CHEST Physician

When the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) grants cancer drugs accelerated approval, a key aim is to provide patients faster access to therapies that can benefit them. 

The downside of a speedier approval timeline, however, is that it’s often not yet clear whether the new drugs will actually allow a patient to live longer or better. Information on overall survival and quality of life typically comes years later, after drugs undergo confirmatory trials, or sometimes not at all, if companies fail to conduct these trials. 

During this waiting period, patients may be receiving a cancer drug that provides no real clinical benefit but comes with a host of toxicities. 

In fact, the odds are about as good as a coin flip. For cancer drugs that have confirmatory trial data, more than half don’t ultimately provide an overall survival or quality of life benefit.

Inherent to the accelerated approval process is the assumption that patients are willing to accept this uncertainty in exchange for faster access.

But is that really the case? 

A recent survey published in The Lancet Oncology aimed to tease out people’s preferences for confirmed clinical benefit vs speedier access. The researchers asked about 870 adults with experience of cancer challenges — either their own cancer diagnosis or that of family or a close friend — whether they valued faster access or certainty that a drug really works. 

In the study, participants imagined they had been diagnosed with cancer and could choose between two cancer drugs under investigation in clinical trials but with uncertain effectiveness, and a current standard treatment. Participants had to make a series of choices based on five scenarios. 

The first two scenarios were based on the impact of the current standard treatment: A patient’s life expectancy on the standard treatment (6 months up to 3 years), and a patient’s physical health on the standard treatment (functional status restricted only during strenuous activities up to completely disabled).

The remaining three scenarios dealt with the two new drugs: The effect of the new drugs on a surrogate endpoint, progression-free survival (whether the drugs slowed tumor growth for an extra month or 5 additional months compared with the standard treatment), certainty that slowing tumor growth will improve survival (very low to high), and the wait time to access the drugs (immediately to as long as 2 years).

The researchers assessed the relative importance of survival benefit certainty vs wait time and how that balance shifted depending on the different scenarios. 

Overall, the researchers found that, if there was no evidence linking the surrogate endpoint (progression-free survival) to overall survival, patients were willing to wait about 8 months for weak evidence of an overall survival benefit (ie, low certainty the drug will extend survival by 1-5 months), about 16 months for moderate certainty, and almost 22 months for high certainty. 

Despite a willingness to wait for greater certainty, participants did value speed as well. Overall, respondents showed a strong preference against a 1-year delay in FDA approval time. People who were aged 55 years or more and were non-White individuals made less than $40,000 year as well as those with the lowest life expectancy on a current standard treatment were most sensitive to wait times while those with better functional status and longer life expectancies on a current treatment were less sensitive to longer wait times.

“Our results indicate that some patients (except those with the poorest prognoses) would find the additional time required to generate evidence on the survival benefit of new cancer drugs an acceptable tradeoff,” the study authors concluded.

Although people do place high value on timely access to new cancer drugs, especially if there are limited treatment options, many are willing to wait for greater certainty that a new drug provides an overall survival benefit, lead author Robin Forrest, MSc, with the Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics in England, said in an interview. 

In the study, respondents also did not place significant value on whether the drug substantially slowed cancer growth. “In other words, substantial progression-free survival benefit of a drug did not compensate for lack of certainty about a drug’s benefit on survival in respondents’ drug choices,” the authors explained.

“In an effort to move quickly, we have accepted progression-free survival [as a surrogate endpoint],” Jyoti D. Patel, MD, oncologist with Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois, who wasn’t involved in the study. But a growing body of evidence indicates that progression-free survival is often a poor surrogate for overall survival. And what this study suggests is that “patients uniformly care about improvements in overall survival and the quality of that survival,” Patel said.

Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, was not surprised by the findings. 

“I always thought this was the real-world scenario, but the problem is the voices of ordinary patients are not heard,” Gyawali, with Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, who also wasn’t involved in the study, said in an interview. 

“What is heard is the loud noise of ‘we need access now, today, yesterday’ — ‘we don’t care if the drug doesn’t improve overall survival, we just need a drug, any drug’ — ‘we don’t care how much it costs, we need access today,’ ” Gyawali said. “Not saying this is wrong, but this is not the representation of all patients.”

However, the voices of patients who are more cautious and want evidence of benefit before accepting toxicities don’t make headlines, he added. 

What this survey means from a policy perspective, said Gyawali, is that accelerated approvals that do not mandate survival endpoint in confirmatory trials are ignoring the need of many patients who prioritize certainty of benefit over speed of access.

The study was funded by the London School of Economics and Political Science Phelan United States Centre. Forrest had no relevant disclosures. Gyawali has received consulting fees from Vivio Health. Patel has various relationships with AbbVie, Anheart, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Guardant, Tempus, Sanofi, BluePrint, Takeda, and Gilead.

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

When the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) grants cancer drugs accelerated approval, a key aim is to provide patients faster access to therapies that can benefit them. 

The downside of a speedier approval timeline, however, is that it’s often not yet clear whether the new drugs will actually allow a patient to live longer or better. Information on overall survival and quality of life typically comes years later, after drugs undergo confirmatory trials, or sometimes not at all, if companies fail to conduct these trials. 

During this waiting period, patients may be receiving a cancer drug that provides no real clinical benefit but comes with a host of toxicities. 

In fact, the odds are about as good as a coin flip. For cancer drugs that have confirmatory trial data, more than half don’t ultimately provide an overall survival or quality of life benefit.

Inherent to the accelerated approval process is the assumption that patients are willing to accept this uncertainty in exchange for faster access.

But is that really the case? 

A recent survey published in The Lancet Oncology aimed to tease out people’s preferences for confirmed clinical benefit vs speedier access. The researchers asked about 870 adults with experience of cancer challenges — either their own cancer diagnosis or that of family or a close friend — whether they valued faster access or certainty that a drug really works. 

In the study, participants imagined they had been diagnosed with cancer and could choose between two cancer drugs under investigation in clinical trials but with uncertain effectiveness, and a current standard treatment. Participants had to make a series of choices based on five scenarios. 

The first two scenarios were based on the impact of the current standard treatment: A patient’s life expectancy on the standard treatment (6 months up to 3 years), and a patient’s physical health on the standard treatment (functional status restricted only during strenuous activities up to completely disabled).

The remaining three scenarios dealt with the two new drugs: The effect of the new drugs on a surrogate endpoint, progression-free survival (whether the drugs slowed tumor growth for an extra month or 5 additional months compared with the standard treatment), certainty that slowing tumor growth will improve survival (very low to high), and the wait time to access the drugs (immediately to as long as 2 years).

The researchers assessed the relative importance of survival benefit certainty vs wait time and how that balance shifted depending on the different scenarios. 

Overall, the researchers found that, if there was no evidence linking the surrogate endpoint (progression-free survival) to overall survival, patients were willing to wait about 8 months for weak evidence of an overall survival benefit (ie, low certainty the drug will extend survival by 1-5 months), about 16 months for moderate certainty, and almost 22 months for high certainty. 

Despite a willingness to wait for greater certainty, participants did value speed as well. Overall, respondents showed a strong preference against a 1-year delay in FDA approval time. People who were aged 55 years or more and were non-White individuals made less than $40,000 year as well as those with the lowest life expectancy on a current standard treatment were most sensitive to wait times while those with better functional status and longer life expectancies on a current treatment were less sensitive to longer wait times.

“Our results indicate that some patients (except those with the poorest prognoses) would find the additional time required to generate evidence on the survival benefit of new cancer drugs an acceptable tradeoff,” the study authors concluded.

Although people do place high value on timely access to new cancer drugs, especially if there are limited treatment options, many are willing to wait for greater certainty that a new drug provides an overall survival benefit, lead author Robin Forrest, MSc, with the Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics in England, said in an interview. 

In the study, respondents also did not place significant value on whether the drug substantially slowed cancer growth. “In other words, substantial progression-free survival benefit of a drug did not compensate for lack of certainty about a drug’s benefit on survival in respondents’ drug choices,” the authors explained.

“In an effort to move quickly, we have accepted progression-free survival [as a surrogate endpoint],” Jyoti D. Patel, MD, oncologist with Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois, who wasn’t involved in the study. But a growing body of evidence indicates that progression-free survival is often a poor surrogate for overall survival. And what this study suggests is that “patients uniformly care about improvements in overall survival and the quality of that survival,” Patel said.

Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, was not surprised by the findings. 

“I always thought this was the real-world scenario, but the problem is the voices of ordinary patients are not heard,” Gyawali, with Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, who also wasn’t involved in the study, said in an interview. 

“What is heard is the loud noise of ‘we need access now, today, yesterday’ — ‘we don’t care if the drug doesn’t improve overall survival, we just need a drug, any drug’ — ‘we don’t care how much it costs, we need access today,’ ” Gyawali said. “Not saying this is wrong, but this is not the representation of all patients.”

However, the voices of patients who are more cautious and want evidence of benefit before accepting toxicities don’t make headlines, he added. 

What this survey means from a policy perspective, said Gyawali, is that accelerated approvals that do not mandate survival endpoint in confirmatory trials are ignoring the need of many patients who prioritize certainty of benefit over speed of access.

The study was funded by the London School of Economics and Political Science Phelan United States Centre. Forrest had no relevant disclosures. Gyawali has received consulting fees from Vivio Health. Patel has various relationships with AbbVie, Anheart, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Guardant, Tempus, Sanofi, BluePrint, Takeda, and Gilead.

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

When the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) grants cancer drugs accelerated approval, a key aim is to provide patients faster access to therapies that can benefit them. 

The downside of a speedier approval timeline, however, is that it’s often not yet clear whether the new drugs will actually allow a patient to live longer or better. Information on overall survival and quality of life typically comes years later, after drugs undergo confirmatory trials, or sometimes not at all, if companies fail to conduct these trials. 

During this waiting period, patients may be receiving a cancer drug that provides no real clinical benefit but comes with a host of toxicities. 

In fact, the odds are about as good as a coin flip. For cancer drugs that have confirmatory trial data, more than half don’t ultimately provide an overall survival or quality of life benefit.

Inherent to the accelerated approval process is the assumption that patients are willing to accept this uncertainty in exchange for faster access.

But is that really the case? 

A recent survey published in The Lancet Oncology aimed to tease out people’s preferences for confirmed clinical benefit vs speedier access. The researchers asked about 870 adults with experience of cancer challenges — either their own cancer diagnosis or that of family or a close friend — whether they valued faster access or certainty that a drug really works. 

In the study, participants imagined they had been diagnosed with cancer and could choose between two cancer drugs under investigation in clinical trials but with uncertain effectiveness, and a current standard treatment. Participants had to make a series of choices based on five scenarios. 

The first two scenarios were based on the impact of the current standard treatment: A patient’s life expectancy on the standard treatment (6 months up to 3 years), and a patient’s physical health on the standard treatment (functional status restricted only during strenuous activities up to completely disabled).

The remaining three scenarios dealt with the two new drugs: The effect of the new drugs on a surrogate endpoint, progression-free survival (whether the drugs slowed tumor growth for an extra month or 5 additional months compared with the standard treatment), certainty that slowing tumor growth will improve survival (very low to high), and the wait time to access the drugs (immediately to as long as 2 years).

The researchers assessed the relative importance of survival benefit certainty vs wait time and how that balance shifted depending on the different scenarios. 

Overall, the researchers found that, if there was no evidence linking the surrogate endpoint (progression-free survival) to overall survival, patients were willing to wait about 8 months for weak evidence of an overall survival benefit (ie, low certainty the drug will extend survival by 1-5 months), about 16 months for moderate certainty, and almost 22 months for high certainty. 

Despite a willingness to wait for greater certainty, participants did value speed as well. Overall, respondents showed a strong preference against a 1-year delay in FDA approval time. People who were aged 55 years or more and were non-White individuals made less than $40,000 year as well as those with the lowest life expectancy on a current standard treatment were most sensitive to wait times while those with better functional status and longer life expectancies on a current treatment were less sensitive to longer wait times.

“Our results indicate that some patients (except those with the poorest prognoses) would find the additional time required to generate evidence on the survival benefit of new cancer drugs an acceptable tradeoff,” the study authors concluded.

Although people do place high value on timely access to new cancer drugs, especially if there are limited treatment options, many are willing to wait for greater certainty that a new drug provides an overall survival benefit, lead author Robin Forrest, MSc, with the Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics in England, said in an interview. 

In the study, respondents also did not place significant value on whether the drug substantially slowed cancer growth. “In other words, substantial progression-free survival benefit of a drug did not compensate for lack of certainty about a drug’s benefit on survival in respondents’ drug choices,” the authors explained.

“In an effort to move quickly, we have accepted progression-free survival [as a surrogate endpoint],” Jyoti D. Patel, MD, oncologist with Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois, who wasn’t involved in the study. But a growing body of evidence indicates that progression-free survival is often a poor surrogate for overall survival. And what this study suggests is that “patients uniformly care about improvements in overall survival and the quality of that survival,” Patel said.

Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, was not surprised by the findings. 

“I always thought this was the real-world scenario, but the problem is the voices of ordinary patients are not heard,” Gyawali, with Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, who also wasn’t involved in the study, said in an interview. 

“What is heard is the loud noise of ‘we need access now, today, yesterday’ — ‘we don’t care if the drug doesn’t improve overall survival, we just need a drug, any drug’ — ‘we don’t care how much it costs, we need access today,’ ” Gyawali said. “Not saying this is wrong, but this is not the representation of all patients.”

However, the voices of patients who are more cautious and want evidence of benefit before accepting toxicities don’t make headlines, he added. 

What this survey means from a policy perspective, said Gyawali, is that accelerated approvals that do not mandate survival endpoint in confirmatory trials are ignoring the need of many patients who prioritize certainty of benefit over speed of access.

The study was funded by the London School of Economics and Political Science Phelan United States Centre. Forrest had no relevant disclosures. Gyawali has received consulting fees from Vivio Health. Patel has various relationships with AbbVie, Anheart, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Guardant, Tempus, Sanofi, BluePrint, Takeda, and Gilead.

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

More than a third of all patients with cancer die in hospitals, a figure that has increased slightly in recent years, while deaths at home have decreased. These findings come from a recent study published in Cancer Epidemiology, which analyzed data on the different places in Italy where end of life occurs.

“Place of death is relevant both for individuals and for the society. Home is universally considered the optimal place of death, while dying in a hospital may be a signal of inappropriate end-of-life care,” wrote the authors, led by Gianmauro Numico, MD, head of the Oncology Department at the Santa Croce e Carle General Hospital in Cuneo, Italy.

“Despite the general trend toward strengthening community-based networks and the increasing number of hospice and long-term care facilities, we oncologists are facing an opposite trend, with many patients spending their last days in the hospital,” Numico explained to Univadis Italy. This observation led to the questions that prompted the study: Is this only a perception among doctors, or is it a real phenomenon? If the latter, why is it happening? As the expert points out, it is a commonly held belief that people today should not die in the hospital, and numerous studies conducted on healthy individuals suggest that 70%-80% of the population would prefer to die at home.

 

What’s Preferable

For their analysis, Numico and colleagues relied on death certificates published by the Italian National Institute of Statistics from 2015 to 2019, excluding data from the pandemic years to avoid potential biases.

The analysis of data pertaining to cancer deaths revealed that approximately 35% of Italian patients with cancer die in hospitals, with a slight increase over the study period. Of the patients who die elsewhere, 40% die at home and 20% die in hospice or other long-term care facilities. Home deaths have decreased by 3.09%, while those in hospices and long-term care facilities have increased by 2.71%, and hospital deaths have risen by 0.3%.

The study also highlighted notable geographical differences: Hospital deaths are more frequent in the north, while in the south, home deaths remain predominant, although hospital admissions are on the rise. “These differences reflect not only access to facilities but also cultural and social variables,” explained Numico. “Some end-of-life issues with cancer patients are more straightforward, while others are difficult to manage outside the hospital,” he said, recalling that many family members and caregivers are afraid they won’t be able to care for their loved ones properly without the support of an appropriate facility and skilled personnel.

Social factors also contribute to the increased use of hospitals for end-of-life care: Without a social and family network, it is often impossible to manage the final stages of life at home. “We cannot guarantee that dying at home is better for everyone; in some cases, the home cannot provide the necessary care and emotional support,” Numico added.

