and adolescents.
“The original guideline was published in 2017, and things move on very rapidly,” consultant rheumatologist Elizabeth Price, MBBCh, PhD, said ahead of her presentation of the updated guideline at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.
“We approached the update in a slightly different way,” said Dr. Price, who works at Great Western Hospital NHS Foundation Trust in Swindon, England. She was the chair of the new guideline’s working group and convenes the BSR’s Special Interest Group for Sjögren disease.
Previously, the approach was to look at the management of Sjögren disease affecting the eyes, mouth, salivary glands, and, in turn, systemic disease. “This time we posed questions that we felt needed to be asked, interrogated the literature, and then used that to come up with our recommendations,” Dr. Price said.
The answers to those questions were used to form the 19 recommendations that now make up the guideline. These cover four key areas on the management of Sjögren disease: confirming the diagnosis, treating the symptoms, managing systemic disease, and considering special situations such as planned pregnancy and comorbidities. There is also lifestyle advice and information about where to get good patient education.
What’s in a Name?
The BSR guideline on the management of adult and juvenile onset Sjögren disease is published in Rheumatology and is available via the BSR website, where it is accompanied by a short summary sheet.
The most notable change perhaps is the name the guideline now uses, Dr. Price said at BSR 2024. “We have been bold and called it Sjögren disease.” Previously, the guideline used the term primary Sjögren’s syndrome, but there has been a “move away from using eponymous syndromes and dropping s’s and apostrophes,” she explained.
Another significant change is that advice on managing Sjögren disease in children and adolescents is now included where appropriate, meaning that the British guideline is now the first to cover Sjögren disease “across the ages,” Dr. Price said.
A pediatric/adolescent rheumatologist joined the guideline working group, which already consisted of several adult rheumatologists, ophthalmologists, and a dentistry consultant. The group now comprises 22 members total, including a general practitioner, an oncologist, a renal physician, an occupational therapist, two patients with Sjögren disease, and a librarian.
Confirming the Diagnosis
The first questions asked to help form the new recommendations were around confirming a diagnosis of Sjögren disease, such as what is the diagnostic accuracy of antinuclear antibodies (ANAs), extractable nuclear antigens (ENAs), and other novel antigens in Sjögren disease? And what is the diagnostic accuracy of salivary gland ultrasound, imaging in general, and salivary gland or lacrimal gland biopsies?
The resulting recommendations advised not to measure ANAs in the absence of clinical indicators of Sjögren disease or any other connective tissue disease but to use it to screen if there was a clinical suspicion. And ENAs should be measured even if the ANAs were negative and there is a high index of suspicion.
In terms of imaging, ultrasound of the salivary glands was thought to be useful, but other imaging was not recommended for routine practice at the current time. Minor lip but not lacrimal gland biopsies were recommended if clinical and serologic features were not enough to make a diagnosis.
Lymphoma Worries
The 2017 version of the guideline did not include information about lymphoma, but this is the thing that most patients with Sjögren disease will worry about, Dr. Price said. “They all look it up on YouTube, they all come back and tell me that they are really worried they’ll develop it.”
The question that was therefore posed was whether there were any measurable biomarkers that could predict the development of lymphoma in adults and children. Seven predictors were found, the strongest being a low level of complement C4 alone or together with low levels of C3. Other predictors were salivary gland enlargement, lymphadenopathy, anti-Ro/La and rheumatoid factor autoantibodies, cryoglobulinemia, monoclonal gammopathy, and a high focus score.
All of these predictors put someone in a higher risk category for lymphoma. If two or fewer of those features are present, the lifetime risk is “probably below 2%,” Dr. Price said. However, if all seven are present, the lifetime risk is “approaching 100%.”
The recommendation made on the basis of these findings is that people with Sjögren disease need to be offered early further investigation if they present with any new salivary gland swelling or other symptoms that might suggest the development of lymphoma. In this regard, a labial salivary gland biopsy might provide additional prognostic information.
‘Do the Little Things Well’
“You have to do the little things well,” Dr. Price said. “Many of the patients [who] come to see me for a second opinion have not been prescribed the right eye drops, have not been given advice on dental care,” with their management taking “too much on the rheumatological treatments.”
Rheumatologists are of course not trained or expected to be experts in ophthalmology or dentistry, but “you need to look at their mouth and you do need to examine their eyes, and you do need to give them some advice,” Dr. Price advised.
Thankfully, that is where the updated guidelines should help, with a recommendation that people with Sjögren disease should use preservative-free eye drops every 2-3 hours.
“It’s vital you avoid preservatives, because preservatives flatten the corneal surface and reduce the surface area and can cause inflammation in their own right,” Dr. Price cautioned, adding that there are plenty of suitable eye drop formulations available.
In regard to helping with dry mouth symptoms, the recommendation is to use a saliva substitute for symptomatic relief. For vaginal dryness, the recommendation is to consider advising topical nonhormonal vaginal moisturizers plus estrogen creams or pessaries in peri- or postmenopausal women with significant vaginal dryness.
“Very important, however, is to maintain a neutral pH, an alkaline environment in the mouth because acid damages dental enamel,” Dr. Price said. Conversely, an acidic vaginal moisturizer is needed to treat vaginal dryness.
Dental hygiene is important. Regular brushing with a fluoride-based toothpaste is advised. The use of xylitol-containing products has been shown to reduce bacteria known to increase the risk for dental decay. Telling patients not to eat between meals is also simple but important advice.
“We do recommend that patients are assessed holistically,” Dr. Price said, noting that they should be offered access to cognitive-behavioral therapy and exercise therapies to help with the symptoms of fatigue and joint pain.
Watch Out for Comorbidities
Sjögren disease is associated with many comorbidities, some of which might be predicted from the age and demographics of the people who are normally affected.
“This is on the whole an older, female population, so you see a lot of osteoarthritis, gastroesophageal reflux, and hypertension,” Dr. Price said. “However, you may not be aware that 1 in 5 of these patients develop thyroid disease,” and there is a higher rate of celiac disease and primary biliary cholangitis than is seen in the general background population.
The recommendation, therefore, is to “be aware of and consider screening for commonly associated conditions, as guided by age and/or clinical presentation.” As such, it’s recommended that baseline and repeated investigations that look for signs of comorbidity are performed, such as thyroid function assessment and liver function tests, to name two.
Treatment Recommendations
As in the original guideline, the treatment of systemic disease is discussed, but the advice has been overhauled with the availability of new data.
The updated guidance notes that a trial of hydroxychloroquine for 6-12 months is the recommended treatment approach for people with fatigue and systemic symptoms.
Systemic steroids may be used in the short-term for specific indications but should not be offered routinely.
Conventional immunosuppressive or biologic drugs and immunoglobulins are not currently recommended outside of managing specific systemic complications.
In juvenile cases, the treatment of recurrent swollen parotid glands that are not due to infection or stone disease should include a short course of a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug or a short course of oral steroids. This should be combined with massage followed by washouts with saline or steroids. In refractory cases, escalation to anti–B-cell–targeted therapies may be considered in select situations.
View on Updates
Patient advocate Bridget Crampton, who leads the helpline team at Sjögren’s UK (formerly the British Sjögren’s Syndrome Association), commented on the importance of the guidelines during a roundtable held by the BSR.
“I think it will help [patients] make better use of their own appointments. So, they’ll know what treatments might be offered. They’ll know what they want to talk about at their appointments,” she said.
Ms. Crampton, who has lived with Sjögren disease herself for the past 20 years, added: “I think it’s important for patients that we have guidelines like this. It means that all clinicians can easily access information. My hope is that it might standardize care across the UK a little bit more.”
No specific funding was received to create the guidelines, be that from any bodies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. No conflicts of interests were expressed by any of the experts quoted in this article.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND — An updated guideline from the British Society for Rheumatology (BSR) on the management of Sjögren disease asks rheumatologists and other clinicians caring for patients with the condition to “do the little things well” rather than overly focusing on rheumatologic treatments. The guideline’s new format provides recommendations for specific clinical questions and now also includes recommendations for managing the disease in children and adolescents.
“The original guideline was published in 2017, and things move on very rapidly,” consultant rheumatologist Elizabeth Price, MBBCh, PhD, said ahead of her presentation of the updated guideline at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.
“We approached the update in a slightly different way,” said Dr. Price, who works at Great Western Hospital NHS Foundation Trust in Swindon, England. She was the chair of the new guideline’s working group and convenes the BSR’s Special Interest Group for Sjögren disease.
Previously, the approach was to look at the management of Sjögren disease affecting the eyes, mouth, salivary glands, and, in turn, systemic disease. “This time we posed questions that we felt needed to be asked, interrogated the literature, and then used that to come up with our recommendations,” Dr. Price said.
The answers to those questions were used to form the 19 recommendations that now make up the guideline. These cover four key areas on the management of Sjögren disease: confirming the diagnosis, treating the symptoms, managing systemic disease, and considering special situations such as planned pregnancy and comorbidities. There is also lifestyle advice and information about where to get good patient education.
What’s in a Name?
The BSR guideline on the management of adult and juvenile onset Sjögren disease is published in Rheumatology and is available via the BSR website, where it is accompanied by a short summary sheet.