 

Attitudes Need Change

Looking beyond Italy, it is clear that this trend exists in other countries as well. For example, in the Netherlands — where community-based care is highly developed and includes practices such as euthanasia — hospital death rates are higher than those in Italy. In the United States, the trend is different, but this is largely due to the structure of the US healthcare system, where patients bear much of the financial burden of hospital admissions.

“The basic requests of patients and families are clear: They want a safe place that is adequately staffed and where the patient won’t suffer,” said Numico, questioning whether the home is truly the best place to die. “In reality, this is not always the case, and it’s important to focus on the quality of care in the final days rather than just the place of care,” he added.

Ruling out hospitals a priori as a place to die is not a winning strategy, according to the expert. Instead of trying to reverse the trend, he suggests integrating the hospital into a care network that prioritizes the patient’s well-being, regardless of the setting. “Our goal should not be to eliminate hospital deaths — a common request from hospital administrations — but rather to ensure that end-of-life care in hospitals is a dignified experience that respects the needs of the dying and their loved ones,” Numico said. “We must ensure that, wherever the end-of-life process occurs, it should happen in the best way possible, and the hospital must be a part of this overall framework,” he concluded.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy 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.

More than a third of all patients with cancer die in hospitals, a figure that has increased slightly in recent years, while deaths at home have decreased. These findings come from a recent study published in Cancer Epidemiology, which analyzed data on the different places in Italy where end of life occurs.

“Place of death is relevant both for individuals and for the society. Home is universally considered the optimal place of death, while dying in a hospital may be a signal of inappropriate end-of-life care,” wrote the authors, led by Gianmauro Numico, MD, head of the Oncology Department at the Santa Croce e Carle General Hospital in Cuneo, Italy.

“Despite the general trend toward strengthening community-based networks and the increasing number of hospice and long-term care facilities, we oncologists are facing an opposite trend, with many patients spending their last days in the hospital,” Numico explained to Univadis Italy. This observation led to the questions that prompted the study: Is this only a perception among doctors, or is it a real phenomenon? If the latter, why is it happening? As the expert points out, it is a commonly held belief that people today should not die in the hospital, and numerous studies conducted on healthy individuals suggest that 70%-80% of the population would prefer to die at home.

 

What’s Preferable

For their analysis, Numico and colleagues relied on death certificates published by the Italian National Institute of Statistics from 2015 to 2019, excluding data from the pandemic years to avoid potential biases.

The analysis of data pertaining to cancer deaths revealed that approximately 35% of Italian patients with cancer die in hospitals, with a slight increase over the study period. Of the patients who die elsewhere, 40% die at home and 20% die in hospice or other long-term care facilities. Home deaths have decreased by 3.09%, while those in hospices and long-term care facilities have increased by 2.71%, and hospital deaths have risen by 0.3%.

The study also highlighted notable geographical differences: Hospital deaths are more frequent in the north, while in the south, home deaths remain predominant, although hospital admissions are on the rise. “These differences reflect not only access to facilities but also cultural and social variables,” explained Numico. “Some end-of-life issues with cancer patients are more straightforward, while others are difficult to manage outside the hospital,” he said, recalling that many family members and caregivers are afraid they won’t be able to care for their loved ones properly without the support of an appropriate facility and skilled personnel.

Social factors also contribute to the increased use of hospitals for end-of-life care: Without a social and family network, it is often impossible to manage the final stages of life at home. “We cannot guarantee that dying at home is better for everyone; in some cases, the home cannot provide the necessary care and emotional support,” Numico added.

 

Attitudes Need Change

Looking beyond Italy, it is clear that this trend exists in other countries as well. For example, in the Netherlands — where community-based care is highly developed and includes practices such as euthanasia — hospital death rates are higher than those in Italy. In the United States, the trend is different, but this is largely due to the structure of the US healthcare system, where patients bear much of the financial burden of hospital admissions.

“The basic requests of patients and families are clear: They want a safe place that is adequately staffed and where the patient won’t suffer,” said Numico, questioning whether the home is truly the best place to die. “In reality, this is not always the case, and it’s important to focus on the quality of care in the final days rather than just the place of care,” he added.

Ruling out hospitals a priori as a place to die is not a winning strategy, according to the expert. Instead of trying to reverse the trend, he suggests integrating the hospital into a care network that prioritizes the patient’s well-being, regardless of the setting. “Our goal should not be to eliminate hospital deaths — a common request from hospital administrations — but rather to ensure that end-of-life care in hospitals is a dignified experience that respects the needs of the dying and their loved ones,” Numico said. “We must ensure that, wherever the end-of-life process occurs, it should happen in the best way possible, and the hospital must be a part of this overall framework,” he concluded.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy 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.

More than a third of all patients with cancer die in hospitals, a figure that has increased slightly in recent years, while deaths at home have decreased. These findings come from a recent study published in Cancer Epidemiology, which analyzed data on the different places in Italy where end of life occurs.

“Place of death is relevant both for individuals and for the society. Home is universally considered the optimal place of death, while dying in a hospital may be a signal of inappropriate end-of-life care,” wrote the authors, led by Gianmauro Numico, MD, head of the Oncology Department at the Santa Croce e Carle General Hospital in Cuneo, Italy.

“Despite the general trend toward strengthening community-based networks and the increasing number of hospice and long-term care facilities, we oncologists are facing an opposite trend, with many patients spending their last days in the hospital,” Numico explained to Univadis Italy. This observation led to the questions that prompted the study: Is this only a perception among doctors, or is it a real phenomenon? If the latter, why is it happening? As the expert points out, it is a commonly held belief that people today should not die in the hospital, and numerous studies conducted on healthy individuals suggest that 70%-80% of the population would prefer to die at home.

 

What’s Preferable

For their analysis, Numico and colleagues relied on death certificates published by the Italian National Institute of Statistics from 2015 to 2019, excluding data from the pandemic years to avoid potential biases.

The analysis of data pertaining to cancer deaths revealed that approximately 35% of Italian patients with cancer die in hospitals, with a slight increase over the study period. Of the patients who die elsewhere, 40% die at home and 20% die in hospice or other long-term care facilities. Home deaths have decreased by 3.09%, while those in hospices and long-term care facilities have increased by 2.71%, and hospital deaths have risen by 0.3%.

The study also highlighted notable geographical differences: Hospital deaths are more frequent in the north, while in the south, home deaths remain predominant, although hospital admissions are on the rise. “These differences reflect not only access to facilities but also cultural and social variables,” explained Numico. “Some end-of-life issues with cancer patients are more straightforward, while others are difficult to manage outside the hospital,” he said, recalling that many family members and caregivers are afraid they won’t be able to care for their loved ones properly without the support of an appropriate facility and skilled personnel.

Social factors also contribute to the increased use of hospitals for end-of-life care: Without a social and family network, it is often impossible to manage the final stages of life at home. “We cannot guarantee that dying at home is better for everyone; in some cases, the home cannot provide the necessary care and emotional support,” Numico added.

 

Attitudes Need Change

Looking beyond Italy, it is clear that this trend exists in other countries as well. For example, in the Netherlands — where community-based care is highly developed and includes practices such as euthanasia — hospital death rates are higher than those in Italy. In the United States, the trend is different, but this is largely due to the structure of the US healthcare system, where patients bear much of the financial burden of hospital admissions.

“The basic requests of patients and families are clear: They want a safe place that is adequately staffed and where the patient won’t suffer,” said Numico, questioning whether the home is truly the best place to die. “In reality, this is not always the case, and it’s important to focus on the quality of care in the final days rather than just the place of care,” he added.

Ruling out hospitals a priori as a place to die is not a winning strategy, according to the expert. Instead of trying to reverse the trend, he suggests integrating the hospital into a care network that prioritizes the patient’s well-being, regardless of the setting. “Our goal should not be to eliminate hospital deaths — a common request from hospital administrations — but rather to ensure that end-of-life care in hospitals is a dignified experience that respects the needs of the dying and their loved ones,” Numico said. “We must ensure that, wherever the end-of-life process occurs, it should happen in the best way possible, and the hospital must be a part of this overall framework,” he concluded.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy 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.

New biologic drugs for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are finally here, said Stephen Rennard, MD, in a presentation in a session on new drugs at the 2024 GOLD International COPD Conference.

The inflammatory pathways associated with COPD are diverse and offer a range of potential targets for biologics, said Rennard, a professor of pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha. 

The therapeutic goals of biologics remain the same as with other treatments for COPD, namely restoration of normal inflammatory response and alteration of disease progression, as well as restoration of lost structure and function and improvement of systemic effects, Rennard said in his presentation. Most studies of new and up-and-coming drugs have improvement in acute exacerbation of COPD as the primary outcome.

 

The Biology Behind the Biologics

T2 inflammation is “an inflammatory cascade led by IL [interleukin]-4, IL-13, and IL-5,” Mona Bafadhel, MD, chair of Respiratory Medicine at King’s College London in England, said in her presentation during the session.

Bafadhel, who served as one of the investigators on the BOREAS and NOTUS studies, explained some of the science behind the development of the new biologics.

Eosinophils are powerful regulators of immune response and inflammation by stimulating T-cell production and affecting other immune cell types, she noted.

In the context of COPD and drug development, high blood eosinophil counts have been associated with increased COPD-related exacerbations, Bafadhel said. She cited data from a Dutch study of more than 7000 patients with COPD (with and without clinical diagnoses), in which absolute eosinophil counts ≥ 3.3% were associated with increased risk for severe exacerbations of 32% and 84% across all patients with COPD and clinical COPD, respectively.

Understanding the mechanisms of the eosinophil in COPD is important for research and development, Bafadhel said. Along with standardizing measurement of T2 inflammatory markers (IL-4, IL-13, and IL-5), more research is needed to fully understand the role of eosinophils in immunoregulation and repair.

 

Fitting the Biologic to the Patient

Several recent studies of up-and-coming biologics have focused on subsets of COPD patients, said Dave Singh, MD, professor of clinical pharmacology and respiratory medicine at The University of Manchester in England, in his presentation at the meeting. In September 2024, the Food and Drug Administration approved dupilumab as the first biologic treatment for patients with uncontrolled COPD and type 2 inflammation on the basis of eosinophil counts. Singh cited data from the BOREAS and NOTUS studies in which dupilumab significantly reduced exacerbations and improved lung function in these patients, compared with a placebo.

Mepolizumab, a biologic approved for asthma, is not currently approved for COPD, but data from a 2017 study showed a trend toward reduced exacerbations, compared with placebo, in a subset of patients with high blood eosinophil counts, Singh said.

In addition, a recent unpublished phase 3 study (MATINEE) showed a reduction in the annualized rate of exacerbations, compared with placebo, on the basis of up to 2 years’ follow-up.

Singh also highlighted data from a phase 2a study of astegolimab, a biologic drug that focuses on the IL-33 receptor, in which COPD exacerbation rates were not significantly different between treatment and placebo groups. However, astegolimab has shown safety and efficacy in adults with severe asthma and is under development in phase 3 trials for COPD.

Tezepelumab, which was approved by the FDA in 2021 as an add-on therapy for severe asthma in patients aged 12 years or older, is also in development as a therapy for COPD exacerbations, Singh said.

In a study presented at the 2024 American Thoracic Society annual meeting, Singh and colleagues found that tezepelumab at a subcutaneous dose of 420 mg every 4 weeks reduced the annualized rate of moderate or severe COPD exacerbations compared with placebo based on data from approximately 300 patients, although the difference was not statistically significant.

Itepekimab, another biologic, showed promise in a phase 2a genetic association study involving current and former smokers with moderate to severe COPD, Singh said.

In that study, published in 2022 in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, itepekimab failed to meet the primary endpoint in the overall study population of reduced annualized rate of moderate to severe exacerbations; however, a subgroup analysis of former smokers showed a significant (42%) reduction in exacerbations, Singh said in his presentation. Two phase 3 clinical studies (AERIFY-1/2) are ongoing to confirm the safety and efficacy of itepekimab in former smokers with COPD.

 

Takeaways and Next Steps

“These therapies provide the first new classes of medications approved for COPD in nearly 20 years,” said David M. Mannino, MD, of the University of Kentucky, Lexington, in an interview. “Dupilumab will be available to a subset of patients who are poorly controlled and have evidence of high eosinophils in their blood and is only used once every 2 weeks,” added Mannino, who has served as a consultant to companies developing COPD drugs.

Both dupilumab and ensifentrine, a phosphodiesterase (PDE) 3 and PDE4 inhibitor also recently approved for maintenance treatment of COPD, have been shown in clinical trials to reduce exacerbations and improve symptoms, said Mannino. Both offer additional options for patients who continue to have symptoms and exacerbations in spite of their current therapy.

Some barriers to the use of biologics in practice include the high cost. “Access and overcoming insurance-related issues such as preauthorization and high copays will be a challenge,” he said. Also, because dupilumab is an injectable drug, some patient training will be required.

Newer biologic therapies in development are also injectables, but some studies are examining longer time intervals as long as every 6 months, which could be a major advancement for some patients. The newer therapies in development are similar to dupilumab in that they will be injected therapies. Some in development are looking at longer time intervals as long as every 6 months, which may be a major advancement for some patients. “All of these therapies, however, are currently targeting more advanced or serious disease,” he said.

Looking ahead, more therapies are needed for the treatment of early COPD, as well as therapies that can be administered to a large number of patients at a reasonable cost, Mannino added.

Rennard disclosed serving as a consultant for Verona Pharma, Sanofi, Beyond Air, RS BioTherapeutics, RespirAI, and Roche, as well as speaker fees from Sanofi and temporary ownership interest while employed by AstraZeneca. Rennard is also the founder of Great Plains Biometrix. Bafadhel disclosed funding from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), grants from Asthma + Lung UK, Horizon Europe, NIHR, and AstraZeneca to her institution, and honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Pfizer. Singh disclosed relationships including speaking sponsorships, honoraria, and advisory board memberships for Adovate, Aerogen, Almirall, Apogee, Arrowhead, AstraZeneca, Bial, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Cipla, Connect Biopharm, Covis, CSL Behring, DevPro Biopharm, Elpen, Empirico, EpiEndo, Genentech, Generate Biomedicines, GlaxoSmithKline, Glenmark, Kamada, Kinaset Therapeutics, Kymera, Menarini, MicroA, OM Pharma, Orion, Pieris Pharmaceuticals, Pulmatrix, Revolo, Roivant Sciences, Sanofi, Synairgen, Tetherex, Teva, Theravance Biopharma, Upstream, and Verona Pharma. Mannino disclosed serving as a consultant to multiple companies currently developing COPD therapies (AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Roche, Regeneron, Sanofi, Genentech, Amgen, and Chiesi).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

New biologic drugs for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are finally here, said Stephen Rennard, MD, in a presentation in a session on new drugs at the 2024 GOLD International COPD Conference.

The inflammatory pathways associated with COPD are diverse and offer a range of potential targets for biologics, said Rennard, a professor of pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha. 

The therapeutic goals of biologics remain the same as with other treatments for COPD, namely restoration of normal inflammatory response and alteration of disease progression, as well as restoration of lost structure and function and improvement of systemic effects, Rennard said in his presentation. Most studies of new and up-and-coming drugs have improvement in acute exacerbation of COPD as the primary outcome.

 

The Biology Behind the Biologics

T2 inflammation is “an inflammatory cascade led by IL [interleukin]-4, IL-13, and IL-5,” Mona Bafadhel, MD, chair of Respiratory Medicine at King’s College London in England, said in her presentation during the session.

Bafadhel, who served as one of the investigators on the BOREAS and NOTUS studies, explained some of the science behind the development of the new biologics.

Eosinophils are powerful regulators of immune response and inflammation by stimulating T-cell production and affecting other immune cell types, she noted.

In the context of COPD and drug development, high blood eosinophil counts have been associated with increased COPD-related exacerbations, Bafadhel said. She cited data from a Dutch study of more than 7000 patients with COPD (with and without clinical diagnoses), in which absolute eosinophil counts ≥ 3.3% were associated with increased risk for severe exacerbations of 32% and 84% across all patients with COPD and clinical COPD, respectively.