The most notable change perhaps is the name the guideline now uses, Dr. Price said at BSR 2024. “We have been bold and called it Sjögren disease.” Previously, the guideline used the term primary Sjögren’s syndrome, but there has been a “move away from using eponymous syndromes and dropping s’s and apostrophes,” she explained.
Another significant change is that advice on managing Sjögren disease in children and adolescents is now included where appropriate, meaning that the British guideline is now the first to cover Sjögren disease “across the ages,” Dr. Price said.
A pediatric/adolescent rheumatologist joined the guideline working group, which already consisted of several adult rheumatologists, ophthalmologists, and a dentistry consultant. The group now comprises 22 members total, including a general practitioner, an oncologist, a renal physician, an occupational therapist, two patients with Sjögren disease, and a librarian.
Confirming the Diagnosis
The first questions asked to help form the new recommendations were around confirming a diagnosis of Sjögren disease, such as what is the diagnostic accuracy of antinuclear antibodies (ANAs), extractable nuclear antigens (ENAs), and other novel antigens in Sjögren disease? And what is the diagnostic accuracy of salivary gland ultrasound, imaging in general, and salivary gland or lacrimal gland biopsies?
The resulting recommendations advised not to measure ANAs in the absence of clinical indicators of Sjögren disease or any other connective tissue disease but to use it to screen if there was a clinical suspicion. And ENAs should be measured even if the ANAs were negative and there is a high index of suspicion.
In terms of imaging, ultrasound of the salivary glands was thought to be useful, but other imaging was not recommended for routine practice at the current time. Minor lip but not lacrimal gland biopsies were recommended if clinical and serologic features were not enough to make a diagnosis.
Lymphoma Worries
The 2017 version of the guideline did not include information about lymphoma, but this is the thing that most patients with Sjögren disease will worry about, Dr. Price said. “They all look it up on YouTube, they all come back and tell me that they are really worried they’ll develop it.”
The question that was therefore posed was whether there were any measurable biomarkers that could predict the development of lymphoma in adults and children. Seven predictors were found, the strongest being a low level of complement C4 alone or together with low levels of C3. Other predictors were salivary gland enlargement, lymphadenopathy, anti-Ro/La and rheumatoid factor autoantibodies, cryoglobulinemia, monoclonal gammopathy, and a high focus score.
All of these predictors put someone in a higher risk category for lymphoma. If two or fewer of those features are present, the lifetime risk is “probably below 2%,” Dr. Price said. However, if all seven are present, the lifetime risk is “approaching 100%.”
The recommendation made on the basis of these findings is that people with Sjögren disease need to be offered early further investigation if they present with any new salivary gland swelling or other symptoms that might suggest the development of lymphoma. In this regard, a labial salivary gland biopsy might provide additional prognostic information.
‘Do the Little Things Well’
“You have to do the little things well,” Dr. Price said. “Many of the patients [who] come to see me for a second opinion have not been prescribed the right eye drops, have not been given advice on dental care,” with their management taking “too much on the rheumatological treatments.”
Rheumatologists are of course not trained or expected to be experts in ophthalmology or dentistry, but “you need to look at their mouth and you do need to examine their eyes, and you do need to give them some advice,” Dr. Price advised.
Thankfully, that is where the updated guidelines should help, with a recommendation that people with Sjögren disease should use preservative-free eye drops every 2-3 hours.
“It’s vital you avoid preservatives, because preservatives flatten the corneal surface and reduce the surface area and can cause inflammation in their own right,” Dr. Price cautioned, adding that there are plenty of suitable eye drop formulations available.
In regard to helping with dry mouth symptoms, the recommendation is to use a saliva substitute for symptomatic relief. For vaginal dryness, the recommendation is to consider advising topical nonhormonal vaginal moisturizers plus estrogen creams or pessaries in peri- or postmenopausal women with significant vaginal dryness.
“Very important, however, is to maintain a neutral pH, an alkaline environment in the mouth because acid damages dental enamel,” Dr. Price said. Conversely, an acidic vaginal moisturizer is needed to treat vaginal dryness.
Dental hygiene is important. Regular brushing with a fluoride-based toothpaste is advised. The use of xylitol-containing products has been shown to reduce bacteria known to increase the risk for dental decay. Telling patients not to eat between meals is also simple but important advice.
“We do recommend that patients are assessed holistically,” Dr. Price said, noting that they should be offered access to cognitive-behavioral therapy and exercise therapies to help with the symptoms of fatigue and joint pain.
Watch Out for Comorbidities
Sjögren disease is associated with many comorbidities, some of which might be predicted from the age and demographics of the people who are normally affected.
“This is on the whole an older, female population, so you see a lot of osteoarthritis, gastroesophageal reflux, and hypertension,” Dr. Price said. “However, you may not be aware that 1 in 5 of these patients develop thyroid disease,” and there is a higher rate of celiac disease and primary biliary cholangitis than is seen in the general background population.
The recommendation, therefore, is to “be aware of and consider screening for commonly associated conditions, as guided by age and/or clinical presentation.” As such, it’s recommended that baseline and repeated investigations that look for signs of comorbidity are performed, such as thyroid function assessment and liver function tests, to name two.
Treatment Recommendations
As in the original guideline, the treatment of systemic disease is discussed, but the advice has been overhauled with the availability of new data.
The updated guidance notes that a trial of hydroxychloroquine for 6-12 months is the recommended treatment approach for people with fatigue and systemic symptoms.
Systemic steroids may be used in the short-term for specific indications but should not be offered routinely.
Conventional immunosuppressive or biologic drugs and immunoglobulins are not currently recommended outside of managing specific systemic complications.
In juvenile cases, the treatment of recurrent swollen parotid glands that are not due to infection or stone disease should include a short course of a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug or a short course of oral steroids. This should be combined with massage followed by washouts with saline or steroids. In refractory cases, escalation to anti–B-cell–targeted therapies may be considered in select situations.
View on Updates
Patient advocate Bridget Crampton, who leads the helpline team at Sjögren’s UK (formerly the British Sjögren’s Syndrome Association), commented on the importance of the guidelines during a roundtable held by the BSR.
“I think it will help [patients] make better use of their own appointments. So, they’ll know what treatments might be offered. They’ll know what they want to talk about at their appointments,” she said.
Ms. Crampton, who has lived with Sjögren disease herself for the past 20 years, added: “I think it’s important for patients that we have guidelines like this. It means that all clinicians can easily access information. My hope is that it might standardize care across the UK a little bit more.”
No specific funding was received to create the guidelines, be that from any bodies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. No conflicts of interests were expressed by any of the experts quoted in this article.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND — An updated guideline from the British Society for Rheumatology (BSR) on the management of Sjögren disease asks rheumatologists and other clinicians caring for patients with the condition to “do the little things well” rather than overly focusing on rheumatologic treatments. The guideline’s new format provides recommendations for specific clinical questions and now also includes recommendations for managing the disease in children and adolescents.
“The original guideline was published in 2017, and things move on very rapidly,” consultant rheumatologist Elizabeth Price, MBBCh, PhD, said ahead of her presentation of the updated guideline at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.
“We approached the update in a slightly different way,” said Dr. Price, who works at Great Western Hospital NHS Foundation Trust in Swindon, England. She was the chair of the new guideline’s working group and convenes the BSR’s Special Interest Group for Sjögren disease.
Previously, the approach was to look at the management of Sjögren disease affecting the eyes, mouth, salivary glands, and, in turn, systemic disease. “This time we posed questions that we felt needed to be asked, interrogated the literature, and then used that to come up with our recommendations,” Dr. Price said.
The answers to those questions were used to form the 19 recommendations that now make up the guideline. These cover four key areas on the management of Sjögren disease: confirming the diagnosis, treating the symptoms, managing systemic disease, and considering special situations such as planned pregnancy and comorbidities. There is also lifestyle advice and information about where to get good patient education.
What’s in a Name?
The BSR guideline on the management of adult and juvenile onset Sjögren disease is published in Rheumatology and is available via the BSR website, where it is accompanied by a short summary sheet.
The most notable change perhaps is the name the guideline now uses, Dr. Price said at BSR 2024. “We have been bold and called it Sjögren disease.” Previously, the guideline used the term primary Sjögren’s syndrome, but there has been a “move away from using eponymous syndromes and dropping s’s and apostrophes,” she explained.
Another significant change is that advice on managing Sjögren disease in children and adolescents is now included where appropriate, meaning that the British guideline is now the first to cover Sjögren disease “across the ages,” Dr. Price said.
A pediatric/adolescent rheumatologist joined the guideline working group, which already consisted of several adult rheumatologists, ophthalmologists, and a dentistry consultant. The group now comprises 22 members total, including a general practitioner, an oncologist, a renal physician, an occupational therapist, two patients with Sjögren disease, and a librarian.
Confirming the Diagnosis
The first questions asked to help form the new recommendations were around confirming a diagnosis of Sjögren disease, such as what is the diagnostic accuracy of antinuclear antibodies (ANAs), extractable nuclear antigens (ENAs), and other novel antigens in Sjögren disease? And what is the diagnostic accuracy of salivary gland ultrasound, imaging in general, and salivary gland or lacrimal gland biopsies?
The resulting recommendations advised not to measure ANAs in the absence of clinical indicators of Sjögren disease or any other connective tissue disease but to use it to screen if there was a clinical suspicion. And ENAs should be measured even if the ANAs were negative and there is a high index of suspicion.
In terms of imaging, ultrasound of the salivary glands was thought to be useful, but other imaging was not recommended for routine practice at the current time. Minor lip but not lacrimal gland biopsies were recommended if clinical and serologic features were not enough to make a diagnosis.
Lymphoma Worries
The 2017 version of the guideline did not include information about lymphoma, but this is the thing that most patients with Sjögren disease will worry about, Dr. Price said. “They all look it up on YouTube, they all come back and tell me that they are really worried they’ll develop it.”
The question that was therefore posed was whether there were any measurable biomarkers that could predict the development of lymphoma in adults and children. Seven predictors were found, the strongest being a low level of complement C4 alone or together with low levels of C3. Other predictors were salivary gland enlargement, lymphadenopathy, anti-Ro/La and rheumatoid factor autoantibodies, cryoglobulinemia, monoclonal gammopathy, and a high focus score.
All of these predictors put someone in a higher risk category for lymphoma. If two or fewer of those features are present, the lifetime risk is “probably below 2%,” Dr. Price said. However, if all seven are present, the lifetime risk is “approaching 100%.”
The recommendation made on the basis of these findings is that people with Sjögren disease need to be offered early further investigation if they present with any new salivary gland swelling or other symptoms that might suggest the development of lymphoma. In this regard, a labial salivary gland biopsy might provide additional prognostic information.
‘Do the Little Things Well’
“You have to do the little things well,” Dr. Price said. “Many of the patients [who] come to see me for a second opinion have not been prescribed the right eye drops, have not been given advice on dental care,” with their management taking “too much on the rheumatological treatments.”
Rheumatologists are of course not trained or expected to be experts in ophthalmology or dentistry, but “you need to look at their mouth and you do need to examine their eyes, and you do need to give them some advice,” Dr. Price advised.
Thankfully, that is where the updated guidelines should help, with a recommendation that people with Sjögren disease should use preservative-free eye drops every 2-3 hours.
“It’s vital you avoid preservatives, because preservatives flatten the corneal surface and reduce the surface area and can cause inflammation in their own right,” Dr. Price cautioned, adding that there are plenty of suitable eye drop formulations available.
In regard to helping with dry mouth symptoms, the recommendation is to use a saliva substitute for symptomatic relief. For vaginal dryness, the recommendation is to consider advising topical nonhormonal vaginal moisturizers plus estrogen creams or pessaries in peri- or postmenopausal women with significant vaginal dryness.
“Very important, however, is to maintain a neutral pH, an alkaline environment in the mouth because acid damages dental enamel,” Dr. Price said. Conversely, an acidic vaginal moisturizer is needed to treat vaginal dryness.
Dental hygiene is important. Regular brushing with a fluoride-based toothpaste is advised. The use of xylitol-containing products has been shown to reduce bacteria known to increase the risk for dental decay. Telling patients not to eat between meals is also simple but important advice.
“We do recommend that patients are assessed holistically,” Dr. Price said, noting that they should be offered access to cognitive-behavioral therapy and exercise therapies to help with the symptoms of fatigue and joint pain.
Watch Out for Comorbidities
Sjögren disease is associated with many comorbidities, some of which might be predicted from the age and demographics of the people who are normally affected.
“This is on the whole an older, female population, so you see a lot of osteoarthritis, gastroesophageal reflux, and hypertension,” Dr. Price said. “However, you may not be aware that 1 in 5 of these patients develop thyroid disease,” and there is a higher rate of celiac disease and primary biliary cholangitis than is seen in the general background population.
The recommendation, therefore, is to “be aware of and consider screening for commonly associated conditions, as guided by age and/or clinical presentation.” As such, it’s recommended that baseline and repeated investigations that look for signs of comorbidity are performed, such as thyroid function assessment and liver function tests, to name two.
Treatment Recommendations
As in the original guideline, the treatment of systemic disease is discussed, but the advice has been overhauled with the availability of new data.
The updated guidance notes that a trial of hydroxychloroquine for 6-12 months is the recommended treatment approach for people with fatigue and systemic symptoms.
Systemic steroids may be used in the short-term for specific indications but should not be offered routinely.
Conventional immunosuppressive or biologic drugs and immunoglobulins are not currently recommended outside of managing specific systemic complications.
In juvenile cases, the treatment of recurrent swollen parotid glands that are not due to infection or stone disease should include a short course of a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug or a short course of oral steroids. This should be combined with massage followed by washouts with saline or steroids. In refractory cases, escalation to anti–B-cell–targeted therapies may be considered in select situations.
View on Updates
Patient advocate Bridget Crampton, who leads the helpline team at Sjögren’s UK (formerly the British Sjögren’s Syndrome Association), commented on the importance of the guidelines during a roundtable held by the BSR.
“I think it will help [patients] make better use of their own appointments. So, they’ll know what treatments might be offered. They’ll know what they want to talk about at their appointments,” she said.
Ms. Crampton, who has lived with Sjögren disease herself for the past 20 years, added: “I think it’s important for patients that we have guidelines like this. It means that all clinicians can easily access information. My hope is that it might standardize care across the UK a little bit more.”
No specific funding was received to create the guidelines, be that from any bodies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. No conflicts of interests were expressed by any of the experts quoted in this article.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM BSR 2024
Complement Inhibitor Scores Impressive Data in CIDP
DENVER — , with good results in treatment-refractory and treatment-naive patients, according to results from a phase 2 clinical trial.
‘Impressive’ Results
The results were impressive, especially given that riliprubart outperformed IVIG, according to Frank Tennigkeit, PhD, senior director of pediatric development rare diseases at UCB Biosciences, who attended the session at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology, where the study was presented. “There are few trials on CIDP, and the standard data are IVIG data.
“This is really amazing, especially in refractory patients. I turned to my neighbor [during the presentation] and said, ‘I’ve never seen CIDP data that good in my life. It works in all kinds of different patient populations, and also on the refractory ones. That’s what you want. That’s where the need is. And you saw a consistent effect and a strong effect on top of standard of care,” said Dr. Tennigkeit.
“It’s impressive. The only problem with CIDP is that it’s very difficult to compare treatments, because everyone has a different outcome. This was an open-label study, so there’s always a confounding bias. The proof of the pudding is going to be in a phase 3 blinded, randomized trial, but what I really admire about them, and I thought was very gutsy, is that they’re going head-to-head versus IVIG. I haven’t seen anyone who’s done that yet [in CIDP],” said Shalom Patole, MD, an internist and telehealth consultant in India, who also attended the session.
An Open-Label Phase 2 Study
The study had a somewhat unique design, according to Richard Lewis, MD, who presented the results. It was an open-label design that examined three subpopulations: 25 who had objective response to treatments (standard of care [SOC]–treated, mean age, 58.2 years; 80% male), 18 refractory patients who had been off treatment for up to 12 weeks (SOC-refractory, mean age, 63.9 years; 61% male), and 12 patients who had not been treated at all for at least 6 months or were treatment-naive (SOC-naive, mean age, 59.1 years; 67% male).
At 24 weeks, “if you looked at the treated group, 88% of those patients improved to remain stable, and only 12% relapsed. Most significantly, these patients who had responded to their IVIG, who were supposedly doing pretty well, 44% of those actually got better, so they improved from what would have been a pretty good baseline. The refractory patients, despite flunking the other treatments, 50% actually passed or improved with the treatment, so a significant response rate in a group that was not responding so well,” said Dr. Lewis, who is a neurologist at Cedars Sinai Medical Center.
The researchers also found that treatment with riliprubart led to inhibition of complement activity and a trend in reduction in neurofilament light chain levels by week 24 in all three groups.
Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 60% of the SOC-treated group, 72% of the SOC-refractory group, and 75% of the SOC-naive group, though grade 3 or higher events were rare (4%, 17%, and 8%, respectively). There was one death in the SOC-treated group and one in the SOC-refractory group. Both patients were elderly and had comorbid conditions.
Challenging the Current Standard of Care
The data have led to two additional phase 3 trials, one in refractory patients (Mobilize), and another for patients treated with IVIG who have residual disability (Vitalize). Sanofi is also planning a phase 3, placebo-controlled trial with one arm that will compare the antibody to IVIG, “which is a pretty ambitious trial design,” admitted Dr. Lewis.
Such a strategy is risky, but it could represent a big payoff for Sanofi if the phase 3 studies replicate the phase 2 studies. “No one would be using IVIG anymore if you beat IVIG by 50%. That will be the standard. If you do the trial [versus IVIG], you have a higher risk, but if you win it, you will win big,” said Dr. Tennigkeit.
The study was funded by Sanofi. Dr. Lewis has financial relationships with CSL Behring, Grifols, Pfizer, Sanofi, Argenx, Pharnext, Roche, Johnson & Johnson, Takeda, Boehringer Ingelheim, Nuvig, Dianthus, Janssen, Medscape, Alexion, Alnylam, and Novartis. Dr. Tennigkeit is an employee of UCB Biosciences. Dr. Patole has no relevant financial disclosures.
DENVER — , with good results in treatment-refractory and treatment-naive patients, according to results from a phase 2 clinical trial.