Understanding the mechanisms of the eosinophil in COPD is important for research and development, Bafadhel said. Along with standardizing measurement of T2 inflammatory markers (IL-4, IL-13, and IL-5), more research is needed to fully understand the role of eosinophils in immunoregulation and repair.

 

Fitting the Biologic to the Patient

Several recent studies of up-and-coming biologics have focused on subsets of COPD patients, said Dave Singh, MD, professor of clinical pharmacology and respiratory medicine at The University of Manchester in England, in his presentation at the meeting. In September 2024, the Food and Drug Administration approved dupilumab as the first biologic treatment for patients with uncontrolled COPD and type 2 inflammation on the basis of eosinophil counts. Singh cited data from the BOREAS and NOTUS studies in which dupilumab significantly reduced exacerbations and improved lung function in these patients, compared with a placebo.

Mepolizumab, a biologic approved for asthma, is not currently approved for COPD, but data from a 2017 study showed a trend toward reduced exacerbations, compared with placebo, in a subset of patients with high blood eosinophil counts, Singh said.

In addition, a recent unpublished phase 3 study (MATINEE) showed a reduction in the annualized rate of exacerbations, compared with placebo, on the basis of up to 2 years’ follow-up.

Singh also highlighted data from a phase 2a study of astegolimab, a biologic drug that focuses on the IL-33 receptor, in which COPD exacerbation rates were not significantly different between treatment and placebo groups. However, astegolimab has shown safety and efficacy in adults with severe asthma and is under development in phase 3 trials for COPD.

Tezepelumab, which was approved by the FDA in 2021 as an add-on therapy for severe asthma in patients aged 12 years or older, is also in development as a therapy for COPD exacerbations, Singh said.

In a study presented at the 2024 American Thoracic Society annual meeting, Singh and colleagues found that tezepelumab at a subcutaneous dose of 420 mg every 4 weeks reduced the annualized rate of moderate or severe COPD exacerbations compared with placebo based on data from approximately 300 patients, although the difference was not statistically significant.

Itepekimab, another biologic, showed promise in a phase 2a genetic association study involving current and former smokers with moderate to severe COPD, Singh said.

In that study, published in 2022 in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, itepekimab failed to meet the primary endpoint in the overall study population of reduced annualized rate of moderate to severe exacerbations; however, a subgroup analysis of former smokers showed a significant (42%) reduction in exacerbations, Singh said in his presentation. Two phase 3 clinical studies (AERIFY-1/2) are ongoing to confirm the safety and efficacy of itepekimab in former smokers with COPD.

 

Takeaways and Next Steps

“These therapies provide the first new classes of medications approved for COPD in nearly 20 years,” said David M. Mannino, MD, of the University of Kentucky, Lexington, in an interview. “Dupilumab will be available to a subset of patients who are poorly controlled and have evidence of high eosinophils in their blood and is only used once every 2 weeks,” added Mannino, who has served as a consultant to companies developing COPD drugs.

Both dupilumab and ensifentrine, a phosphodiesterase (PDE) 3 and PDE4 inhibitor also recently approved for maintenance treatment of COPD, have been shown in clinical trials to reduce exacerbations and improve symptoms, said Mannino. Both offer additional options for patients who continue to have symptoms and exacerbations in spite of their current therapy.

Some barriers to the use of biologics in practice include the high cost. “Access and overcoming insurance-related issues such as preauthorization and high copays will be a challenge,” he said. Also, because dupilumab is an injectable drug, some patient training will be required.

Newer biologic therapies in development are also injectables, but some studies are examining longer time intervals as long as every 6 months, which could be a major advancement for some patients. The newer therapies in development are similar to dupilumab in that they will be injected therapies. Some in development are looking at longer time intervals as long as every 6 months, which may be a major advancement for some patients. “All of these therapies, however, are currently targeting more advanced or serious disease,” he said.

Looking ahead, more therapies are needed for the treatment of early COPD, as well as therapies that can be administered to a large number of patients at a reasonable cost, Mannino added.

Rennard disclosed serving as a consultant for Verona Pharma, Sanofi, Beyond Air, RS BioTherapeutics, RespirAI, and Roche, as well as speaker fees from Sanofi and temporary ownership interest while employed by AstraZeneca. Rennard is also the founder of Great Plains Biometrix. Bafadhel disclosed funding from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), grants from Asthma + Lung UK, Horizon Europe, NIHR, and AstraZeneca to her institution, and honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Pfizer. Singh disclosed relationships including speaking sponsorships, honoraria, and advisory board memberships for Adovate, Aerogen, Almirall, Apogee, Arrowhead, AstraZeneca, Bial, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Cipla, Connect Biopharm, Covis, CSL Behring, DevPro Biopharm, Elpen, Empirico, EpiEndo, Genentech, Generate Biomedicines, GlaxoSmithKline, Glenmark, Kamada, Kinaset Therapeutics, Kymera, Menarini, MicroA, OM Pharma, Orion, Pieris Pharmaceuticals, Pulmatrix, Revolo, Roivant Sciences, Sanofi, Synairgen, Tetherex, Teva, Theravance Biopharma, Upstream, and Verona Pharma. Mannino disclosed serving as a consultant to multiple companies currently developing COPD therapies (AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Roche, Regeneron, Sanofi, Genentech, Amgen, and Chiesi).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

New biologic drugs for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are finally here, said Stephen Rennard, MD, in a presentation in a session on new drugs at the 2024 GOLD International COPD Conference.

The inflammatory pathways associated with COPD are diverse and offer a range of potential targets for biologics, said Rennard, a professor of pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha. 

The therapeutic goals of biologics remain the same as with other treatments for COPD, namely restoration of normal inflammatory response and alteration of disease progression, as well as restoration of lost structure and function and improvement of systemic effects, Rennard said in his presentation. Most studies of new and up-and-coming drugs have improvement in acute exacerbation of COPD as the primary outcome.

 

The Biology Behind the Biologics

T2 inflammation is “an inflammatory cascade led by IL [interleukin]-4, IL-13, and IL-5,” Mona Bafadhel, MD, chair of Respiratory Medicine at King’s College London in England, said in her presentation during the session.

Bafadhel, who served as one of the investigators on the BOREAS and NOTUS studies, explained some of the science behind the development of the new biologics.

Eosinophils are powerful regulators of immune response and inflammation by stimulating T-cell production and affecting other immune cell types, she noted.

In the context of COPD and drug development, high blood eosinophil counts have been associated with increased COPD-related exacerbations, Bafadhel said. She cited data from a Dutch study of more than 7000 patients with COPD (with and without clinical diagnoses), in which absolute eosinophil counts ≥ 3.3% were associated with increased risk for severe exacerbations of 32% and 84% across all patients with COPD and clinical COPD, respectively.

Understanding the mechanisms of the eosinophil in COPD is important for research and development, Bafadhel said. Along with standardizing measurement of T2 inflammatory markers (IL-4, IL-13, and IL-5), more research is needed to fully understand the role of eosinophils in immunoregulation and repair.

 

Fitting the Biologic to the Patient

Several recent studies of up-and-coming biologics have focused on subsets of COPD patients, said Dave Singh, MD, professor of clinical pharmacology and respiratory medicine at The University of Manchester in England, in his presentation at the meeting. In September 2024, the Food and Drug Administration approved dupilumab as the first biologic treatment for patients with uncontrolled COPD and type 2 inflammation on the basis of eosinophil counts. Singh cited data from the BOREAS and NOTUS studies in which dupilumab significantly reduced exacerbations and improved lung function in these patients, compared with a placebo.

Mepolizumab, a biologic approved for asthma, is not currently approved for COPD, but data from a 2017 study showed a trend toward reduced exacerbations, compared with placebo, in a subset of patients with high blood eosinophil counts, Singh said.

In addition, a recent unpublished phase 3 study (MATINEE) showed a reduction in the annualized rate of exacerbations, compared with placebo, on the basis of up to 2 years’ follow-up.

Singh also highlighted data from a phase 2a study of astegolimab, a biologic drug that focuses on the IL-33 receptor, in which COPD exacerbation rates were not significantly different between treatment and placebo groups. However, astegolimab has shown safety and efficacy in adults with severe asthma and is under development in phase 3 trials for COPD.

Tezepelumab, which was approved by the FDA in 2021 as an add-on therapy for severe asthma in patients aged 12 years or older, is also in development as a therapy for COPD exacerbations, Singh said.

In a study presented at the 2024 American Thoracic Society annual meeting, Singh and colleagues found that tezepelumab at a subcutaneous dose of 420 mg every 4 weeks reduced the annualized rate of moderate or severe COPD exacerbations compared with placebo based on data from approximately 300 patients, although the difference was not statistically significant.

Itepekimab, another biologic, showed promise in a phase 2a genetic association study involving current and former smokers with moderate to severe COPD, Singh said.

In that study, published in 2022 in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, itepekimab failed to meet the primary endpoint in the overall study population of reduced annualized rate of moderate to severe exacerbations; however, a subgroup analysis of former smokers showed a significant (42%) reduction in exacerbations, Singh said in his presentation. Two phase 3 clinical studies (AERIFY-1/2) are ongoing to confirm the safety and efficacy of itepekimab in former smokers with COPD.

 

Takeaways and Next Steps

“These therapies provide the first new classes of medications approved for COPD in nearly 20 years,” said David M. Mannino, MD, of the University of Kentucky, Lexington, in an interview. “Dupilumab will be available to a subset of patients who are poorly controlled and have evidence of high eosinophils in their blood and is only used once every 2 weeks,” added Mannino, who has served as a consultant to companies developing COPD drugs.

Both dupilumab and ensifentrine, a phosphodiesterase (PDE) 3 and PDE4 inhibitor also recently approved for maintenance treatment of COPD, have been shown in clinical trials to reduce exacerbations and improve symptoms, said Mannino. Both offer additional options for patients who continue to have symptoms and exacerbations in spite of their current therapy.

Some barriers to the use of biologics in practice include the high cost. “Access and overcoming insurance-related issues such as preauthorization and high copays will be a challenge,” he said. Also, because dupilumab is an injectable drug, some patient training will be required.

Newer biologic therapies in development are also injectables, but some studies are examining longer time intervals as long as every 6 months, which could be a major advancement for some patients. The newer therapies in development are similar to dupilumab in that they will be injected therapies. Some in development are looking at longer time intervals as long as every 6 months, which may be a major advancement for some patients. “All of these therapies, however, are currently targeting more advanced or serious disease,” he said.

Looking ahead, more therapies are needed for the treatment of early COPD, as well as therapies that can be administered to a large number of patients at a reasonable cost, Mannino added.

Rennard disclosed serving as a consultant for Verona Pharma, Sanofi, Beyond Air, RS BioTherapeutics, RespirAI, and Roche, as well as speaker fees from Sanofi and temporary ownership interest while employed by AstraZeneca. Rennard is also the founder of Great Plains Biometrix. Bafadhel disclosed funding from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), grants from Asthma + Lung UK, Horizon Europe, NIHR, and AstraZeneca to her institution, and honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Pfizer. Singh disclosed relationships including speaking sponsorships, honoraria, and advisory board memberships for Adovate, Aerogen, Almirall, Apogee, Arrowhead, AstraZeneca, Bial, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Cipla, Connect Biopharm, Covis, CSL Behring, DevPro Biopharm, Elpen, Empirico, EpiEndo, Genentech, Generate Biomedicines, GlaxoSmithKline, Glenmark, Kamada, Kinaset Therapeutics, Kymera, Menarini, MicroA, OM Pharma, Orion, Pieris Pharmaceuticals, Pulmatrix, Revolo, Roivant Sciences, Sanofi, Synairgen, Tetherex, Teva, Theravance Biopharma, Upstream, and Verona Pharma. Mannino disclosed serving as a consultant to multiple companies currently developing COPD therapies (AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Roche, Regeneron, Sanofi, Genentech, Amgen, and Chiesi).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s been a while since I’ve discussed the H5N1 avian influenza clade 2.3.4.4b and its rapid spread in North America. I hope the facts prove me wrong, but many experts have been warning for some time that ideal conditions are forming for this virus, which for now only causes zoonoses, to pose a pandemic threat.

Let me recap for anyone who may have missed some of the developments, either because they work in other medical fields or think that the experience of the COVID-19 pandemic was a worst-case scenario that is unlikely to be repeated in the short term.

 

The Virus Has Flown to Hawaii

According to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, Georgia, the infection has now affected more than 500 cattle herds in 15 states. There are about 30 outbreaks reported in poultry, equally distributed between backyard and farm-raised birds, primarily located in California. Here alone, over 3 million birds have been affected. 

Wild birds are believed to have transported the highly pathogenic virus via migration routes across the Pacific, introducing it to Hawaii for the first time. Just days after wastewater analysis detected the presence of H5N1 on the island of Oahu, home to the capital Honolulu, the first outbreak was promptly reported, killing at least a dozen ducks and geese in a backyard coop. Some of these birds had been taken in early November to the Mililani Pet Fair, a sort of domestic animal festival. Local authorities recommended that anyone who attended the fair, touched a duck or goose at the event, and developed symptoms including fever, cough, sore throat, and conjunctivitis, should isolate and seek medical advice.

Meanwhile, more than 50 farmers, animal handlers, or workers involved in the slaughter of cattle or poultry across seven states have been confirmed infected, presumably contracted at their workplace. The latest case, diagnosed recently in Oregon, presented with severe conjunctivitis and mild respiratory symptoms. More than half of these patients have been identified in recent weeks in California, where active surveillance measures have been implemented. However, there is strong suspicion that the actual number of people infected with mild symptoms in the rest of the country is much, much higher.

 

The Red Alert Lights Up in Canada

The level of concern was raised further with news of the first severe — indeed very severe — case of H5N1 avian influenza originating from the western edge of Canada. A teenager (gender not disclosed), previously healthy and without risk factors, was hospitalized with severe respiratory failure in the intensive care unit at British Columbia Children’s Hospital in Vancouver. The source of the infection is unknown, similar to only one other case in Missouri involving an adult already hospitalized for other reasons, which was identified by chance through influenza surveillance programs. We also know that the Canadian adolescent does not live on a farm and had no known contact with potentially infected animals. The only suspicions focus on the family dog, euthanized owing to unspecified health problems in the early days of the epidemiologic investigation. Although the dog tested negative for avian influenza, a necropsy will be conducted to rule out its involvement in the transmission chain.

An initial characterization of the virus has linked it to genotype D1.1, which is circulating among wild birds and poultry farms in Canada’s westernmost province, rather than the strain typical of dairy cows in the United States. The publication of the complete viral sequence over the past weekend has, for the first time, highlighted mutations that could enhance the virus’s ability to infect human cells.

How do we know this? From the highly contested “gain-of-function” studies, which artificially modify viruses to understand which genomic points require the most surveillance — those mutations that can make the infectious agent more virulent or more transmissible between people.

 

Under Special Surveillance for 20 Years

The influenza A (H5N1) avian virus is not new or previously unknown, like SARS-CoV-2, and this could (in theory) give us a slight advantage. We have known about it for decades, and it began infecting humans about 20 years ago, causing pneumonia with respiratory failure. It proved lethal in about half of the cases, but only in people who had close contact with infected poultry, primarily in Southeast Asia.

Hundreds of other human cases occurred worldwide, but always in low-income countries with poor hygiene conditions and where families lived in close contact with animals. This contributed to a false sense of security in Europe and North America, where the threat has been consistently underestimated. Despite an estimated fatality rate of around 50%, the media often labeled scientists’ warnings and health authorities’ efforts to remain prepared as false alarms, tainted by suspicions of catering to the interests of pharmaceutical companies.

Some people may recall the scandal involving Tamiflu, the Roche antiviral oseltamivir, that governments stockpiled when there were fears that the avian virus might acquire the ability to spread among humans. It was dubbed “a false antidote for a false pandemic,” referring to the potential avian pandemic and the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, improperly called “swine flu,” and which turned out to be less severe than expected. There was talk of €2.64 billion being “wasted” to “please” the manufacturer. Although the Cochrane Collaboration made legitimate demands for rigor and transparency in conducting and publishing clinical trials, much of the public, and the journalists who wrote the stories, cared little about these technical aspects. The prevailing message was that stockpiling drugs (or vaccines) for a disease we don’t even know will occur is a waste of taxpayers’ money rather than a prudent preventive measure.