‘Impressive’ Results
The results were impressive, especially given that riliprubart outperformed IVIG, according to Frank Tennigkeit, PhD, senior director of pediatric development rare diseases at UCB Biosciences, who attended the session at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology, where the study was presented. “There are few trials on CIDP, and the standard data are IVIG data.
“This is really amazing, especially in refractory patients. I turned to my neighbor [during the presentation] and said, ‘I’ve never seen CIDP data that good in my life. It works in all kinds of different patient populations, and also on the refractory ones. That’s what you want. That’s where the need is. And you saw a consistent effect and a strong effect on top of standard of care,” said Dr. Tennigkeit.
“It’s impressive. The only problem with CIDP is that it’s very difficult to compare treatments, because everyone has a different outcome. This was an open-label study, so there’s always a confounding bias. The proof of the pudding is going to be in a phase 3 blinded, randomized trial, but what I really admire about them, and I thought was very gutsy, is that they’re going head-to-head versus IVIG. I haven’t seen anyone who’s done that yet [in CIDP],” said Shalom Patole, MD, an internist and telehealth consultant in India, who also attended the session.
An Open-Label Phase 2 Study
The study had a somewhat unique design, according to Richard Lewis, MD, who presented the results. It was an open-label design that examined three subpopulations: 25 who had objective response to treatments (standard of care [SOC]–treated, mean age, 58.2 years; 80% male), 18 refractory patients who had been off treatment for up to 12 weeks (SOC-refractory, mean age, 63.9 years; 61% male), and 12 patients who had not been treated at all for at least 6 months or were treatment-naive (SOC-naive, mean age, 59.1 years; 67% male).
At 24 weeks, “if you looked at the treated group, 88% of those patients improved to remain stable, and only 12% relapsed. Most significantly, these patients who had responded to their IVIG, who were supposedly doing pretty well, 44% of those actually got better, so they improved from what would have been a pretty good baseline. The refractory patients, despite flunking the other treatments, 50% actually passed or improved with the treatment, so a significant response rate in a group that was not responding so well,” said Dr. Lewis, who is a neurologist at Cedars Sinai Medical Center.
The researchers also found that treatment with riliprubart led to inhibition of complement activity and a trend in reduction in neurofilament light chain levels by week 24 in all three groups.
Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 60% of the SOC-treated group, 72% of the SOC-refractory group, and 75% of the SOC-naive group, though grade 3 or higher events were rare (4%, 17%, and 8%, respectively). There was one death in the SOC-treated group and one in the SOC-refractory group. Both patients were elderly and had comorbid conditions.
Challenging the Current Standard of Care
The data have led to two additional phase 3 trials, one in refractory patients (Mobilize), and another for patients treated with IVIG who have residual disability (Vitalize). Sanofi is also planning a phase 3, placebo-controlled trial with one arm that will compare the antibody to IVIG, “which is a pretty ambitious trial design,” admitted Dr. Lewis.
Such a strategy is risky, but it could represent a big payoff for Sanofi if the phase 3 studies replicate the phase 2 studies. “No one would be using IVIG anymore if you beat IVIG by 50%. That will be the standard. If you do the trial [versus IVIG], you have a higher risk, but if you win it, you will win big,” said Dr. Tennigkeit.
The study was funded by Sanofi. Dr. Lewis has financial relationships with CSL Behring, Grifols, Pfizer, Sanofi, Argenx, Pharnext, Roche, Johnson & Johnson, Takeda, Boehringer Ingelheim, Nuvig, Dianthus, Janssen, Medscape, Alexion, Alnylam, and Novartis. Dr. Tennigkeit is an employee of UCB Biosciences. Dr. Patole has no relevant financial disclosures.
DENVER — , with good results in treatment-refractory and treatment-naive patients, according to results from a phase 2 clinical trial.
‘Impressive’ Results
The results were impressive, especially given that riliprubart outperformed IVIG, according to Frank Tennigkeit, PhD, senior director of pediatric development rare diseases at UCB Biosciences, who attended the session at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology, where the study was presented. “There are few trials on CIDP, and the standard data are IVIG data.
“This is really amazing, especially in refractory patients. I turned to my neighbor [during the presentation] and said, ‘I’ve never seen CIDP data that good in my life. It works in all kinds of different patient populations, and also on the refractory ones. That’s what you want. That’s where the need is. And you saw a consistent effect and a strong effect on top of standard of care,” said Dr. Tennigkeit.
“It’s impressive. The only problem with CIDP is that it’s very difficult to compare treatments, because everyone has a different outcome. This was an open-label study, so there’s always a confounding bias. The proof of the pudding is going to be in a phase 3 blinded, randomized trial, but what I really admire about them, and I thought was very gutsy, is that they’re going head-to-head versus IVIG. I haven’t seen anyone who’s done that yet [in CIDP],” said Shalom Patole, MD, an internist and telehealth consultant in India, who also attended the session.
An Open-Label Phase 2 Study
The study had a somewhat unique design, according to Richard Lewis, MD, who presented the results. It was an open-label design that examined three subpopulations: 25 who had objective response to treatments (standard of care [SOC]–treated, mean age, 58.2 years; 80% male), 18 refractory patients who had been off treatment for up to 12 weeks (SOC-refractory, mean age, 63.9 years; 61% male), and 12 patients who had not been treated at all for at least 6 months or were treatment-naive (SOC-naive, mean age, 59.1 years; 67% male).
At 24 weeks, “if you looked at the treated group, 88% of those patients improved to remain stable, and only 12% relapsed. Most significantly, these patients who had responded to their IVIG, who were supposedly doing pretty well, 44% of those actually got better, so they improved from what would have been a pretty good baseline. The refractory patients, despite flunking the other treatments, 50% actually passed or improved with the treatment, so a significant response rate in a group that was not responding so well,” said Dr. Lewis, who is a neurologist at Cedars Sinai Medical Center.
The researchers also found that treatment with riliprubart led to inhibition of complement activity and a trend in reduction in neurofilament light chain levels by week 24 in all three groups.
Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 60% of the SOC-treated group, 72% of the SOC-refractory group, and 75% of the SOC-naive group, though grade 3 or higher events were rare (4%, 17%, and 8%, respectively). There was one death in the SOC-treated group and one in the SOC-refractory group. Both patients were elderly and had comorbid conditions.
Challenging the Current Standard of Care
The data have led to two additional phase 3 trials, one in refractory patients (Mobilize), and another for patients treated with IVIG who have residual disability (Vitalize). Sanofi is also planning a phase 3, placebo-controlled trial with one arm that will compare the antibody to IVIG, “which is a pretty ambitious trial design,” admitted Dr. Lewis.
Such a strategy is risky, but it could represent a big payoff for Sanofi if the phase 3 studies replicate the phase 2 studies. “No one would be using IVIG anymore if you beat IVIG by 50%. That will be the standard. If you do the trial [versus IVIG], you have a higher risk, but if you win it, you will win big,” said Dr. Tennigkeit.
The study was funded by Sanofi. Dr. Lewis has financial relationships with CSL Behring, Grifols, Pfizer, Sanofi, Argenx, Pharnext, Roche, Johnson & Johnson, Takeda, Boehringer Ingelheim, Nuvig, Dianthus, Janssen, Medscape, Alexion, Alnylam, and Novartis. Dr. Tennigkeit is an employee of UCB Biosciences. Dr. Patole has no relevant financial disclosures.
FROM AAN 2024
Prospect of Better Hours, Less Burnout Fuels Locum Tenens
Insane hours and work-driven burnout are increasingly pernicious forces in medical workplaces. They apparently also are helping steer more physicians toward locum tenens, or temporary, assignments.
In its “2024 Survey of Locum Tenens Physicians and Advanced Practice Professionals,” Coppell, Texas–based staffing firm AMN Healthcare asked doctors, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants why they chose locum tenens work.
The reason chosen most often is improving work hours. Eighty-six percent of respondents said that was the “most important” or a “moderately important” factor. Next was addressing work burnout (80% of respondents), followed by unhappiness with compensation (75%), and dissatisfaction with being a full-time employee (71%).
“During the COVID pandemic, healthcare professionals began to rethink how, when, and where they work,” said Jeff Decker, president of AMN Healthcare’s physician solutions division, adding that he estimates about 52,000 US physicians now work on a locum tenens basis.
“Locum tenens offers relief from the long, inflexible work hours and onerous bureaucratic duties that often cause dissatisfaction and burnout among physicians and other healthcare providers.”
These feelings of dissatisfaction dovetail with findings in recent reports by this news organization based on surveys of physicians about burnout and employment. For example:
- Forty-nine percent of physicians acknowledged feeling burned out, up from 42% 6 years earlier.
- Eighty-three percent of doctors attributed their burnout and/or depression to the job entirely or most of the time.
- Flexibility in work schedules was one of the improvements chosen most often as a potential aid to burnout.
- The leading reasons cited for burnout were the number of bureaucratic tasks and too many hours at work.
Trying Locum Tenens Early in Career
According to AMN Healthcare, 81% of the physicians and APPs in its latest survey said they started taking locum tenens assignments immediately after finishing medical training or in mid-career. Only 19% waited until after retiring from medicine compared with 36% in AMN Healthcare’s 2016 survey.
In the 2024 report, a strong plurality of respondents (47%) said they found locum tenens work more satisfying than permanent healthcare employment. Twelve percent said the opposite, and 30% found the choices about equal.