 

More Vulnerable Than Ever

If we were to ascribe strategic thinking to the virus, which it is not capable of, we might argue that it chose the ideal moment to conquer the world. It began circulating in the new clade in 2020, when experts and authorities were focused on the coronavirus. It spread from birds to marine mammals and finally to cattle, exploiting the public’s post-pandemic fatigue, as people no longer wanted to hear about infectious diseases and containment measures. It ultimately rode the wave of political polarization that irrationally equates prevention with supposed cowardice on the left, and recklessness with courageous freedom on the right.

The coincidence between the future appointments announced by the incoming Trump administration and the virus’s accelerated spread deserves attention from decision-makers and health professionals worldwide. The COVID-19 pandemic experience should have taught us that ignoring a threat doesn’t make it go away, if not in our health, then at least in our wallet. The economic repercussions of a virus circulating among animals crucial to our food chain and national economies should concern everyone, well before the threat crosses the ocean, because only then can we defend ourselves.

The proposed Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy, is a proponent of the supposed benefits of raw milk, which could serve as a potent vector for the virus. He is ideologically opposed to vaccinations. It’s hard to imagine he would utilize the H5N1 vaccine stockpiles held by the US government for a campaign starting at least with farmers, as was done prophylactically in Finland with products jointly procured by 15 European countries — a group the Italian government decided not to join.

If Kennedy indeed becomes responsible for US public health, it’s reasonable to fear that, in the name of freedom, he will try to delay as much as possible — even if necessary — the obligation to undergo testing and wear masks, not to mention more restrictive infection containment measures. It’s also unlikely he would support and promote the development of new mRNA products already under study, which would become indispensable if the disease begins to spread more easily among people, as well as animals. In such a case, traditional influenza vaccine cultivation methods using chicken eggs would prove too slow and quantitatively insufficient, especially if the virus continues to circulate among poultry.

In short, let’s keep our fingers crossed, but recognize that crossing our fingers might not be enough.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s been a while since I’ve discussed the H5N1 avian influenza clade 2.3.4.4b and its rapid spread in North America. I hope the facts prove me wrong, but many experts have been warning for some time that ideal conditions are forming for this virus, which for now only causes zoonoses, to pose a pandemic threat.

Let me recap for anyone who may have missed some of the developments, either because they work in other medical fields or think that the experience of the COVID-19 pandemic was a worst-case scenario that is unlikely to be repeated in the short term.

 

The Virus Has Flown to Hawaii

According to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, Georgia, the infection has now affected more than 500 cattle herds in 15 states. There are about 30 outbreaks reported in poultry, equally distributed between backyard and farm-raised birds, primarily located in California. Here alone, over 3 million birds have been affected. 

Wild birds are believed to have transported the highly pathogenic virus via migration routes across the Pacific, introducing it to Hawaii for the first time. Just days after wastewater analysis detected the presence of H5N1 on the island of Oahu, home to the capital Honolulu, the first outbreak was promptly reported, killing at least a dozen ducks and geese in a backyard coop. Some of these birds had been taken in early November to the Mililani Pet Fair, a sort of domestic animal festival. Local authorities recommended that anyone who attended the fair, touched a duck or goose at the event, and developed symptoms including fever, cough, sore throat, and conjunctivitis, should isolate and seek medical advice.

Meanwhile, more than 50 farmers, animal handlers, or workers involved in the slaughter of cattle or poultry across seven states have been confirmed infected, presumably contracted at their workplace. The latest case, diagnosed recently in Oregon, presented with severe conjunctivitis and mild respiratory symptoms. More than half of these patients have been identified in recent weeks in California, where active surveillance measures have been implemented. However, there is strong suspicion that the actual number of people infected with mild symptoms in the rest of the country is much, much higher.

 

The Red Alert Lights Up in Canada

The level of concern was raised further with news of the first severe — indeed very severe — case of H5N1 avian influenza originating from the western edge of Canada. A teenager (gender not disclosed), previously healthy and without risk factors, was hospitalized with severe respiratory failure in the intensive care unit at British Columbia Children’s Hospital in Vancouver. The source of the infection is unknown, similar to only one other case in Missouri involving an adult already hospitalized for other reasons, which was identified by chance through influenza surveillance programs. We also know that the Canadian adolescent does not live on a farm and had no known contact with potentially infected animals. The only suspicions focus on the family dog, euthanized owing to unspecified health problems in the early days of the epidemiologic investigation. Although the dog tested negative for avian influenza, a necropsy will be conducted to rule out its involvement in the transmission chain.

An initial characterization of the virus has linked it to genotype D1.1, which is circulating among wild birds and poultry farms in Canada’s westernmost province, rather than the strain typical of dairy cows in the United States. The publication of the complete viral sequence over the past weekend has, for the first time, highlighted mutations that could enhance the virus’s ability to infect human cells.

How do we know this? From the highly contested “gain-of-function” studies, which artificially modify viruses to understand which genomic points require the most surveillance — those mutations that can make the infectious agent more virulent or more transmissible between people.

 

Under Special Surveillance for 20 Years

The influenza A (H5N1) avian virus is not new or previously unknown, like SARS-CoV-2, and this could (in theory) give us a slight advantage. We have known about it for decades, and it began infecting humans about 20 years ago, causing pneumonia with respiratory failure. It proved lethal in about half of the cases, but only in people who had close contact with infected poultry, primarily in Southeast Asia.

Hundreds of other human cases occurred worldwide, but always in low-income countries with poor hygiene conditions and where families lived in close contact with animals. This contributed to a false sense of security in Europe and North America, where the threat has been consistently underestimated. Despite an estimated fatality rate of around 50%, the media often labeled scientists’ warnings and health authorities’ efforts to remain prepared as false alarms, tainted by suspicions of catering to the interests of pharmaceutical companies.

Some people may recall the scandal involving Tamiflu, the Roche antiviral oseltamivir, that governments stockpiled when there were fears that the avian virus might acquire the ability to spread among humans. It was dubbed “a false antidote for a false pandemic,” referring to the potential avian pandemic and the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, improperly called “swine flu,” and which turned out to be less severe than expected. There was talk of €2.64 billion being “wasted” to “please” the manufacturer. Although the Cochrane Collaboration made legitimate demands for rigor and transparency in conducting and publishing clinical trials, much of the public, and the journalists who wrote the stories, cared little about these technical aspects. The prevailing message was that stockpiling drugs (or vaccines) for a disease we don’t even know will occur is a waste of taxpayers’ money rather than a prudent preventive measure.

 

More Vulnerable Than Ever

If we were to ascribe strategic thinking to the virus, which it is not capable of, we might argue that it chose the ideal moment to conquer the world. It began circulating in the new clade in 2020, when experts and authorities were focused on the coronavirus. It spread from birds to marine mammals and finally to cattle, exploiting the public’s post-pandemic fatigue, as people no longer wanted to hear about infectious diseases and containment measures. It ultimately rode the wave of political polarization that irrationally equates prevention with supposed cowardice on the left, and recklessness with courageous freedom on the right.

The coincidence between the future appointments announced by the incoming Trump administration and the virus’s accelerated spread deserves attention from decision-makers and health professionals worldwide. The COVID-19 pandemic experience should have taught us that ignoring a threat doesn’t make it go away, if not in our health, then at least in our wallet. The economic repercussions of a virus circulating among animals crucial to our food chain and national economies should concern everyone, well before the threat crosses the ocean, because only then can we defend ourselves.

The proposed Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy, is a proponent of the supposed benefits of raw milk, which could serve as a potent vector for the virus. He is ideologically opposed to vaccinations. It’s hard to imagine he would utilize the H5N1 vaccine stockpiles held by the US government for a campaign starting at least with farmers, as was done prophylactically in Finland with products jointly procured by 15 European countries — a group the Italian government decided not to join.

If Kennedy indeed becomes responsible for US public health, it’s reasonable to fear that, in the name of freedom, he will try to delay as much as possible — even if necessary — the obligation to undergo testing and wear masks, not to mention more restrictive infection containment measures. It’s also unlikely he would support and promote the development of new mRNA products already under study, which would become indispensable if the disease begins to spread more easily among people, as well as animals. In such a case, traditional influenza vaccine cultivation methods using chicken eggs would prove too slow and quantitatively insufficient, especially if the virus continues to circulate among poultry.

In short, let’s keep our fingers crossed, but recognize that crossing our fingers might not be enough.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s been a while since I’ve discussed the H5N1 avian influenza clade 2.3.4.4b and its rapid spread in North America. I hope the facts prove me wrong, but many experts have been warning for some time that ideal conditions are forming for this virus, which for now only causes zoonoses, to pose a pandemic threat.

Let me recap for anyone who may have missed some of the developments, either because they work in other medical fields or think that the experience of the COVID-19 pandemic was a worst-case scenario that is unlikely to be repeated in the short term.

 

The Virus Has Flown to Hawaii

According to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, Georgia, the infection has now affected more than 500 cattle herds in 15 states. There are about 30 outbreaks reported in poultry, equally distributed between backyard and farm-raised birds, primarily located in California. Here alone, over 3 million birds have been affected. 

Wild birds are believed to have transported the highly pathogenic virus via migration routes across the Pacific, introducing it to Hawaii for the first time. Just days after wastewater analysis detected the presence of H5N1 on the island of Oahu, home to the capital Honolulu, the first outbreak was promptly reported, killing at least a dozen ducks and geese in a backyard coop. Some of these birds had been taken in early November to the Mililani Pet Fair, a sort of domestic animal festival. Local authorities recommended that anyone who attended the fair, touched a duck or goose at the event, and developed symptoms including fever, cough, sore throat, and conjunctivitis, should isolate and seek medical advice.

Meanwhile, more than 50 farmers, animal handlers, or workers involved in the slaughter of cattle or poultry across seven states have been confirmed infected, presumably contracted at their workplace. The latest case, diagnosed recently in Oregon, presented with severe conjunctivitis and mild respiratory symptoms. More than half of these patients have been identified in recent weeks in California, where active surveillance measures have been implemented. However, there is strong suspicion that the actual number of people infected with mild symptoms in the rest of the country is much, much higher.

 

The Red Alert Lights Up in Canada

The level of concern was raised further with news of the first severe — indeed very severe — case of H5N1 avian influenza originating from the western edge of Canada. A teenager (gender not disclosed), previously healthy and without risk factors, was hospitalized with severe respiratory failure in the intensive care unit at British Columbia Children’s Hospital in Vancouver. The source of the infection is unknown, similar to only one other case in Missouri involving an adult already hospitalized for other reasons, which was identified by chance through influenza surveillance programs. We also know that the Canadian adolescent does not live on a farm and had no known contact with potentially infected animals. The only suspicions focus on the family dog, euthanized owing to unspecified health problems in the early days of the epidemiologic investigation. Although the dog tested negative for avian influenza, a necropsy will be conducted to rule out its involvement in the transmission chain.

An initial characterization of the virus has linked it to genotype D1.1, which is circulating among wild birds and poultry farms in Canada’s westernmost province, rather than the strain typical of dairy cows in the United States. The publication of the complete viral sequence over the past weekend has, for the first time, highlighted mutations that could enhance the virus’s ability to infect human cells.

How do we know this? From the highly contested “gain-of-function” studies, which artificially modify viruses to understand which genomic points require the most surveillance — those mutations that can make the infectious agent more virulent or more transmissible between people.

 

Under Special Surveillance for 20 Years

The influenza A (H5N1) avian virus is not new or previously unknown, like SARS-CoV-2, and this could (in theory) give us a slight advantage. We have known about it for decades, and it began infecting humans about 20 years ago, causing pneumonia with respiratory failure. It proved lethal in about half of the cases, but only in people who had close contact with infected poultry, primarily in Southeast Asia.

Hundreds of other human cases occurred worldwide, but always in low-income countries with poor hygiene conditions and where families lived in close contact with animals. This contributed to a false sense of security in Europe and North America, where the threat has been consistently underestimated. Despite an estimated fatality rate of around 50%, the media often labeled scientists’ warnings and health authorities’ efforts to remain prepared as false alarms, tainted by suspicions of catering to the interests of pharmaceutical companies.

Some people may recall the scandal involving Tamiflu, the Roche antiviral oseltamivir, that governments stockpiled when there were fears that the avian virus might acquire the ability to spread among humans. It was dubbed “a false antidote for a false pandemic,” referring to the potential avian pandemic and the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, improperly called “swine flu,” and which turned out to be less severe than expected. There was talk of €2.64 billion being “wasted” to “please” the manufacturer. Although the Cochrane Collaboration made legitimate demands for rigor and transparency in conducting and publishing clinical trials, much of the public, and the journalists who wrote the stories, cared little about these technical aspects. The prevailing message was that stockpiling drugs (or vaccines) for a disease we don’t even know will occur is a waste of taxpayers’ money rather than a prudent preventive measure.

 

More Vulnerable Than Ever

If we were to ascribe strategic thinking to the virus, which it is not capable of, we might argue that it chose the ideal moment to conquer the world. It began circulating in the new clade in 2020, when experts and authorities were focused on the coronavirus. It spread from birds to marine mammals and finally to cattle, exploiting the public’s post-pandemic fatigue, as people no longer wanted to hear about infectious diseases and containment measures. It ultimately rode the wave of political polarization that irrationally equates prevention with supposed cowardice on the left, and recklessness with courageous freedom on the right.

The coincidence between the future appointments announced by the incoming Trump administration and the virus’s accelerated spread deserves attention from decision-makers and health professionals worldwide. The COVID-19 pandemic experience should have taught us that ignoring a threat doesn’t make it go away, if not in our health, then at least in our wallet. The economic repercussions of a virus circulating among animals crucial to our food chain and national economies should concern everyone, well before the threat crosses the ocean, because only then can we defend ourselves.

The proposed Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy, is a proponent of the supposed benefits of raw milk, which could serve as a potent vector for the virus. He is ideologically opposed to vaccinations. It’s hard to imagine he would utilize the H5N1 vaccine stockpiles held by the US government for a campaign starting at least with farmers, as was done prophylactically in Finland with products jointly procured by 15 European countries — a group the Italian government decided not to join.

If Kennedy indeed becomes responsible for US public health, it’s reasonable to fear that, in the name of freedom, he will try to delay as much as possible — even if necessary — the obligation to undergo testing and wear masks, not to mention more restrictive infection containment measures. It’s also unlikely he would support and promote the development of new mRNA products already under study, which would become indispensable if the disease begins to spread more easily among people, as well as animals. In such a case, traditional influenza vaccine cultivation methods using chicken eggs would prove too slow and quantitatively insufficient, especially if the virus continues to circulate among poultry.

In short, let’s keep our fingers crossed, but recognize that crossing our fingers might not be enough.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON — Children who have systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis with lung disease (sJIA-LD) have distinct biomarker profiles that may hold potential in eventually detecting LD earlier and identifying personalized treatment, according to research presented at the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2024 Annual Meeting.

Established risk factors for LD, which affects up to 1 in every 20 patients with sJIA, include being of a younger age, having more macrophage activation syndrome (MAS) episodes, and having more adverse reactions to biologics, Esraa Eloseily, MD, MS, an assistant professor of pediatrics at UT Southwestern Children’s Medical Center, Dallas, told attendees.

“The pathophysiology remains unclear and debate centers around elevated IL-18 [interleukin 18] and T-cell activation in association with HLA-DRB1*15/DRESS [drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms] reactions to biologics, and thus, we have urgent unmet needs to understand the prevalence, the pathogenesis, disease biomarkers, and influence of biologics,” Eloseily said.

Their study confirmed that patients with LD tended to be younger and have more MAS. The researchers also found lower hemoglobin and higher white blood cell counts and platelets in patients with sJIA-LD, as well as a higher medication burden, particularly with steroids, biologics, and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors.

Randy Cron, MD, PhD, director of the Division of Pediatric Rheumatology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, attended the presentation and noted that every additional piece of information is helpful in filling out the picture of what we know and can predict about sJIA-LD development.

“We’re all learning as we go, so the more people that study this, the better,” Cron told Medscape Medical News. “Even if it’s just seeing things that other groups have seen or really solidifying the risk factors for the development of lung disease, I think, at this point, that’s one of the most clinically relevant things: Do we screen? Who do we screen? Certainly, kids who have very young age of onset, children who develop macrophage activation syndrome, children who have high IL-18 levels.”

 

Study Results

The study compared 37 patients with sJIA-LD from 16 Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA) Registry sites with 141 patients with sJIA but without LD who had similar follow-up durations in the CARRA Registry.

Disease duration for patients with sJIA-LD was defined as the time from their initial sJIA diagnosis to their baseline sJIA-LD cohort visit, which was considered their index visit. In patients without LD, duration was from their enrollment in the CARRA Registry to their last CARRA Registry visit, which was considered their index visit.

The patients with sJIA-LD were significantly younger — a median age of 1 year — at onset of sJIA than those without LD, who had a median age of 5 years (P < .0019). The patients with sJIA-LD were also younger (median age, 7 years) at their index visit than those without LD (median age, 10 years) (P < .0001).

There were also significant differences in medication usage between those with and without LD. While 40.5% of patients with sJIA-LD were using steroids at their index visit, only 11.4% of those without LD were using steroids (P < .0001). Yet the mean dose of steroids was significantly lower in those with LD (5.45 mg/d) than in those without (20.7 mg/d). In addition, nearly half the patients with sJIA-LD had ever used cyclosporin A (45.7%) compared with 2.8% of those without LD (P < .0001), and 17.1% of patients with sJIA-LD had used mycophenolate mofetil compared with 0.7% of those without LD (P = .0002).

Similar disparities were seen for usage of biologics and JAK inhibitors: Anakinra (82.9% vs 56.7%; P = .0036), abatacept (8.6% vs 1.4%; P = .053), tofacitinib (57.1% vs 5.7%; P < .0001), ruxolitinib (25.7% vs 0%; P < .0001), baricitinib (8.6% vs 0%; P = .007), and emapalumab (23% vs 0.7%; P < .0001). Further, 5.7% of those with sJIA-LD had taken etoposide and 22.9% had received intravenous immunoglobulin compared with 0% and 4.3%, respectively, in those without LD (P = .04 and P = .001).

Laboratory parameters of patients with sJIA-LD were also significantly different from those of patients without LD, including a higher white blood cell count (8.8 × 109/L vs 8.1 × 109/L; P = .01), higher platelets (316.5 × 109/L vs 311.2 × 109/L; P = .03), and lower hemoglobin (11.5 g/dL vs 12.6 g/dL; P = .007). Ferritin levels trended nonsignificantly higher in patients with sJIA-LD (506 ng/mL vs 173.2 ng/mL; P = .09), and aspartate aminotransferase levels were significantly higher (37 U/L vs 28.72 U/L; P < .0001).

Patients’ overall well-being was “unexpectedly” higher in patients with sJIA-LD (P = .007), Eloseily noted, including the parent/patient rating (P = .027). However, more of the patients without LD had an excellent (61%) or very good (20.4%) health-related quality of life compared with those with LD (13% and 39%), and nearly one third of patients with sJIA-LD (30.4%) had only fair health-related quality of life compared with 5.5% without LD (P = .0002).

In line with known risk factors, most of the patients with sJIA-LD had a prior MAS episode (67.6%) compared with 10.6% of those without LD (P < .0001). Mortality was also higher in those with LD, two of whom died, whereas none without LD died (P = .04).

While existing biomarkers have been reported, they lack independent validation, Eloseily told attendees. Among the known key biomarkers are IL-18/interferon (IFN)-gamma axis, which are known to drive MAS and pulmonary inflammation, especially in those with MAS and LD; ICAM-5 and MMP-7, which is linked to fibrosis and tissue remodeling; and CCL11, CCL17, and GDF-15, which is linked to fibrosis and inflammation.

Because the CARRA Registry has limited availability of biosamples for most patients, the researchers used plasma samples from the FROST study for 27 patients with sJIA-LD and 46 patients without LD. When they compared 23 biomarkers between the groups, most of the known key biomarkers, as well as several other biomarkers, were significantly elevated in those with LD compared with in those without:

• MMP-7 (P = .001)
• IFN gamma (P = .008)
• CCL11 (P < .0001)
• CCL17 (P = .002)
• CCL15 (P < .0001)
• MCP-1 (P = .0003)
• MCP-3 (P = .02)
• CCL25 (P < .0001)
• CD25 (P < .0001)
• GDF-15 (P < .0001)
• TRAIL (P < .0001)
• IL-23 (P = .002)

They found that IL-18 only trended higher (P = .07), and there were not adequate data for ICAM-5.

The study was limited by the differences in disease duration between the compared groups and the limited availability of biosamples, which they only had from patients enrolled in the FROST study.

The research was funded by CARRA and the Arthritis Foundation. Eloseily reported no disclosures. Cron reported serving as an adviser for AbbVie/Abbott and Sobi, receiving grant funding and speaking and consulting fees from Pfizer, and receiving royalties from Springer.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON — Children who have systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis with lung disease (sJIA-LD) have distinct biomarker profiles that may hold potential in eventually detecting LD earlier and identifying personalized treatment, according to research presented at the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2024 Annual Meeting.

Established risk factors for LD, which affects up to 1 in every 20 patients with sJIA, include being of a younger age, having more macrophage activation syndrome (MAS) episodes, and having more adverse reactions to biologics, Esraa Eloseily, MD, MS, an assistant professor of pediatrics at UT Southwestern Children’s Medical Center, Dallas, told attendees.

“The pathophysiology remains unclear and debate centers around elevated IL-18 [interleukin 18] and T-cell activation in association with HLA-DRB1*15/DRESS [drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms] reactions to biologics, and thus, we have urgent unmet needs to understand the prevalence, the pathogenesis, disease biomarkers, and influence of biologics,” Eloseily said.

Their study confirmed that patients with LD tended to be younger and have more MAS. The researchers also found lower hemoglobin and higher white blood cell counts and platelets in patients with sJIA-LD, as well as a higher medication burden, particularly with steroids, biologics, and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors.

Randy Cron, MD, PhD, director of the Division of Pediatric Rheumatology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, attended the presentation and noted that every additional piece of information is helpful in filling out the picture of what we know and can predict about sJIA-LD development.

“We’re all learning as we go, so the more people that study this, the better,” Cron told Medscape Medical News. “Even if it’s just seeing things that other groups have seen or really solidifying the risk factors for the development of lung disease, I think, at this point, that’s one of the most clinically relevant things: Do we screen? Who do we screen? Certainly, kids who have very young age of onset, children who develop macrophage activation syndrome, children who have high IL-18 levels.”

 

Study Results

The study compared 37 patients with sJIA-LD from 16 Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA) Registry sites with 141 patients with sJIA but without LD who had similar follow-up durations in the CARRA Registry.

Disease duration for patients with sJIA-LD was defined as the time from their initial sJIA diagnosis to their baseline sJIA-LD cohort visit, which was considered their index visit. In patients without LD, duration was from their enrollment in the CARRA Registry to their last CARRA Registry visit, which was considered their index visit.

The patients with sJIA-LD were significantly younger — a median age of 1 year — at onset of sJIA than those without LD, who had a median age of 5 years (P < .0019). The patients with sJIA-LD were also younger (median age, 7 years) at their index visit than those without LD (median age, 10 years) (P < .0001).

There were also significant differences in medication usage between those with and without LD. While 40.5% of patients with sJIA-LD were using steroids at their index visit, only 11.4% of those without LD were using steroids (P < .0001). Yet the mean dose of steroids was significantly lower in those with LD (5.45 mg/d) than in those without (20.7 mg/d). In addition, nearly half the patients with sJIA-LD had ever used cyclosporin A (45.7%) compared with 2.8% of those without LD (P < .0001), and 17.1% of patients with sJIA-LD had used mycophenolate mofetil compared with 0.7% of those without LD (P = .0002).

Similar disparities were seen for usage of biologics and JAK inhibitors: Anakinra (82.9% vs 56.7%; P = .0036), abatacept (8.6% vs 1.4%; P = .053), tofacitinib (57.1% vs 5.7%; P < .0001), ruxolitinib (25.7% vs 0%; P < .0001), baricitinib (8.6% vs 0%; P = .007), and emapalumab (23% vs 0.7%; P < .0001). Further, 5.7% of those with sJIA-LD had taken etoposide and 22.9% had received intravenous immunoglobulin compared with 0% and 4.3%, respectively, in those without LD (P = .04 and P = .001).

Laboratory parameters of patients with sJIA-LD were also significantly different from those of patients without LD, including a higher white blood cell count (8.8 × 109/L vs 8.1 × 109/L; P = .01), higher platelets (316.5 × 109/L vs 311.2 × 109/L; P = .03), and lower hemoglobin (11.5 g/dL vs 12.6 g/dL; P = .007). Ferritin levels trended nonsignificantly higher in patients with sJIA-LD (506 ng/mL vs 173.2 ng/mL; P = .09), and aspartate aminotransferase levels were significantly higher (37 U/L vs 28.72 U/L; P < .0001).

Patients’ overall well-being was “unexpectedly” higher in patients with sJIA-LD (P = .007), Eloseily noted, including the parent/patient rating (P = .027). However, more of the patients without LD had an excellent (61%) or very good (20.4%) health-related quality of life compared with those with LD (13% and 39%), and nearly one third of patients with sJIA-LD (30.4%) had only fair health-related quality of life compared with 5.5% without LD (P = .0002).

In line with known risk factors, most of the patients with sJIA-LD had a prior MAS episode (67.6%) compared with 10.6% of those without LD (P < .0001). Mortality was also higher in those with LD, two of whom died, whereas none without LD died (P = .04).

While existing biomarkers have been reported, they lack independent validation, Eloseily told attendees. Among the known key biomarkers are IL-18/interferon (IFN)-gamma axis, which are known to drive MAS and pulmonary inflammation, especially in those with MAS and LD; ICAM-5 and MMP-7, which is linked to fibrosis and tissue remodeling; and CCL11, CCL17, and GDF-15, which is linked to fibrosis and inflammation.

Because the CARRA Registry has limited availability of biosamples for most patients, the researchers used plasma samples from the FROST study for 27 patients with sJIA-LD and 46 patients without LD. When they compared 23 biomarkers between the groups, most of the known key biomarkers, as well as several other biomarkers, were significantly elevated in those with LD compared with in those without:

• MMP-7 (P = .001)
• IFN gamma (P = .008)
• CCL11 (P < .0001)
• CCL17 (P = .002)
• CCL15 (P < .0001)
• MCP-1 (P = .0003)
• MCP-3 (P = .02)
• CCL25 (P < .0001)
• CD25 (P < .0001)
• GDF-15 (P < .0001)
• TRAIL (P < .0001)
• IL-23 (P = .002)

They found that IL-18 only trended higher (P = .07), and there were not adequate data for ICAM-5.

The study was limited by the differences in disease duration between the compared groups and the limited availability of biosamples, which they only had from patients enrolled in the FROST study.

The research was funded by CARRA and the Arthritis Foundation. Eloseily reported no disclosures. Cron reported serving as an adviser for AbbVie/Abbott and Sobi, receiving grant funding and speaking and consulting fees from Pfizer, and receiving royalties from Springer.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON — Children who have systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis with lung disease (sJIA-LD) have distinct biomarker profiles that may hold potential in eventually detecting LD earlier and identifying personalized treatment, according to research presented at the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2024 Annual Meeting.

Established risk factors for LD, which affects up to 1 in every 20 patients with sJIA, include being of a younger age, having more macrophage activation syndrome (MAS) episodes, and having more adverse reactions to biologics, Esraa Eloseily, MD, MS, an assistant professor of pediatrics at UT Southwestern Children’s Medical Center, Dallas, told attendees.

“The pathophysiology remains unclear and debate centers around elevated IL-18 [interleukin 18] and T-cell activation in association with HLA-DRB1*15/DRESS [drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms] reactions to biologics, and thus, we have urgent unmet needs to understand the prevalence, the pathogenesis, disease biomarkers, and influence of biologics,” Eloseily said.

Their study confirmed that patients with LD tended to be younger and have more MAS. The researchers also found lower hemoglobin and higher white blood cell counts and platelets in patients with sJIA-LD, as well as a higher medication burden, particularly with steroids, biologics, and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors.

Randy Cron, MD, PhD, director of the Division of Pediatric Rheumatology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, attended the presentation and noted that every additional piece of information is helpful in filling out the picture of what we know and can predict about sJIA-LD development.

“We’re all learning as we go, so the more people that study this, the better,” Cron told Medscape Medical News. “Even if it’s just seeing things that other groups have seen or really solidifying the risk factors for the development of lung disease, I think, at this point, that’s one of the most clinically relevant things: Do we screen? Who do we screen? Certainly, kids who have very young age of onset, children who develop macrophage activation syndrome, children who have high IL-18 levels.”

 

Study Results

The study compared 37 patients with sJIA-LD from 16 Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA) Registry sites with 141 patients with sJIA but without LD who had similar follow-up durations in the CARRA Registry.

Disease duration for patients with sJIA-LD was defined as the time from their initial sJIA diagnosis to their baseline sJIA-LD cohort visit, which was considered their index visit. In patients without LD, duration was from their enrollment in the CARRA Registry to their last CARRA Registry visit, which was considered their index visit.

The patients with sJIA-LD were significantly younger — a median age of 1 year — at onset of sJIA than those without LD, who had a median age of 5 years (P < .0019). The patients with sJIA-LD were also younger (median age, 7 years) at their index visit than those without LD (median age, 10 years) (P < .0001).

There were also significant differences in medication usage between those with and without LD. While 40.5% of patients with sJIA-LD were using steroids at their index visit, only 11.4% of those without LD were using steroids (P < .0001). Yet the mean dose of steroids was significantly lower in those with LD (5.45 mg/d) than in those without (20.7 mg/d). In addition, nearly half the patients with sJIA-LD had ever used cyclosporin A (45.7%) compared with 2.8% of those without LD (P < .0001), and 17.1% of patients with sJIA-LD had used mycophenolate mofetil compared with 0.7% of those without LD (P = .0002).

Similar disparities were seen for usage of biologics and JAK inhibitors: Anakinra (82.9% vs 56.7%; P = .0036), abatacept (8.6% vs 1.4%; P = .053), tofacitinib (57.1% vs 5.7%; P < .0001), ruxolitinib (25.7% vs 0%; P < .0001), baricitinib (8.6% vs 0%; P = .007), and emapalumab (23% vs 0.7%; P < .0001). Further, 5.7% of those with sJIA-LD had taken etoposide and 22.9% had received intravenous immunoglobulin compared with 0% and 4.3%, respectively, in those without LD (P = .04 and P = .001).

Laboratory parameters of patients with sJIA-LD were also significantly different from those of patients without LD, including a higher white blood cell count (8.8 × 109/L vs 8.1 × 109/L; P = .01), higher platelets (316.5 × 109/L vs 311.2 × 109/L; P = .03), and lower hemoglobin (11.5 g/dL vs 12.6 g/dL; P = .007). Ferritin levels trended nonsignificantly higher in patients with sJIA-LD (506 ng/mL vs 173.2 ng/mL; P = .09), and aspartate aminotransferase levels were significantly higher (37 U/L vs 28.72 U/L; P < .0001).

Patients’ overall well-being was “unexpectedly” higher in patients with sJIA-LD (P = .007), Eloseily noted, including the parent/patient rating (P = .027). However, more of the patients without LD had an excellent (61%) or very good (20.4%) health-related quality of life compared with those with LD (13% and 39%), and nearly one third of patients with sJIA-LD (30.4%) had only fair health-related quality of life compared with 5.5% without LD (P = .0002).

In line with known risk factors, most of the patients with sJIA-LD had a prior MAS episode (67.6%) compared with 10.6% of those without LD (P < .0001). Mortality was also higher in those with LD, two of whom died, whereas none without LD died (P = .04).