Even so, it doesn’t appear that locum tenens represents a permanent career path for many. About as many (45%) of physicians and APPs said they would return to full-time employment if progress were made with conditions like hours and burnout, as said they would not (43%).
“Many physicians and other healthcare professionals feel they are being pushed from permanent positions by unsatisfactory work conditions,” Mr. Decker said. “To get them back, employers should offer practice conditions that appeal to today’s providers.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Insane hours and work-driven burnout are increasingly pernicious forces in medical workplaces. They apparently also are helping steer more physicians toward locum tenens, or temporary, assignments.
In its “2024 Survey of Locum Tenens Physicians and Advanced Practice Professionals,” Coppell, Texas–based staffing firm AMN Healthcare asked doctors, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants why they chose locum tenens work.
The reason chosen most often is improving work hours. Eighty-six percent of respondents said that was the “most important” or a “moderately important” factor. Next was addressing work burnout (80% of respondents), followed by unhappiness with compensation (75%), and dissatisfaction with being a full-time employee (71%).
“During the COVID pandemic, healthcare professionals began to rethink how, when, and where they work,” said Jeff Decker, president of AMN Healthcare’s physician solutions division, adding that he estimates about 52,000 US physicians now work on a locum tenens basis.
“Locum tenens offers relief from the long, inflexible work hours and onerous bureaucratic duties that often cause dissatisfaction and burnout among physicians and other healthcare providers.”
These feelings of dissatisfaction dovetail with findings in recent reports by this news organization based on surveys of physicians about burnout and employment. For example:
- Forty-nine percent of physicians acknowledged feeling burned out, up from 42% 6 years earlier.
- Eighty-three percent of doctors attributed their burnout and/or depression to the job entirely or most of the time.
- Flexibility in work schedules was one of the improvements chosen most often as a potential aid to burnout.
- The leading reasons cited for burnout were the number of bureaucratic tasks and too many hours at work.
Trying Locum Tenens Early in Career
According to AMN Healthcare, 81% of the physicians and APPs in its latest survey said they started taking locum tenens assignments immediately after finishing medical training or in mid-career. Only 19% waited until after retiring from medicine compared with 36% in AMN Healthcare’s 2016 survey.
In the 2024 report, a strong plurality of respondents (47%) said they found locum tenens work more satisfying than permanent healthcare employment. Twelve percent said the opposite, and 30% found the choices about equal.
Even so, it doesn’t appear that locum tenens represents a permanent career path for many. About as many (45%) of physicians and APPs said they would return to full-time employment if progress were made with conditions like hours and burnout, as said they would not (43%).
“Many physicians and other healthcare professionals feel they are being pushed from permanent positions by unsatisfactory work conditions,” Mr. Decker said. “To get them back, employers should offer practice conditions that appeal to today’s providers.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Insane hours and work-driven burnout are increasingly pernicious forces in medical workplaces. They apparently also are helping steer more physicians toward locum tenens, or temporary, assignments.
In its “2024 Survey of Locum Tenens Physicians and Advanced Practice Professionals,” Coppell, Texas–based staffing firm AMN Healthcare asked doctors, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants why they chose locum tenens work.
The reason chosen most often is improving work hours. Eighty-six percent of respondents said that was the “most important” or a “moderately important” factor. Next was addressing work burnout (80% of respondents), followed by unhappiness with compensation (75%), and dissatisfaction with being a full-time employee (71%).
“During the COVID pandemic, healthcare professionals began to rethink how, when, and where they work,” said Jeff Decker, president of AMN Healthcare’s physician solutions division, adding that he estimates about 52,000 US physicians now work on a locum tenens basis.
“Locum tenens offers relief from the long, inflexible work hours and onerous bureaucratic duties that often cause dissatisfaction and burnout among physicians and other healthcare providers.”
These feelings of dissatisfaction dovetail with findings in recent reports by this news organization based on surveys of physicians about burnout and employment. For example:
- Forty-nine percent of physicians acknowledged feeling burned out, up from 42% 6 years earlier.
- Eighty-three percent of doctors attributed their burnout and/or depression to the job entirely or most of the time.
- Flexibility in work schedules was one of the improvements chosen most often as a potential aid to burnout.
- The leading reasons cited for burnout were the number of bureaucratic tasks and too many hours at work.
Trying Locum Tenens Early in Career
According to AMN Healthcare, 81% of the physicians and APPs in its latest survey said they started taking locum tenens assignments immediately after finishing medical training or in mid-career. Only 19% waited until after retiring from medicine compared with 36% in AMN Healthcare’s 2016 survey.
In the 2024 report, a strong plurality of respondents (47%) said they found locum tenens work more satisfying than permanent healthcare employment. Twelve percent said the opposite, and 30% found the choices about equal.
Even so, it doesn’t appear that locum tenens represents a permanent career path for many. About as many (45%) of physicians and APPs said they would return to full-time employment if progress were made with conditions like hours and burnout, as said they would not (43%).
“Many physicians and other healthcare professionals feel they are being pushed from permanent positions by unsatisfactory work conditions,” Mr. Decker said. “To get them back, employers should offer practice conditions that appeal to today’s providers.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Vaccine Against Urinary Tract Infections in Development
Urinary tract infections are among the most common bacterial infections. They can be painful, require antibiotic treatments, and recur in 20%-30% of cases. With the risk for the emergence or increase of resistance to antibiotics, it is important to search for potential therapeutic alternatives to treat or prevent urinary tract infections.
The MV140 Vaccine
The MV140 vaccine is produced by the Spanish pharmaceutical company Immunotek. MV140, known as Uromune, consists of a suspension of whole heat-inactivated bacteria in glycerol, sodium chloride, an artificial pineapple flavor, and water. It includes equal percentages of strains from four bacterial species (V121 Escherichia coli, V113 Klebsiella pneumoniae, V125 Enterococcus faecalis, and V127 Proteus vulgaris). MV140 is administered sublingually by spraying two 100-µL doses daily for 3 months.
The vaccine is in phase 2-3 of development. It is available under special access programs outside of marketing authorization in 26 countries, including Spain, Portugal, the United Kingdom, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Australia, New Zealand, and Chile. Recently, MV140 was approved in Mexico and the Dominican Republic and submitted to Health Canada for registration.
A randomized study published in 2022 showed the vaccine›s efficacy in preventing urinary tract infections over 9 months. In total, 240 women with a urinary tract infection received MV140 for either 3 or 6 months or a placebo for 6 months. The primary outcome was the number of urinary tract infection episodes during the 9-month study period after vaccination.
In this pivotal study, MV140 administration for 3 and 6 months was associated with a significant reduction in the median number of urinary tract infection episodes, from 3.0 to 0.0 compared with the placebo during the 9-month efficacy period. The median time to the first urinary tract infection after 3 months of treatment was 275.0 days in the MV140 groups compared with 48.0 days in the placebo group.
Nine-Year Follow-Up
On April 6 at the 2024 congress of The European Association of Urology, urologists from the Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust presented the results of a study evaluating the MV140 vaccine spray for long-term prevention of bacterial urinary tract infections.
This was a prospective cohort study involving 89 participants (72 women and 17 men) older than 18 years with recurrent urinary tract infections who received a course of MV140 for 3 months. Participants had no urinary tract infection when offered the vaccine and had no other urinary abnormalities (such as tumors, stones, or kidney infections).
Postvaccination follow-up was conducted over a 9-year period, during which researchers analyzed the data from the electronic health records of their initial cohort. They queried participants about the occurrence of urinary tract infections since receiving the vaccine and about potential related side effects. Thus, the results were self-reported.
Long-Term Efficacy
In this cohort, 48 participants (59%) reported having no infections during the 9-year follow-up. In the cohort of 89 participants, the average period without infection was 54.7 months (4.5 years; 56.7 months for women and 44.3 months for men). No vaccine-related side effects were observed.
The study’s limitations included the small number of participants and the collection of self-reported data. Furthermore, all cases were simple urinary tract infections without complications.
The authors concluded that “9 years after first receiving the sublingual spray MV140 vaccine, 54% of participants remained free from urinary tract infection.” For them, “this vaccine is safe in the long-term, and our participants reported fewer urinary tract infections and, if any, they were less severe.”
Vaccination could thus be an alternative to antibiotic treatments and could help combat the emergence of antibiotic resistance. The full study results should be published by the end of 2024.
Other studies are planned to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the MV140 vaccine in older patients residing in long-term care homes, in children suffering from acute urinary tract infections, and in adults suffering from complicated acute urinary tract infections (for example, patients with a catheter or with a neurogenic bladder).
This story was translated from JIM, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Urinary tract infections are among the most common bacterial infections. They can be painful, require antibiotic treatments, and recur in 20%-30% of cases. With the risk for the emergence or increase of resistance to antibiotics, it is important to search for potential therapeutic alternatives to treat or prevent urinary tract infections.
The MV140 Vaccine
The MV140 vaccine is produced by the Spanish pharmaceutical company Immunotek. MV140, known as Uromune, consists of a suspension of whole heat-inactivated bacteria in glycerol, sodium chloride, an artificial pineapple flavor, and water. It includes equal percentages of strains from four bacterial species (V121 Escherichia coli, V113 Klebsiella pneumoniae, V125 Enterococcus faecalis, and V127 Proteus vulgaris). MV140 is administered sublingually by spraying two 100-µL doses daily for 3 months.