While existing biomarkers have been reported, they lack independent validation, Eloseily told attendees. Among the known key biomarkers are IL-18/interferon (IFN)-gamma axis, which are known to drive MAS and pulmonary inflammation, especially in those with MAS and LD; ICAM-5 and MMP-7, which is linked to fibrosis and tissue remodeling; and CCL11, CCL17, and GDF-15, which is linked to fibrosis and inflammation.

Because the CARRA Registry has limited availability of biosamples for most patients, the researchers used plasma samples from the FROST study for 27 patients with sJIA-LD and 46 patients without LD. When they compared 23 biomarkers between the groups, most of the known key biomarkers, as well as several other biomarkers, were significantly elevated in those with LD compared with in those without:

• MMP-7 (P = .001)
• IFN gamma (P = .008)
• CCL11 (P < .0001)
• CCL17 (P = .002)
• CCL15 (P < .0001)
• MCP-1 (P = .0003)
• MCP-3 (P = .02)
• CCL25 (P < .0001)
• CD25 (P < .0001)
• GDF-15 (P < .0001)
• TRAIL (P < .0001)
• IL-23 (P = .002)

They found that IL-18 only trended higher (P = .07), and there were not adequate data for ICAM-5.

The study was limited by the differences in disease duration between the compared groups and the limited availability of biosamples, which they only had from patients enrolled in the FROST study.

The research was funded by CARRA and the Arthritis Foundation. Eloseily reported no disclosures. Cron reported serving as an adviser for AbbVie/Abbott and Sobi, receiving grant funding and speaking and consulting fees from Pfizer, and receiving royalties from Springer.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Durvalumab (Imfinzi, AstraZeneca) is now approved for adults with limited-stage small cell lung cancer (LS-SCLC) whose disease has not progressed after treatment with concurrent platinum-based chemotherapy and radiation therapy.

The Food and Drug Administration approval makes the monoclonal antibody — which is already approved for multiple tumor types — the first immunotherapy regimen approved in this setting, AstraZeneca noted in a press release.

“Durvalumab is the first and only systemic treatment following curative-intent, platinum-based chemoradiotherapy to show improved survival for patients with this aggressive form of lung cancer,” international coordinating investigator on the trial, Suresh Senan, PhD, stated in the press release. “This finding represents the first advance for this disease in 4 decades.”

Approval, which followed Priority Review and Breakthrough Therapy Designation, was based on findings from the phase 3 ADRIATIC trial showing a 27% reduction in the risk for death with durvalumab vs placebo.

Findings from the trial were reported during a plenary session at the 2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology conference, and subsequently published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

In 730 patients with LS-SCLC who were randomized 1:1:1 to receive single-agent durvalumab, durvalumab in combination with tremelimumab, or placebo, overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were significantly improved with durvalumab alone vs placebo (hazard ratio, 0.73 and 0.76, for OS and PFS, respectively). Median OS was 55.9 months vs 33.4 months with durvalumab vs placebo, and PFS was 16.6 vs 9.2 months, respectively.

Senan, a professor of clinical experimental radiotherapy at the Amsterdam University Medical Center in the Netherlands, noted in the press release that 57% of patients were still alive at 3 years after being treated with durvalumab, which underscores the practice-changing potential of this medicine in this setting.

“This new treatment option is a game changer for patients with limited-stage small cell lung cancer, a disease known for its high rate of recurrence,” Dusty Donaldson, founder and executive director of the nonprofit advocacy organization LiveLung, stated in the release. “Historically, more often than not, clinical trials to identify new treatment options for this type of cancer have failed to show benefit. We are therefore so excited that many more people will now have the opportunity to access this immunotherapy treatment that holds the potential to significantly improve outcomes.”

Adverse reactions occurring in at least 20% of patients in the ADRIATIC trial included pneumonitis or radiation pneumonitis and fatigue.

The recommended durvalumab dose, according to prescribing information, is 1500 mg every 4 weeks for patients weighing at least 30 kg and 20 mg/kg every 4 weeks for those weighing less than 30 kg, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity or a maximum of 24 months.

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

Durvalumab (Imfinzi, AstraZeneca) is now approved for adults with limited-stage small cell lung cancer (LS-SCLC) whose disease has not progressed after treatment with concurrent platinum-based chemotherapy and radiation therapy.

The Food and Drug Administration approval makes the monoclonal antibody — which is already approved for multiple tumor types — the first immunotherapy regimen approved in this setting, AstraZeneca noted in a press release.

“Durvalumab is the first and only systemic treatment following curative-intent, platinum-based chemoradiotherapy to show improved survival for patients with this aggressive form of lung cancer,” international coordinating investigator on the trial, Suresh Senan, PhD, stated in the press release. “This finding represents the first advance for this disease in 4 decades.”

Approval, which followed Priority Review and Breakthrough Therapy Designation, was based on findings from the phase 3 ADRIATIC trial showing a 27% reduction in the risk for death with durvalumab vs placebo.

Findings from the trial were reported during a plenary session at the 2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology conference, and subsequently published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

In 730 patients with LS-SCLC who were randomized 1:1:1 to receive single-agent durvalumab, durvalumab in combination with tremelimumab, or placebo, overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were significantly improved with durvalumab alone vs placebo (hazard ratio, 0.73 and 0.76, for OS and PFS, respectively). Median OS was 55.9 months vs 33.4 months with durvalumab vs placebo, and PFS was 16.6 vs 9.2 months, respectively.

Senan, a professor of clinical experimental radiotherapy at the Amsterdam University Medical Center in the Netherlands, noted in the press release that 57% of patients were still alive at 3 years after being treated with durvalumab, which underscores the practice-changing potential of this medicine in this setting.

“This new treatment option is a game changer for patients with limited-stage small cell lung cancer, a disease known for its high rate of recurrence,” Dusty Donaldson, founder and executive director of the nonprofit advocacy organization LiveLung, stated in the release. “Historically, more often than not, clinical trials to identify new treatment options for this type of cancer have failed to show benefit. We are therefore so excited that many more people will now have the opportunity to access this immunotherapy treatment that holds the potential to significantly improve outcomes.”

Adverse reactions occurring in at least 20% of patients in the ADRIATIC trial included pneumonitis or radiation pneumonitis and fatigue.

The recommended durvalumab dose, according to prescribing information, is 1500 mg every 4 weeks for patients weighing at least 30 kg and 20 mg/kg every 4 weeks for those weighing less than 30 kg, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity or a maximum of 24 months.

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

Durvalumab (Imfinzi, AstraZeneca) is now approved for adults with limited-stage small cell lung cancer (LS-SCLC) whose disease has not progressed after treatment with concurrent platinum-based chemotherapy and radiation therapy.

The Food and Drug Administration approval makes the monoclonal antibody — which is already approved for multiple tumor types — the first immunotherapy regimen approved in this setting, AstraZeneca noted in a press release.

“Durvalumab is the first and only systemic treatment following curative-intent, platinum-based chemoradiotherapy to show improved survival for patients with this aggressive form of lung cancer,” international coordinating investigator on the trial, Suresh Senan, PhD, stated in the press release. “This finding represents the first advance for this disease in 4 decades.”

Approval, which followed Priority Review and Breakthrough Therapy Designation, was based on findings from the phase 3 ADRIATIC trial showing a 27% reduction in the risk for death with durvalumab vs placebo.

Findings from the trial were reported during a plenary session at the 2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology conference, and subsequently published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

In 730 patients with LS-SCLC who were randomized 1:1:1 to receive single-agent durvalumab, durvalumab in combination with tremelimumab, or placebo, overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were significantly improved with durvalumab alone vs placebo (hazard ratio, 0.73 and 0.76, for OS and PFS, respectively). Median OS was 55.9 months vs 33.4 months with durvalumab vs placebo, and PFS was 16.6 vs 9.2 months, respectively.

Senan, a professor of clinical experimental radiotherapy at the Amsterdam University Medical Center in the Netherlands, noted in the press release that 57% of patients were still alive at 3 years after being treated with durvalumab, which underscores the practice-changing potential of this medicine in this setting.

“This new treatment option is a game changer for patients with limited-stage small cell lung cancer, a disease known for its high rate of recurrence,” Dusty Donaldson, founder and executive director of the nonprofit advocacy organization LiveLung, stated in the release. “Historically, more often than not, clinical trials to identify new treatment options for this type of cancer have failed to show benefit. We are therefore so excited that many more people will now have the opportunity to access this immunotherapy treatment that holds the potential to significantly improve outcomes.”

Adverse reactions occurring in at least 20% of patients in the ADRIATIC trial included pneumonitis or radiation pneumonitis and fatigue.

The recommended durvalumab dose, according to prescribing information, is 1500 mg every 4 weeks for patients weighing at least 30 kg and 20 mg/kg every 4 weeks for those weighing less than 30 kg, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity or a maximum of 24 months.

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

Lung cancer screening with low-dose CT can detect extensive coronary artery calcium (CAC), an independent predictor of all-cause death and cardiovascular events, new research suggested.

“The high prevalence of asymptomatic coronary artery disease (83%) was surprising, as was the prevalence of extensive CAC (30%),” principal investigator Gary Small, MBChB, PhD, a cardiologist at the University of Ottawa Heart Institute in Ontario, Canada, said in an interview.

“The size of effect was also surprising, as was the persistence of the effect even in the presence of elevated mortality risk from other causes,” he said. “Extensive coronary disease was associated with a twofold increase in risk for death or cardiovascular events over 4 years of follow-up,” even after adjustment for risk for death from cancer and other comorbidities such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

“CAC as reported on chest CT exams is often ignored and not factored into clinical practice,” he noted. “The presence of CAC, however, provides a very real and very personal perspective on an individual’s cardiovascular risk. It is a true example of personalized medicine.”

The study was published online in The Canadian Medical Association Journal.

 

Potential Risk Reduction 

In March 2017, Ontario Health launched a pilot low-dose CT lung cancer screening program for high-risk individuals between the ages of 55 and 74 years, Small explained. As CAC, a marker of coronary artery disease, is seen easily during such a scan, the researchers analyzed the lung CTs to determine the prevalence of coronary artery disease and whether CAC was associated with increased risk.

The team quantified CAC using an estimated Agatston score and identified the composite primary outcome of all-cause death and cardiovascular events using linked electronic medical record data from Ottawa Hospital up to December 2023. Among the 1486 people who underwent screening (mean age, 66 years; 52% men; 68% current smokers), CAC was detected in 1232 (82.9%). CAC was mild to moderate in 793 participants (53.4%) and extensive in 439 (29.5%). No CAC was detected in 254 (17.1%) participants.

At follow-up, 78 participants (5.2%) experienced the primary composite outcome, including 39 (8.9%) with extensive CAC, 32 (4.0%) with mild to moderate CAC, and 7 (2.8%) with no CAC.

A total of 49 deaths occurred, including 16 cardiovascular deaths and 19 cancer deaths, of which 10 were from lung cancer. Cardiovascular events included sudden cardiac death (eight participants), fatal stroke (six participants), and one each from heart failure and peripheral vascular disease.

On multivariable analysis, extensive CAC was associated with the composite primary outcome (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.13), all-cause mortality (aHR, 2.39), and cardiovascular events (aHR, 2.06).

Extensive CAC remained predictive of cardiovascular events even after adjustment for noncardiovascular death as a competing risk (HR, 2.05).

“Our data highlight to lung cancer screening professionals the prevalence of this silent risk factor and re-emphasize the importance of this finding [ie, CAC] as an opportunity for risk reduction,” Small said.

“In terms of next steps, the journey toward cardiovascular risk reduction begins with a clear report of CAC on the lung cancer screening record,” he noted. “Following this step, professionals involved in the lung cancer screening program might consider a local management pathway to ensure that this opportunity for health improvement is not lost or ignored. Preventive medicine of this type would typically involve primary care.”

 

Managing Other Findings

Commenting on the study, Anna Bader, MD, assistant professor of radiology and biomedical imaging at the Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut, said that “low-dose CT for lung cancer screening offers valuable insights beyond nodule detection, with CAC being among the most significant incidental findings.”

However, she added, a “robust mechanism” to effectively manage other findings — such as thoracic aortic disease, low bone density, and abnormalities in the thyroid or upper abdominal organs — without overdiagnosis, is needed. A mechanism also is needed to notify cardiologists or primary care providers about severe CAC findings.

Challenges that need to be overcome before such mechanisms can be put in place, she said, “include ensuring standardized CAC reporting, avoiding overburdening healthcare providers, mitigating the risk of excessive downstream testing, and ensuring equitable access to follow-up care for underserved and rural communities.”

Providers involved in lung cancer screening “must be trained to recognize the importance of CAC findings and act upon them,” she added. “Awareness campaigns or continuing medical education modules could address this.”

Multidisciplinary lung cancer screening programs can help with patient education, she noted. “Clear communication about potential findings, including the significance of incidental CAC, should be prioritized and addressed proactively, ideally before the exam, to enhance patient understanding and engagement.”

Matthew Tomey, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, said that, “as a practicing cardiologist, I find it very helpful to look at my patients’ recent or past CT scans to look for vascular calcification. Whether or not a scan is specifically protocoled as a cardiac study, we can often appreciate vascular calcification when it is present. I would encourage every physician involved in helping their patients to prevent heart disease to take advantage of looking at any prior CT scans for evidence of vascular calcification.

“Systems of care to facilitate recognition of patients with incidentally discovered vascular calcification would be welcome and, on a large scale, could help prevent cardiovascular events,” he noted. “Such a system might involve facilitating referral to a prevention specialist. It could involve evidence-based guidance for referring physicians who ordered scans.”

Like Bader, he noted the importance of patient education, adding that it could be quite powerful. “We should be doing more to empower our patients to understand the findings of their imaging and to give them actionable, evidence-based guidance on how they can promote their own cardiovascular health,” he concluded.

No funding for the study was reported. Small reported receiving a research grant for amyloid research from Pfizer and honoraria from Pfizer and Alnylam (all paid to the institution, outside the submitted work). Bader and Tomey declared no relevant conflicts.

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

Lung cancer screening with low-dose CT can detect extensive coronary artery calcium (CAC), an independent predictor of all-cause death and cardiovascular events, new research suggested.

“The high prevalence of asymptomatic coronary artery disease (83%) was surprising, as was the prevalence of extensive CAC (30%),” principal investigator Gary Small, MBChB, PhD, a cardiologist at the University of Ottawa Heart Institute in Ontario, Canada, said in an interview.

“The size of effect was also surprising, as was the persistence of the effect even in the presence of elevated mortality risk from other causes,” he said. “Extensive coronary disease was associated with a twofold increase in risk for death or cardiovascular events over 4 years of follow-up,” even after adjustment for risk for death from cancer and other comorbidities such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

“CAC as reported on chest CT exams is often ignored and not factored into clinical practice,” he noted. “The presence of CAC, however, provides a very real and very personal perspective on an individual’s cardiovascular risk. It is a true example of personalized medicine.”

The study was published online in The Canadian Medical Association Journal.

 

Potential Risk Reduction 

In March 2017, Ontario Health launched a pilot low-dose CT lung cancer screening program for high-risk individuals between the ages of 55 and 74 years, Small explained. As CAC, a marker of coronary artery disease, is seen easily during such a scan, the researchers analyzed the lung CTs to determine the prevalence of coronary artery disease and whether CAC was associated with increased risk.

The team quantified CAC using an estimated Agatston score and identified the composite primary outcome of all-cause death and cardiovascular events using linked electronic medical record data from Ottawa Hospital up to December 2023. Among the 1486 people who underwent screening (mean age, 66 years; 52% men; 68% current smokers), CAC was detected in 1232 (82.9%). CAC was mild to moderate in 793 participants (53.4%) and extensive in 439 (29.5%). No CAC was detected in 254 (17.1%) participants.

At follow-up, 78 participants (5.2%) experienced the primary composite outcome, including 39 (8.9%) with extensive CAC, 32 (4.0%) with mild to moderate CAC, and 7 (2.8%) with no CAC.

A total of 49 deaths occurred, including 16 cardiovascular deaths and 19 cancer deaths, of which 10 were from lung cancer. Cardiovascular events included sudden cardiac death (eight participants), fatal stroke (six participants), and one each from heart failure and peripheral vascular disease.

On multivariable analysis, extensive CAC was associated with the composite primary outcome (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.13), all-cause mortality (aHR, 2.39), and cardiovascular events (aHR, 2.06).

Extensive CAC remained predictive of cardiovascular events even after adjustment for noncardiovascular death as a competing risk (HR, 2.05).

“Our data highlight to lung cancer screening professionals the prevalence of this silent risk factor and re-emphasize the importance of this finding [ie, CAC] as an opportunity for risk reduction,” Small said.

“In terms of next steps, the journey toward cardiovascular risk reduction begins with a clear report of CAC on the lung cancer screening record,” he noted. “Following this step, professionals involved in the lung cancer screening program might consider a local management pathway to ensure that this opportunity for health improvement is not lost or ignored. Preventive medicine of this type would typically involve primary care.”

 

Managing Other Findings

Commenting on the study, Anna Bader, MD, assistant professor of radiology and biomedical imaging at the Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut, said that “low-dose CT for lung cancer screening offers valuable insights beyond nodule detection, with CAC being among the most significant incidental findings.”

However, she added, a “robust mechanism” to effectively manage other findings — such as thoracic aortic disease, low bone density, and abnormalities in the thyroid or upper abdominal organs — without overdiagnosis, is needed. A mechanism also is needed to notify cardiologists or primary care providers about severe CAC findings.

Challenges that need to be overcome before such mechanisms can be put in place, she said, “include ensuring standardized CAC reporting, avoiding overburdening healthcare providers, mitigating the risk of excessive downstream testing, and ensuring equitable access to follow-up care for underserved and rural communities.”

Providers involved in lung cancer screening “must be trained to recognize the importance of CAC findings and act upon them,” she added. “Awareness campaigns or continuing medical education modules could address this.”

Multidisciplinary lung cancer screening programs can help with patient education, she noted. “Clear communication about potential findings, including the significance of incidental CAC, should be prioritized and addressed proactively, ideally before the exam, to enhance patient understanding and engagement.”

Matthew Tomey, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, said that, “as a practicing cardiologist, I find it very helpful to look at my patients’ recent or past CT scans to look for vascular calcification. Whether or not a scan is specifically protocoled as a cardiac study, we can often appreciate vascular calcification when it is present. I would encourage every physician involved in helping their patients to prevent heart disease to take advantage of looking at any prior CT scans for evidence of vascular calcification.

“Systems of care to facilitate recognition of patients with incidentally discovered vascular calcification would be welcome and, on a large scale, could help prevent cardiovascular events,” he noted. “Such a system might involve facilitating referral to a prevention specialist. It could involve evidence-based guidance for referring physicians who ordered scans.”

Like Bader, he noted the importance of patient education, adding that it could be quite powerful. “We should be doing more to empower our patients to understand the findings of their imaging and to give them actionable, evidence-based guidance on how they can promote their own cardiovascular health,” he concluded.

No funding for the study was reported. Small reported receiving a research grant for amyloid research from Pfizer and honoraria from Pfizer and Alnylam (all paid to the institution, outside the submitted work). Bader and Tomey declared no relevant conflicts.

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

Lung cancer screening with low-dose CT can detect extensive coronary artery calcium (CAC), an independent predictor of all-cause death and cardiovascular events, new research suggested.

“The high prevalence of asymptomatic coronary artery disease (83%) was surprising, as was the prevalence of extensive CAC (30%),” principal investigator Gary Small, MBChB, PhD, a cardiologist at the University of Ottawa Heart Institute in Ontario, Canada, said in an interview.

“The size of effect was also surprising, as was the persistence of the effect even in the presence of elevated mortality risk from other causes,” he said. “Extensive coronary disease was associated with a twofold increase in risk for death or cardiovascular events over 4 years of follow-up,” even after adjustment for risk for death from cancer and other comorbidities such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

“CAC as reported on chest CT exams is often ignored and not factored into clinical practice,” he noted. “The presence of CAC, however, provides a very real and very personal perspective on an individual’s cardiovascular risk. It is a true example of personalized medicine.”

The study was published online in The Canadian Medical Association Journal.

 

Potential Risk Reduction 

In March 2017, Ontario Health launched a pilot low-dose CT lung cancer screening program for high-risk individuals between the ages of 55 and 74 years, Small explained. As CAC, a marker of coronary artery disease, is seen easily during such a scan, the researchers analyzed the lung CTs to determine the prevalence of coronary artery disease and whether CAC was associated with increased risk.

The team quantified CAC using an estimated Agatston score and identified the composite primary outcome of all-cause death and cardiovascular events using linked electronic medical record data from Ottawa Hospital up to December 2023. Among the 1486 people who underwent screening (mean age, 66 years; 52% men; 68% current smokers), CAC was detected in 1232 (82.9%). CAC was mild to moderate in 793 participants (53.4%) and extensive in 439 (29.5%). No CAC was detected in 254 (17.1%) participants.

At follow-up, 78 participants (5.2%) experienced the primary composite outcome, including 39 (8.9%) with extensive CAC, 32 (4.0%) with mild to moderate CAC, and 7 (2.8%) with no CAC.

A total of 49 deaths occurred, including 16 cardiovascular deaths and 19 cancer deaths, of which 10 were from lung cancer. Cardiovascular events included sudden cardiac death (eight participants), fatal stroke (six participants), and one each from heart failure and peripheral vascular disease.

On multivariable analysis, extensive CAC was associated with the composite primary outcome (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.13), all-cause mortality (aHR, 2.39), and cardiovascular events (aHR, 2.06).

Extensive CAC remained predictive of cardiovascular events even after adjustment for noncardiovascular death as a competing risk (HR, 2.05).

“Our data highlight to lung cancer screening professionals the prevalence of this silent risk factor and re-emphasize the importance of this finding [ie, CAC] as an opportunity for risk reduction,” Small said.

“In terms of next steps, the journey toward cardiovascular risk reduction begins with a clear report of CAC on the lung cancer screening record,” he noted. “Following this step, professionals involved in the lung cancer screening program might consider a local management pathway to ensure that this opportunity for health improvement is not lost or ignored. Preventive medicine of this type would typically involve primary care.”

 

Managing Other Findings

Commenting on the study, Anna Bader, MD, assistant professor of radiology and biomedical imaging at the Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut, said that “low-dose CT for lung cancer screening offers valuable insights beyond nodule detection, with CAC being among the most significant incidental findings.”

However, she added, a “robust mechanism” to effectively manage other findings — such as thoracic aortic disease, low bone density, and abnormalities in the thyroid or upper abdominal organs — without overdiagnosis, is needed. A mechanism also is needed to notify cardiologists or primary care providers about severe CAC findings.

Challenges that need to be overcome before such mechanisms can be put in place, she said, “include ensuring standardized CAC reporting, avoiding overburdening healthcare providers, mitigating the risk of excessive downstream testing, and ensuring equitable access to follow-up care for underserved and rural communities.”

Providers involved in lung cancer screening “must be trained to recognize the importance of CAC findings and act upon them,” she added. “Awareness campaigns or continuing medical education modules could address this.”

Multidisciplinary lung cancer screening programs can help with patient education, she noted. “Clear communication about potential findings, including the significance of incidental CAC, should be prioritized and addressed proactively, ideally before the exam, to enhance patient understanding and engagement.”

Matthew Tomey, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, said that, “as a practicing cardiologist, I find it very helpful to look at my patients’ recent or past CT scans to look for vascular calcification. Whether or not a scan is specifically protocoled as a cardiac study, we can often appreciate vascular calcification when it is present. I would encourage every physician involved in helping their patients to prevent heart disease to take advantage of looking at any prior CT scans for evidence of vascular calcification.

“Systems of care to facilitate recognition of patients with incidentally discovered vascular calcification would be welcome and, on a large scale, could help prevent cardiovascular events,” he noted. “Such a system might involve facilitating referral to a prevention specialist. It could involve evidence-based guidance for referring physicians who ordered scans.”

Like Bader, he noted the importance of patient education, adding that it could be quite powerful. “We should be doing more to empower our patients to understand the findings of their imaging and to give them actionable, evidence-based guidance on how they can promote their own cardiovascular health,” he concluded.

No funding for the study was reported. Small reported receiving a research grant for amyloid research from Pfizer and honoraria from Pfizer and Alnylam (all paid to the institution, outside the submitted work). Bader and Tomey declared no relevant conflicts.

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

They’re literally not better. Idealistically, sure, but literally not. And there’s really no debate. Meaning there’s never been a reproducible diet and exercise intervention that has led to anywhere near the average weight lost by those taking obesity medications. Furthermore, when it comes to the durability of weight lost, the gulf between outcomes with diet and exercise vs obesity medications is even more dramatic.

Looking to the literature, one of the most trotted out studies on lifestyle’s impact on weight over time is the Look AHEAD trial. Before useful obesity medications came on the scene, I trotted it out myself. Why? Because it was heartening when faced with the societal refrain that diet and exercise never worked to be able to show that yes, in fact they do. But how well?

Looking to Look AHEAD’s 4-year data (Obesity [Silver Spring]. 2011 Oct;19[10]:1987-1998), those randomized to the intensive lifestyle initiative arm averaged a 4.7% total body weight loss – an amount that remained the same at 8 years. But I chose 4 years because that’s a better comparison with the semaglutide SELECT trial that revealed at 4 years, the average sustained weight lost was more than double that of Look AHEAD’s, at 10.2%. Meanwhile the recently released SURMOUNT-4 study on tirzepatide reported that at 88 weeks, the average weight lost by participants was a near bariatric surgery level of 25.3% with no signs suggestive of pending regains.

Now maybe you want to cling to the notion that if you just try hard enough, your diet and exercise regime can beat our new meds. Well, it’s difficult to think of a more miserable, often actual vomit-inducing intervention, than the spectacle that used to air weekly on prime time called The Biggest Loser, where participants lived on a ranch and were berated and exercised all day long for the chance to lose the most and win a quarter of a million dollars. But even there, the meds prove to be superior. Although the short-term Biggest Loser data do look markedly better than meds (and than bariatric surgery), whereby the average participant lost 48.8% of their body weight during the grueling 7-month long, 24/7 competition, by postcompetition year 6, the average weight lost dropped to 12.7%.

Yet on November 26, when word came out that Medicare is likely to extend coverage to obesity medications for far more Americans, one of the most common refrains was something along the lines of yes, lifestyle modification is the best choice for dealing with obesity but it’s good that there will be medication options for those where that’s insufficient.

What?

The only reason that the world isn’t comfortable with the eminently provable truth that diet and exercise are inferior to obesity medications for weight management is weight bias. The message is that people simply aren’t trying hard enough. This despite our comfort in knowing that medications have more of an impact than lifestyle on pretty much every other chronic disease. Nor can I recall any other circumstance when coverage of a remarkably effective drug was qualified by the suggestion that known-to-be-inferior interventions are still the best or favored choice.

At this point, obesity medications are plainly the first-line choice of treatment. They provide not only dramatically greater and more durable weight loss than lifestyle interventions, they have also been shown to very significantly reduce the risk for an ever-growing list of other medical concerns including heart attacks, strokes, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, sleep apnea, fatty liver disease, and more, while carrying minimal risk.

Let it also be said that improvements to diet and exercise are worth striving for at any weight, though one should not lose sight of the fact that perpetual, dramatic, intentional, behavior change in the name of health requires vast amounts of wide-ranging privilege to enact — amounts far beyond the average person’s abilities or physiologies (as demonstrated with obesity by decades of disappointing long-term lifestyle outcome data). 

Let it also be said that some people will indeed find success solely through lifestyle and that not every person who meets the medical criteria for any medication’s prescription, including obesity medications, is required or encouraged to take it. The clinician’s job, however, at its most basic, is to inform patients who meet medical use criteria of their options, and if a medication is indicated, to inform them of that medication’s risks and benefits and expected outcomes, to help their patients come to their own treatment decisions.

It’s not a bad thing that we have medications that deliver better outcomes than lifestyle — in fact, it’s terrific, and thankfully that they do is true for pretty much every medical condition for which we have medication. That’s in fact why we have medications! And so this constant refrain of golly-gee wouldn’t it be better if we could just manage obesity with lifestyle changes needs to be put to rest — we literally know it wouldn’t be better, and it’s only weight bias that would lead this evidence-based statement to seem off-putting.

Dr. Freedhoff is Associate Professor, Department of Family Medicine, University of Ottawa, and Medical Director, Bariatric Medical Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. He reported conflicts of interest with the Bariatric Medical Institute, Constant Health, Novo Nordisk, and Weighty Matters.

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

They’re literally not better. Idealistically, sure, but literally not. And there’s really no debate. Meaning there’s never been a reproducible diet and exercise intervention that has led to anywhere near the average weight lost by those taking obesity medications. Furthermore, when it comes to the durability of weight lost, the gulf between outcomes with diet and exercise vs obesity medications is even more dramatic.

Looking to the literature, one of the most trotted out studies on lifestyle’s impact on weight over time is the Look AHEAD trial. Before useful obesity medications came on the scene, I trotted it out myself. Why? Because it was heartening when faced with the societal refrain that diet and exercise never worked to be able to show that yes, in fact they do. But how well?

Looking to Look AHEAD’s 4-year data (Obesity [Silver Spring]. 2011 Oct;19[10]:1987-1998), those randomized to the intensive lifestyle initiative arm averaged a 4.7% total body weight loss – an amount that remained the same at 8 years. But I chose 4 years because that’s a better comparison with the semaglutide SELECT trial that revealed at 4 years, the average sustained weight lost was more than double that of Look AHEAD’s, at 10.2%. Meanwhile the recently released SURMOUNT-4 study on tirzepatide reported that at 88 weeks, the average weight lost by participants was a near bariatric surgery level of 25.3% with no signs suggestive of pending regains.

Now maybe you want to cling to the notion that if you just try hard enough, your diet and exercise regime can beat our new meds. Well, it’s difficult to think of a more miserable, often actual vomit-inducing intervention, than the spectacle that used to air weekly on prime time called The Biggest Loser, where participants lived on a ranch and were berated and exercised all day long for the chance to lose the most and win a quarter of a million dollars. But even there, the meds prove to be superior. Although the short-term Biggest Loser data do look markedly better than meds (and than bariatric surgery), whereby the average participant lost 48.8% of their body weight during the grueling 7-month long, 24/7 competition, by postcompetition year 6, the average weight lost dropped to 12.7%.

Yet on November 26, when word came out that Medicare is likely to extend coverage to obesity medications for far more Americans, one of the most common refrains was something along the lines of yes, lifestyle modification is the best choice for dealing with obesity but it’s good that there will be medication options for those where that’s insufficient.

What?

The only reason that the world isn’t comfortable with the eminently provable truth that diet and exercise are inferior to obesity medications for weight management is weight bias. The message is that people simply aren’t trying hard enough. This despite our comfort in knowing that medications have more of an impact than lifestyle on pretty much every other chronic disease. Nor can I recall any other circumstance when coverage of a remarkably effective drug was qualified by the suggestion that known-to-be-inferior interventions are still the best or favored choice.

At this point, obesity medications are plainly the first-line choice of treatment. They provide not only dramatically greater and more durable weight loss than lifestyle interventions, they have also been shown to very significantly reduce the risk for an ever-growing list of other medical concerns including heart attacks, strokes, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, sleep apnea, fatty liver disease, and more, while carrying minimal risk.

Let it also be said that improvements to diet and exercise are worth striving for at any weight, though one should not lose sight of the fact that perpetual, dramatic, intentional, behavior change in the name of health requires vast amounts of wide-ranging privilege to enact — amounts far beyond the average person’s abilities or physiologies (as demonstrated with obesity by decades of disappointing long-term lifestyle outcome data). 

Let it also be said that some people will indeed find success solely through lifestyle and that not every person who meets the medical criteria for any medication’s prescription, including obesity medications, is required or encouraged to take it. The clinician’s job, however, at its most basic, is to inform patients who meet medical use criteria of their options, and if a medication is indicated, to inform them of that medication’s risks and benefits and expected outcomes, to help their patients come to their own treatment decisions.