The vaccine is in phase 2-3 of development. It is available under special access programs outside of marketing authorization in 26 countries, including Spain, Portugal, the United Kingdom, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Australia, New Zealand, and Chile. Recently, MV140 was approved in Mexico and the Dominican Republic and submitted to Health Canada for registration.
A randomized study published in 2022 showed the vaccine›s efficacy in preventing urinary tract infections over 9 months. In total, 240 women with a urinary tract infection received MV140 for either 3 or 6 months or a placebo for 6 months. The primary outcome was the number of urinary tract infection episodes during the 9-month study period after vaccination.
In this pivotal study, MV140 administration for 3 and 6 months was associated with a significant reduction in the median number of urinary tract infection episodes, from 3.0 to 0.0 compared with the placebo during the 9-month efficacy period. The median time to the first urinary tract infection after 3 months of treatment was 275.0 days in the MV140 groups compared with 48.0 days in the placebo group.
Nine-Year Follow-Up
On April 6 at the 2024 congress of The European Association of Urology, urologists from the Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust presented the results of a study evaluating the MV140 vaccine spray for long-term prevention of bacterial urinary tract infections.
This was a prospective cohort study involving 89 participants (72 women and 17 men) older than 18 years with recurrent urinary tract infections who received a course of MV140 for 3 months. Participants had no urinary tract infection when offered the vaccine and had no other urinary abnormalities (such as tumors, stones, or kidney infections).
Postvaccination follow-up was conducted over a 9-year period, during which researchers analyzed the data from the electronic health records of their initial cohort. They queried participants about the occurrence of urinary tract infections since receiving the vaccine and about potential related side effects. Thus, the results were self-reported.
Long-Term Efficacy
In this cohort, 48 participants (59%) reported having no infections during the 9-year follow-up. In the cohort of 89 participants, the average period without infection was 54.7 months (4.5 years; 56.7 months for women and 44.3 months for men). No vaccine-related side effects were observed.
The study’s limitations included the small number of participants and the collection of self-reported data. Furthermore, all cases were simple urinary tract infections without complications.
The authors concluded that “9 years after first receiving the sublingual spray MV140 vaccine, 54% of participants remained free from urinary tract infection.” For them, “this vaccine is safe in the long-term, and our participants reported fewer urinary tract infections and, if any, they were less severe.”
Vaccination could thus be an alternative to antibiotic treatments and could help combat the emergence of antibiotic resistance. The full study results should be published by the end of 2024.
Other studies are planned to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the MV140 vaccine in older patients residing in long-term care homes, in children suffering from acute urinary tract infections, and in adults suffering from complicated acute urinary tract infections (for example, patients with a catheter or with a neurogenic bladder).
This story was translated from JIM, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Urinary tract infections are among the most common bacterial infections. They can be painful, require antibiotic treatments, and recur in 20%-30% of cases. With the risk for the emergence or increase of resistance to antibiotics, it is important to search for potential therapeutic alternatives to treat or prevent urinary tract infections.
The MV140 Vaccine
The MV140 vaccine is produced by the Spanish pharmaceutical company Immunotek. MV140, known as Uromune, consists of a suspension of whole heat-inactivated bacteria in glycerol, sodium chloride, an artificial pineapple flavor, and water. It includes equal percentages of strains from four bacterial species (V121 Escherichia coli, V113 Klebsiella pneumoniae, V125 Enterococcus faecalis, and V127 Proteus vulgaris). MV140 is administered sublingually by spraying two 100-µL doses daily for 3 months.
The vaccine is in phase 2-3 of development. It is available under special access programs outside of marketing authorization in 26 countries, including Spain, Portugal, the United Kingdom, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Australia, New Zealand, and Chile. Recently, MV140 was approved in Mexico and the Dominican Republic and submitted to Health Canada for registration.
A randomized study published in 2022 showed the vaccine›s efficacy in preventing urinary tract infections over 9 months. In total, 240 women with a urinary tract infection received MV140 for either 3 or 6 months or a placebo for 6 months. The primary outcome was the number of urinary tract infection episodes during the 9-month study period after vaccination.
In this pivotal study, MV140 administration for 3 and 6 months was associated with a significant reduction in the median number of urinary tract infection episodes, from 3.0 to 0.0 compared with the placebo during the 9-month efficacy period. The median time to the first urinary tract infection after 3 months of treatment was 275.0 days in the MV140 groups compared with 48.0 days in the placebo group.
Nine-Year Follow-Up
On April 6 at the 2024 congress of The European Association of Urology, urologists from the Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust presented the results of a study evaluating the MV140 vaccine spray for long-term prevention of bacterial urinary tract infections.
This was a prospective cohort study involving 89 participants (72 women and 17 men) older than 18 years with recurrent urinary tract infections who received a course of MV140 for 3 months. Participants had no urinary tract infection when offered the vaccine and had no other urinary abnormalities (such as tumors, stones, or kidney infections).
Postvaccination follow-up was conducted over a 9-year period, during which researchers analyzed the data from the electronic health records of their initial cohort. They queried participants about the occurrence of urinary tract infections since receiving the vaccine and about potential related side effects. Thus, the results were self-reported.
Long-Term Efficacy
In this cohort, 48 participants (59%) reported having no infections during the 9-year follow-up. In the cohort of 89 participants, the average period without infection was 54.7 months (4.5 years; 56.7 months for women and 44.3 months for men). No vaccine-related side effects were observed.
The study’s limitations included the small number of participants and the collection of self-reported data. Furthermore, all cases were simple urinary tract infections without complications.
The authors concluded that “9 years after first receiving the sublingual spray MV140 vaccine, 54% of participants remained free from urinary tract infection.” For them, “this vaccine is safe in the long-term, and our participants reported fewer urinary tract infections and, if any, they were less severe.”
Vaccination could thus be an alternative to antibiotic treatments and could help combat the emergence of antibiotic resistance. The full study results should be published by the end of 2024.
Other studies are planned to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the MV140 vaccine in older patients residing in long-term care homes, in children suffering from acute urinary tract infections, and in adults suffering from complicated acute urinary tract infections (for example, patients with a catheter or with a neurogenic bladder).
This story was translated from JIM, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This Tech Will Change Your Practice Sooner Than You Think
Medical innovations don’t happen overnight — but in today’s digital world, they happen pretty fast. Some are advancing faster than you think.
1. Artificial Intelligence (AI) Medical Scribes
You may already be using this or, at the very least, have heard about it.
Physician burnout is a growing problem, with many doctors spending 2 hours on paperwork for every hour with patients. But some doctors, such as Gregory Ator, MD, chief medical informatics officer at the University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas, have found a better way.
“I have been using it for 9 months now, and it truly is a life changer,” Dr. Ator said of Abridge, an AI helper that transcribes and summarizes his conversations with patients. “Now, I go into the room, place my phone just about anywhere, and I can just listen.” He estimated that the tech saves him between 3 and 10 minutes per patient. “At 20 patients a day, that saves me around 2 hours,” he said.
Bonus: Patients “get a doctor’s full attention instead of just looking at the top of his head while they play with the computer,” Dr. Ator said. “I have yet to have a patient who didn’t think that was a positive thing.”
Several companies are already selling these AI devices, including Ambience Healthcare, Augmedix, Nuance, and Suki, and they offer more than just transcriptions, said John D. Halamka, MD, president of Mayo Clinic Platform, who oversees Mayo’s adoption of AI. They also generate notes for treatment and billing and update data in the electronic health record.
“It’s preparation of documentation based on ambient listening of doctor-patient conversations,” Dr. Halamka explained. “I’m very optimistic about the use of emerging AI technologies to enable every clinician to practice at the top of their license.”
Patricia Garcia, MD, associate clinical information officer for ambulatory care at Stanford Health Care, has spent much of the last year co-running the medical center’s pilot program for AI scribes, and she’s so impressed with the technology that she “expects it’ll become more widely available as an option for any clinician that wants to use it in the next 12-18 months.”
2. Three-Dimensional (3D) Printing
Although 3D-printed organs may not happen anytime soon, the future is here for some 3D-printed prosthetics and implants — everything from dentures to spinal implants to prosthetic fingers and noses.
“In the next few years, I see rapid growth in the use of 3D printing technology across orthopedic surgery,” said Rishin J. Kadakia, MD, an orthopedic surgeon in Atlanta. “It’s becoming more common not just at large academic institutions. More and more providers will turn to using 3D printing technology to help tackle challenging cases that previously did not have good solutions.”
Dr. Kadakia has experienced this firsthand with his patients at the Emory Orthopaedics & Spine Center. One female patient developed talar avascular necrosis due to a bone break she’d sustained in a serious car crash. An ankle and subtalar joint fusion would repair the damage but limit her mobility and change her gait. So instead, in August of 2021, Dr. Kadakia and fellow orthopedic surgeon Jason Bariteau, MD, created for her a 3D-printed cobalt chrome talus implant.
“It provided an opportunity for her to keep her ankle’s range of motion, and also mobilize faster than with a subtalar and ankle joint fusion,” said Dr. Kadakia.
The technology is also playing a role in customized medical devices — patient-specific tools for greater precision — and 3D-printed anatomical models, built to the exact specifications of individual patients. Mayo Clinic already has 3D modeling units in three states, and other hospitals are following suit. The models not only help doctors prepare for complicated surgeries but also can dramatically cut down on costs. A 2021 study from Durham University reported that 3D models helped reduce surgery time by between 1.5 and 2.5 hours in lengthy procedures.
3. Drones
For patients who can’t make it to a pharmacy to pick up their prescriptions, either because of distance or lack of transportation, drones — which can deliver medications onto a customer’s back yard or front porch — offer a compelling solution.
Several companies and hospitals are already experimenting with drones, like WellSpan Health in Pennsylvania, Amazon Pharmacy, and the Cleveland Clinic, which announced a partnership with drone delivery company Zipline and plans to begin prescription deliveries across Northeast Ohio by 2025.
Healthcare systems are just beginning to explore the potential of drone deliveries, for everything from lab samples to medical and surgical supplies — even defibrillators that could arrive at an ailing patient’s front door before an emergency medical technician arrives.
“For many providers, when you take a sample from a patient, that sample waits around for hours until a courier picks up all of the facility’s samples and drives them to an outside facility for processing,” said Hillary Brendzel, head of Zipline’s US Healthcare Practice.
According to a 2022 survey from American Nurse Journal, 71% of nurses said that medical courier delays and errors negatively affected their ability to provide patient care. But with drone delivery, “lab samples can be sent for processing immediately, on-demand, resulting in faster diagnosis, treatment, and ultimately better outcomes,” said Ms. Brendzel.
4. Portable Ultrasound
Within the next 2 years, portable ultrasound — pocket-sized devices that connect to a smartphone or tablet — will become the “21st-century stethoscope,” said Abhilash Hareendranathan, PhD, assistant professor in the Department of Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging at the University of Alberta, in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
AI can make these devices easy to use, allowing clinicians with minimal imaging training to capture clear images and understand the results. Dr. Hareendranathan developed the Ultrasound Arm Injury Detection tool, a portable ultrasound that uses AI to detect fracture.
“We plan to introduce this technology in emergency departments, where it could be used by triage nurses to perform quick examinations to detect fractures of the wrist, elbow, or shoulder,” he said.
More pocket-sized scanners like these could “reshape the way diagnostic care is provided in rural and remote communities,” Dr. Hareendranathan said, and will “reduce wait times in crowded emergency departments.” Bill Gates believes enough in portable ultrasound that last September, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation granted $44 million to GE HealthCare to develop the technology for under-resourced communities.
5. Virtual Reality (VR)
When RelieVRx became the first US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved VR therapy for chronic back pain in 2021, the technology was used in just a handful of Veterans Affairs (VA) facilities. But today, thousands of VR headsets have been deployed to more than 160 VA medical centers and clinics across the country.
“The VR experiences encompass pain neuroscience education, mindfulness, pleasant and relaxing distraction, and key skills to calm the nervous system,” said Beth Darnall, PhD, director of the Stanford Pain Relief Innovations Lab, who helped design the RelieVRx. She expects VR to go mainstream soon, not just because of increasing evidence that it works but also thanks to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which recently issued a Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System code for VR. “This billing infrastructure will encourage adoption and uptake,” she said.
Hundreds of hospitals across the United States have already adopted the technology, for everything from childbirth pain to wound debridement, said Josh Sackman, the president and cofounder of AppliedVR, the company that developed RelieVRx.
“Over the next few years, we may see hundreds more deploy unique applications [for VR] that can handle multiple clinical indications,” he said. “Given the modality’s ability to scale and reduce reliance on pharmacological interventions, it has the power to improve the cost and quality of care.”
Hospital systems like Geisinger and Cedars-Sinai are already finding unique ways to implement the technology, he said, like using VR to reduce “scanxiety” during imaging service.
Other VR innovations are already being introduced, from the Smileyscope, a VR device for children that’s been proven to lessen the pain of a blood draw or intravenous insertion (it was cleared by the FDA last November) to several VR platforms launched by Cedars-Sinai in recent months, for applications that range from gastrointestinal issues to mental health therapy. “There may already be a thousand hospitals using VR in some capacity,” said Brennan Spiegel, MD, director of Health Services Research at Cedars-Sinai.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Medical innovations don’t happen overnight — but in today’s digital world, they happen pretty fast. Some are advancing faster than you think.
1. Artificial Intelligence (AI) Medical Scribes
You may already be using this or, at the very least, have heard about it.
Physician burnout is a growing problem, with many doctors spending 2 hours on paperwork for every hour with patients. But some doctors, such as Gregory Ator, MD, chief medical informatics officer at the University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas, have found a better way.
“I have been using it for 9 months now, and it truly is a life changer,” Dr. Ator said of Abridge, an AI helper that transcribes and summarizes his conversations with patients. “Now, I go into the room, place my phone just about anywhere, and I can just listen.” He estimated that the tech saves him between 3 and 10 minutes per patient. “At 20 patients a day, that saves me around 2 hours,” he said.
Bonus: Patients “get a doctor’s full attention instead of just looking at the top of his head while they play with the computer,” Dr. Ator said. “I have yet to have a patient who didn’t think that was a positive thing.”
Several companies are already selling these AI devices, including Ambience Healthcare, Augmedix, Nuance, and Suki, and they offer more than just transcriptions, said John D. Halamka, MD, president of Mayo Clinic Platform, who oversees Mayo’s adoption of AI. They also generate notes for treatment and billing and update data in the electronic health record.
“It’s preparation of documentation based on ambient listening of doctor-patient conversations,” Dr. Halamka explained. “I’m very optimistic about the use of emerging AI technologies to enable every clinician to practice at the top of their license.”
Patricia Garcia, MD, associate clinical information officer for ambulatory care at Stanford Health Care, has spent much of the last year co-running the medical center’s pilot program for AI scribes, and she’s so impressed with the technology that she “expects it’ll become more widely available as an option for any clinician that wants to use it in the next 12-18 months.”
2. Three-Dimensional (3D) Printing
Although 3D-printed organs may not happen anytime soon, the future is here for some 3D-printed prosthetics and implants — everything from dentures to spinal implants to prosthetic fingers and noses.
“In the next few years, I see rapid growth in the use of 3D printing technology across orthopedic surgery,” said Rishin J. Kadakia, MD, an orthopedic surgeon in Atlanta. “It’s becoming more common not just at large academic institutions. More and more providers will turn to using 3D printing technology to help tackle challenging cases that previously did not have good solutions.”
Dr. Kadakia has experienced this firsthand with his patients at the Emory Orthopaedics & Spine Center. One female patient developed talar avascular necrosis due to a bone break she’d sustained in a serious car crash. An ankle and subtalar joint fusion would repair the damage but limit her mobility and change her gait. So instead, in August of 2021, Dr. Kadakia and fellow orthopedic surgeon Jason Bariteau, MD, created for her a 3D-printed cobalt chrome talus implant.
“It provided an opportunity for her to keep her ankle’s range of motion, and also mobilize faster than with a subtalar and ankle joint fusion,” said Dr. Kadakia.
The technology is also playing a role in customized medical devices — patient-specific tools for greater precision — and 3D-printed anatomical models, built to the exact specifications of individual patients. Mayo Clinic already has 3D modeling units in three states, and other hospitals are following suit. The models not only help doctors prepare for complicated surgeries but also can dramatically cut down on costs. A 2021 study from Durham University reported that 3D models helped reduce surgery time by between 1.5 and 2.5 hours in lengthy procedures.
3. Drones
For patients who can’t make it to a pharmacy to pick up their prescriptions, either because of distance or lack of transportation, drones — which can deliver medications onto a customer’s back yard or front porch — offer a compelling solution.
Several companies and hospitals are already experimenting with drones, like WellSpan Health in Pennsylvania, Amazon Pharmacy, and the Cleveland Clinic, which announced a partnership with drone delivery company Zipline and plans to begin prescription deliveries across Northeast Ohio by 2025.
Healthcare systems are just beginning to explore the potential of drone deliveries, for everything from lab samples to medical and surgical supplies — even defibrillators that could arrive at an ailing patient’s front door before an emergency medical technician arrives.
“For many providers, when you take a sample from a patient, that sample waits around for hours until a courier picks up all of the facility’s samples and drives them to an outside facility for processing,” said Hillary Brendzel, head of Zipline’s US Healthcare Practice.
According to a 2022 survey from American Nurse Journal, 71% of nurses said that medical courier delays and errors negatively affected their ability to provide patient care. But with drone delivery, “lab samples can be sent for processing immediately, on-demand, resulting in faster diagnosis, treatment, and ultimately better outcomes,” said Ms. Brendzel.
4. Portable Ultrasound
Within the next 2 years, portable ultrasound — pocket-sized devices that connect to a smartphone or tablet — will become the “21st-century stethoscope,” said Abhilash Hareendranathan, PhD, assistant professor in the Department of Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging at the University of Alberta, in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
AI can make these devices easy to use, allowing clinicians with minimal imaging training to capture clear images and understand the results. Dr. Hareendranathan developed the Ultrasound Arm Injury Detection tool, a portable ultrasound that uses AI to detect fracture.
“We plan to introduce this technology in emergency departments, where it could be used by triage nurses to perform quick examinations to detect fractures of the wrist, elbow, or shoulder,” he said.
More pocket-sized scanners like these could “reshape the way diagnostic care is provided in rural and remote communities,” Dr. Hareendranathan said, and will “reduce wait times in crowded emergency departments.” Bill Gates believes enough in portable ultrasound that last September, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation granted $44 million to GE HealthCare to develop the technology for under-resourced communities.
5. Virtual Reality (VR)
When RelieVRx became the first US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved VR therapy for chronic back pain in 2021, the technology was used in just a handful of Veterans Affairs (VA) facilities. But today, thousands of VR headsets have been deployed to more than 160 VA medical centers and clinics across the country.
“The VR experiences encompass pain neuroscience education, mindfulness, pleasant and relaxing distraction, and key skills to calm the nervous system,” said Beth Darnall, PhD, director of the Stanford Pain Relief Innovations Lab, who helped design the RelieVRx. She expects VR to go mainstream soon, not just because of increasing evidence that it works but also thanks to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which recently issued a Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System code for VR. “This billing infrastructure will encourage adoption and uptake,” she said.
Hundreds of hospitals across the United States have already adopted the technology, for everything from childbirth pain to wound debridement, said Josh Sackman, the president and cofounder of AppliedVR, the company that developed RelieVRx.
“Over the next few years, we may see hundreds more deploy unique applications [for VR] that can handle multiple clinical indications,” he said. “Given the modality’s ability to scale and reduce reliance on pharmacological interventions, it has the power to improve the cost and quality of care.”
Hospital systems like Geisinger and Cedars-Sinai are already finding unique ways to implement the technology, he said, like using VR to reduce “scanxiety” during imaging service.
Other VR innovations are already being introduced, from the Smileyscope, a VR device for children that’s been proven to lessen the pain of a blood draw or intravenous insertion (it was cleared by the FDA last November) to several VR platforms launched by Cedars-Sinai in recent months, for applications that range from gastrointestinal issues to mental health therapy. “There may already be a thousand hospitals using VR in some capacity,” said Brennan Spiegel, MD, director of Health Services Research at Cedars-Sinai.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Medical innovations don’t happen overnight — but in today’s digital world, they happen pretty fast. Some are advancing faster than you think.
1. Artificial Intelligence (AI) Medical Scribes
You may already be using this or, at the very least, have heard about it.
Physician burnout is a growing problem, with many doctors spending 2 hours on paperwork for every hour with patients. But some doctors, such as Gregory Ator, MD, chief medical informatics officer at the University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas, have found a better way.
“I have been using it for 9 months now, and it truly is a life changer,” Dr. Ator said of Abridge, an AI helper that transcribes and summarizes his conversations with patients. “Now, I go into the room, place my phone just about anywhere, and I can just listen.” He estimated that the tech saves him between 3 and 10 minutes per patient. “At 20 patients a day, that saves me around 2 hours,” he said.
Bonus: Patients “get a doctor’s full attention instead of just looking at the top of his head while they play with the computer,” Dr. Ator said. “I have yet to have a patient who didn’t think that was a positive thing.”
Several companies are already selling these AI devices, including Ambience Healthcare, Augmedix, Nuance, and Suki, and they offer more than just transcriptions, said John D. Halamka, MD, president of Mayo Clinic Platform, who oversees Mayo’s adoption of AI. They also generate notes for treatment and billing and update data in the electronic health record.
“It’s preparation of documentation based on ambient listening of doctor-patient conversations,” Dr. Halamka explained. “I’m very optimistic about the use of emerging AI technologies to enable every clinician to practice at the top of their license.”
Patricia Garcia, MD, associate clinical information officer for ambulatory care at Stanford Health Care, has spent much of the last year co-running the medical center’s pilot program for AI scribes, and she’s so impressed with the technology that she “expects it’ll become more widely available as an option for any clinician that wants to use it in the next 12-18 months.”
2. Three-Dimensional (3D) Printing
Although 3D-printed organs may not happen anytime soon, the future is here for some 3D-printed prosthetics and implants — everything from dentures to spinal implants to prosthetic fingers and noses.
“In the next few years, I see rapid growth in the use of 3D printing technology across orthopedic surgery,” said Rishin J. Kadakia, MD, an orthopedic surgeon in Atlanta. “It’s becoming more common not just at large academic institutions. More and more providers will turn to using 3D printing technology to help tackle challenging cases that previously did not have good solutions.”
Dr. Kadakia has experienced this firsthand with his patients at the Emory Orthopaedics & Spine Center. One female patient developed talar avascular necrosis due to a bone break she’d sustained in a serious car crash. An ankle and subtalar joint fusion would repair the damage but limit her mobility and change her gait. So instead, in August of 2021, Dr. Kadakia and fellow orthopedic surgeon Jason Bariteau, MD, created for her a 3D-printed cobalt chrome talus implant.
“It provided an opportunity for her to keep her ankle’s range of motion, and also mobilize faster than with a subtalar and ankle joint fusion,” said Dr. Kadakia.
The technology is also playing a role in customized medical devices — patient-specific tools for greater precision — and 3D-printed anatomical models, built to the exact specifications of individual patients. Mayo Clinic already has 3D modeling units in three states, and other hospitals are following suit. The models not only help doctors prepare for complicated surgeries but also can dramatically cut down on costs. A 2021 study from Durham University reported that 3D models helped reduce surgery time by between 1.5 and 2.5 hours in lengthy procedures.
3. Drones
For patients who can’t make it to a pharmacy to pick up their prescriptions, either because of distance or lack of transportation, drones — which can deliver medications onto a customer’s back yard or front porch — offer a compelling solution.
Several companies and hospitals are already experimenting with drones, like WellSpan Health in Pennsylvania, Amazon Pharmacy, and the Cleveland Clinic, which announced a partnership with drone delivery company Zipline and plans to begin prescription deliveries across Northeast Ohio by 2025.
Healthcare systems are just beginning to explore the potential of drone deliveries, for everything from lab samples to medical and surgical supplies — even defibrillators that could arrive at an ailing patient’s front door before an emergency medical technician arrives.
“For many providers, when you take a sample from a patient, that sample waits around for hours until a courier picks up all of the facility’s samples and drives them to an outside facility for processing,” said Hillary Brendzel, head of Zipline’s US Healthcare Practice.
According to a 2022 survey from American Nurse Journal, 71% of nurses said that medical courier delays and errors negatively affected their ability to provide patient care. But with drone delivery, “lab samples can be sent for processing immediately, on-demand, resulting in faster diagnosis, treatment, and ultimately better outcomes,” said Ms. Brendzel.
4. Portable Ultrasound
Within the next 2 years, portable ultrasound — pocket-sized devices that connect to a smartphone or tablet — will become the “21st-century stethoscope,” said Abhilash Hareendranathan, PhD, assistant professor in the Department of Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging at the University of Alberta, in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
AI can make these devices easy to use, allowing clinicians with minimal imaging training to capture clear images and understand the results. Dr. Hareendranathan developed the Ultrasound Arm Injury Detection tool, a portable ultrasound that uses AI to detect fracture.
“We plan to introduce this technology in emergency departments, where it could be used by triage nurses to perform quick examinations to detect fractures of the wrist, elbow, or shoulder,” he said.
More pocket-sized scanners like these could “reshape the way diagnostic care is provided in rural and remote communities,” Dr. Hareendranathan said, and will “reduce wait times in crowded emergency departments.” Bill Gates believes enough in portable ultrasound that last September, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation granted $44 million to GE HealthCare to develop the technology for under-resourced communities.
5. Virtual Reality (VR)
When RelieVRx became the first US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved VR therapy for chronic back pain in 2021, the technology was used in just a handful of Veterans Affairs (VA) facilities. But today, thousands of VR headsets have been deployed to more than 160 VA medical centers and clinics across the country.
“The VR experiences encompass pain neuroscience education, mindfulness, pleasant and relaxing distraction, and key skills to calm the nervous system,” said Beth Darnall, PhD, director of the Stanford Pain Relief Innovations Lab, who helped design the RelieVRx. She expects VR to go mainstream soon, not just because of increasing evidence that it works but also thanks to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which recently issued a Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System code for VR. “This billing infrastructure will encourage adoption and uptake,” she said.
Hundreds of hospitals across the United States have already adopted the technology, for everything from childbirth pain to wound debridement, said Josh Sackman, the president and cofounder of AppliedVR, the company that developed RelieVRx.
“Over the next few years, we may see hundreds more deploy unique applications [for VR] that can handle multiple clinical indications,” he said. “Given the modality’s ability to scale and reduce reliance on pharmacological interventions, it has the power to improve the cost and quality of care.”
Hospital systems like Geisinger and Cedars-Sinai are already finding unique ways to implement the technology, he said, like using VR to reduce “scanxiety” during imaging service.
Other VR innovations are already being introduced, from the Smileyscope, a VR device for children that’s been proven to lessen the pain of a blood draw or intravenous insertion (it was cleared by the FDA last November) to several VR platforms launched by Cedars-Sinai in recent months, for applications that range from gastrointestinal issues to mental health therapy. “There may already be a thousand hospitals using VR in some capacity,” said Brennan Spiegel, MD, director of Health Services Research at Cedars-Sinai.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.