It’s not a bad thing that we have medications that deliver better outcomes than lifestyle — in fact, it’s terrific, and thankfully that they do is true for pretty much every medical condition for which we have medication. That’s in fact why we have medications! And so this constant refrain of golly-gee wouldn’t it be better if we could just manage obesity with lifestyle changes needs to be put to rest — we literally know it wouldn’t be better, and it’s only weight bias that would lead this evidence-based statement to seem off-putting.

Dr. Freedhoff is Associate Professor, Department of Family Medicine, University of Ottawa, and Medical Director, Bariatric Medical Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. He reported conflicts of interest with the Bariatric Medical Institute, Constant Health, Novo Nordisk, and Weighty Matters.

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

They’re literally not better. Idealistically, sure, but literally not. And there’s really no debate. Meaning there’s never been a reproducible diet and exercise intervention that has led to anywhere near the average weight lost by those taking obesity medications. Furthermore, when it comes to the durability of weight lost, the gulf between outcomes with diet and exercise vs obesity medications is even more dramatic.

Looking to the literature, one of the most trotted out studies on lifestyle’s impact on weight over time is the Look AHEAD trial. Before useful obesity medications came on the scene, I trotted it out myself. Why? Because it was heartening when faced with the societal refrain that diet and exercise never worked to be able to show that yes, in fact they do. But how well?

Looking to Look AHEAD’s 4-year data (Obesity [Silver Spring]. 2011 Oct;19[10]:1987-1998), those randomized to the intensive lifestyle initiative arm averaged a 4.7% total body weight loss – an amount that remained the same at 8 years. But I chose 4 years because that’s a better comparison with the semaglutide SELECT trial that revealed at 4 years, the average sustained weight lost was more than double that of Look AHEAD’s, at 10.2%. Meanwhile the recently released SURMOUNT-4 study on tirzepatide reported that at 88 weeks, the average weight lost by participants was a near bariatric surgery level of 25.3% with no signs suggestive of pending regains.

Now maybe you want to cling to the notion that if you just try hard enough, your diet and exercise regime can beat our new meds. Well, it’s difficult to think of a more miserable, often actual vomit-inducing intervention, than the spectacle that used to air weekly on prime time called The Biggest Loser, where participants lived on a ranch and were berated and exercised all day long for the chance to lose the most and win a quarter of a million dollars. But even there, the meds prove to be superior. Although the short-term Biggest Loser data do look markedly better than meds (and than bariatric surgery), whereby the average participant lost 48.8% of their body weight during the grueling 7-month long, 24/7 competition, by postcompetition year 6, the average weight lost dropped to 12.7%.

Yet on November 26, when word came out that Medicare is likely to extend coverage to obesity medications for far more Americans, one of the most common refrains was something along the lines of yes, lifestyle modification is the best choice for dealing with obesity but it’s good that there will be medication options for those where that’s insufficient.

What?

The only reason that the world isn’t comfortable with the eminently provable truth that diet and exercise are inferior to obesity medications for weight management is weight bias. The message is that people simply aren’t trying hard enough. This despite our comfort in knowing that medications have more of an impact than lifestyle on pretty much every other chronic disease. Nor can I recall any other circumstance when coverage of a remarkably effective drug was qualified by the suggestion that known-to-be-inferior interventions are still the best or favored choice.

At this point, obesity medications are plainly the first-line choice of treatment. They provide not only dramatically greater and more durable weight loss than lifestyle interventions, they have also been shown to very significantly reduce the risk for an ever-growing list of other medical concerns including heart attacks, strokes, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, sleep apnea, fatty liver disease, and more, while carrying minimal risk.

Let it also be said that improvements to diet and exercise are worth striving for at any weight, though one should not lose sight of the fact that perpetual, dramatic, intentional, behavior change in the name of health requires vast amounts of wide-ranging privilege to enact — amounts far beyond the average person’s abilities or physiologies (as demonstrated with obesity by decades of disappointing long-term lifestyle outcome data). 

Let it also be said that some people will indeed find success solely through lifestyle and that not every person who meets the medical criteria for any medication’s prescription, including obesity medications, is required or encouraged to take it. The clinician’s job, however, at its most basic, is to inform patients who meet medical use criteria of their options, and if a medication is indicated, to inform them of that medication’s risks and benefits and expected outcomes, to help their patients come to their own treatment decisions.

It’s not a bad thing that we have medications that deliver better outcomes than lifestyle — in fact, it’s terrific, and thankfully that they do is true for pretty much every medical condition for which we have medication. That’s in fact why we have medications! And so this constant refrain of golly-gee wouldn’t it be better if we could just manage obesity with lifestyle changes needs to be put to rest — we literally know it wouldn’t be better, and it’s only weight bias that would lead this evidence-based statement to seem off-putting.

Dr. Freedhoff is Associate Professor, Department of Family Medicine, University of Ottawa, and Medical Director, Bariatric Medical Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. He reported conflicts of interest with the Bariatric Medical Institute, Constant Health, Novo Nordisk, and Weighty Matters.

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

Vaccines for treating and preventing cancer have long been considered a holy grail in oncology.

But aside from a few notable exceptions — including the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, which has dramatically reduced the incidence of HPV-related cancers, and a Bacillus Calmette-Guerin vaccine, which helps prevent early-stage bladder cancer recurrence — most have failed to deliver.

Following a string of disappointments over the past decade, recent advances in the immunotherapy space are bringing renewed hope for progress.

In an American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) series earlier in 2024, Catherine J. Wu, MD, predicted big strides for cancer vaccines, especially for personalized vaccines that target patient-specific neoantigens — the proteins that form on cancer cells — as well as vaccines that can treat diverse tumor types.

“A focus on neoantigens that arise from driver mutations in different tumor types could allow us to make progress in creating off-the-shelf vaccines,” said Wu, the Lavine Family Chair of Preventative Cancer Therapies at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, Massachusetts.

A prime example is a personalized, messenger RNA (mRNA)–based vaccine designed to prevent melanoma recurrence. The mRNA-4157 vaccine encodes up to 34 different patient-specific neoantigens.

“This is one of the most exciting developments in modern cancer therapy,” said Lawrence Young, a virologist and professor of molecular oncology at the University of Warwick, Coventry, England, who commented on the investigational vaccine via the UK-based Science Media Centre.

Other promising options are on the horizon as well. In August, BioNTech announced a phase 1 global trial to study BNT116 — a vaccine to treat non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). BNT116, like mRNA-4157, targets specific antigens in the lung cancer cells.

“This technology is the next big phase of cancer treatment,” Siow Ming Lee, MD, a consultant medical oncologist at University College London Hospitals in England, which is leading the UK trial for the lung cancer and melanoma vaccines, told The Guardian. “We are now entering this very exciting new era of mRNA-based immunotherapy clinical trials to investigate the treatment of lung cancer.”

Still, these predictions have a familiar ring. While the prospects are exciting, delivering on them is another story. There are simply no guarantees these strategies will work as hoped.

 

Then: Where We Were

Cancer vaccine research began to ramp up in the 2000s, and in 2006, the first-generation HPV vaccine, Gardasil, was approved. Gardasil prevents infection from four strains of HPV that cause about 80% of cervical cancer cases.

In 2010, the Food and Drug Administration approved sipuleucel-T, the first therapeutic cancer vaccine, which improved overall survival in patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer.

Researchers predicted this approval would “pave the way for developing innovative, next generation of vaccines with enhanced antitumor potency.”

In a 2015 AACR research forecast report, Drew Pardoll, MD, PhD, co-director of the Cancer Immunology and Hematopoiesis Program at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, said that “we can expect to see encouraging results from studies using cancer vaccines.”

Despite the excitement surrounding cancer vaccines alongside a few successes, the next decade brought a longer string of late-phase disappointments.

In 2016, the phase 3 ACT IV trial of a therapeutic vaccine to treat glioblastoma multiforme (CDX-110) was terminated after it failed to demonstrate improved survival.

In 2017, a phase 3 trial of the therapeutic pancreatic cancer vaccine, GVAX, was stopped early for lack of efficacy.

That year, an attenuated Listeria monocytogenes vaccine to treat pancreatic cancer and mesothelioma also failed to come to fruition. In late 2017, concerns over listeria infections prompted Aduro Biotech to cancel its listeria-based cancer treatment program.

In 2018, a phase 3 trial of belagenpumatucel-L, a therapeutic NSCLC vaccine, failed to demonstrate a significant improvement in survival and further study was discontinued.

And in 2019, a vaccine targeting MAGE-A3, a cancer-testis antigen present in multiple tumor types, failed to meet endpoints for improved survival in a phase 3 trial, leading to discontinuation of the vaccine program.

But these disappointments and failures are normal parts of medical research and drug development and have allowed for incremental advances that helped fuel renewed interest and hope for cancer vaccines, when the timing was right, explained vaccine pioneer Larry W. Kwak, MD, PhD, deputy director of the Comprehensive Cancer Center at City of Hope, Duarte, California.

When it comes to vaccine progress, timing makes a difference. In 2011, Kwak and colleagues published promising phase 3 trial results on a personalized vaccine. The vaccine was a patient-specific tumor-derived antigen for patients with follicular lymphoma in their first remission following chemotherapy. Patients who received the vaccine demonstrated significantly longer disease-free survival.

But, at the time, personalized vaccines faced strong headwinds due, largely, to high costs, and commercial interest failed to materialize. “That’s been the major hurdle for a long time,” said Kwak.

Now, however, interest has returned alongside advances in technology and research. The big shift has been the emergence of lower-cost rapid-production mRNA and DNA platforms and a better understanding of how vaccines and potent immune stimulants, like checkpoint inhibitors, can work together to improve outcomes, he explained.

“The timing wasn’t right” back then, Kwak noted. “Now, it’s a different environment and a different time.”

 

A Turning Point?

Indeed, a decade later, cancer vaccine development appears to be headed in a more promising direction.

Among key cancer vaccines to watch is the mRNA-4157 vaccine, developed by Merck and Moderna, designed to prevent melanoma recurrence. In a recent phase 2 study, patients receiving the mRNA-4157 vaccine alongside pembrolizumab had nearly half the risk for melanoma recurrence or death at 3 years compared with those receiving pembrolizumab alone. Investigators are now evaluating the vaccine in a global phase 3 study in patients with high-risk, stage IIB to IV melanoma following surgery.

Another one to watch is the BNT116 NSCLC vaccine from BioNTech. This vaccine presents the immune system with NSCLC tumor markers to encourage the body to fight cancer cells expressing those markers while ignoring healthy cells. BioNTech also launched a global clinical trial for its vaccine this year.

Other notables include a pancreatic cancer mRNA vaccine, which has shown promising early results in a small trial of 16 patients. Of 16 patients who received the vaccine alongside chemotherapy and after surgery and immunotherapy, 8 responded. Of these eight, six remained recurrence free at 3 years. Investigators noted that the vaccine appeared to stimulate a durable T-cell response in patients who responded.

Kwak has also continued his work on lymphoma vaccines. In August, his team published promising first-in-human data on the use of personalized neoantigen vaccines as an early intervention in untreated patients with lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma. Among nine asymptomatic patients who received the vaccine, all achieved stable disease or better, with no dose-limiting toxicities. One patient had a minor response, and the median time to progression was greater than 72 months.

“The current setting is more for advanced disease,” Kwak explained. “It’s a tougher task, but combined with checkpoint blockade, it may be potent enough to work.” 

Still, caution is important. Despite early promise, it’s too soon to tell which, if any, of these investigational vaccines will pan out in the long run. Like investigational drugs, cancer vaccines may show big promising initially but then fail in larger trials.

One key to success, according to Kwak, is to design trials so that even negative results will inform next steps.

But, he noted, failures in large clinical trials will “put a chilling effect on cancer vaccine research again.”

“That’s what keeps me up at night,” he said. “We know the science is fundamentally sound and we have seen glimpses over decades of research that cancer vaccines can work, so it’s really just a matter of tweaking things to optimize trial design.”

Companies tend to design trials to test if a vaccine works or not, without trying to understand why, he said.

“What we need to do is design those so that we can learn from negative results,” he said. That’s what he and his colleagues attempted to do in their recent trial. “We didn’t just look at clinical results; we’re interrogating the actual tumor environment to understand what worked and didn’t and how to tweak that for the next trial.”

Kwak and his colleagues found, for instance, that the vaccine had a greater effect on B cell–derived tumor cells than on cells of plasma origin, so “the most rational design for the next iteration is to combine the vaccine with agents that work directly against plasma cells,” he explained.

As for what’s next, Kwak said: “We’re just focused on trying to do good science and understand. We’ve seen glimpses of success. That’s where we are.”

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

Vaccines for treating and preventing cancer have long been considered a holy grail in oncology.

But aside from a few notable exceptions — including the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, which has dramatically reduced the incidence of HPV-related cancers, and a Bacillus Calmette-Guerin vaccine, which helps prevent early-stage bladder cancer recurrence — most have failed to deliver.

Following a string of disappointments over the past decade, recent advances in the immunotherapy space are bringing renewed hope for progress.

In an American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) series earlier in 2024, Catherine J. Wu, MD, predicted big strides for cancer vaccines, especially for personalized vaccines that target patient-specific neoantigens — the proteins that form on cancer cells — as well as vaccines that can treat diverse tumor types.

“A focus on neoantigens that arise from driver mutations in different tumor types could allow us to make progress in creating off-the-shelf vaccines,” said Wu, the Lavine Family Chair of Preventative Cancer Therapies at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, Massachusetts.

A prime example is a personalized, messenger RNA (mRNA)–based vaccine designed to prevent melanoma recurrence. The mRNA-4157 vaccine encodes up to 34 different patient-specific neoantigens.

“This is one of the most exciting developments in modern cancer therapy,” said Lawrence Young, a virologist and professor of molecular oncology at the University of Warwick, Coventry, England, who commented on the investigational vaccine via the UK-based Science Media Centre.

Other promising options are on the horizon as well. In August, BioNTech announced a phase 1 global trial to study BNT116 — a vaccine to treat non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). BNT116, like mRNA-4157, targets specific antigens in the lung cancer cells.

“This technology is the next big phase of cancer treatment,” Siow Ming Lee, MD, a consultant medical oncologist at University College London Hospitals in England, which is leading the UK trial for the lung cancer and melanoma vaccines, told The Guardian. “We are now entering this very exciting new era of mRNA-based immunotherapy clinical trials to investigate the treatment of lung cancer.”

Still, these predictions have a familiar ring. While the prospects are exciting, delivering on them is another story. There are simply no guarantees these strategies will work as hoped.

 

Then: Where We Were

Cancer vaccine research began to ramp up in the 2000s, and in 2006, the first-generation HPV vaccine, Gardasil, was approved. Gardasil prevents infection from four strains of HPV that cause about 80% of cervical cancer cases.

In 2010, the Food and Drug Administration approved sipuleucel-T, the first therapeutic cancer vaccine, which improved overall survival in patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer.

Researchers predicted this approval would “pave the way for developing innovative, next generation of vaccines with enhanced antitumor potency.”

In a 2015 AACR research forecast report, Drew Pardoll, MD, PhD, co-director of the Cancer Immunology and Hematopoiesis Program at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, said that “we can expect to see encouraging results from studies using cancer vaccines.”

Despite the excitement surrounding cancer vaccines alongside a few successes, the next decade brought a longer string of late-phase disappointments.

In 2016, the phase 3 ACT IV trial of a therapeutic vaccine to treat glioblastoma multiforme (CDX-110) was terminated after it failed to demonstrate improved survival.

In 2017, a phase 3 trial of the therapeutic pancreatic cancer vaccine, GVAX, was stopped early for lack of efficacy.

That year, an attenuated Listeria monocytogenes vaccine to treat pancreatic cancer and mesothelioma also failed to come to fruition. In late 2017, concerns over listeria infections prompted Aduro Biotech to cancel its listeria-based cancer treatment program.

In 2018, a phase 3 trial of belagenpumatucel-L, a therapeutic NSCLC vaccine, failed to demonstrate a significant improvement in survival and further study was discontinued.

And in 2019, a vaccine targeting MAGE-A3, a cancer-testis antigen present in multiple tumor types, failed to meet endpoints for improved survival in a phase 3 trial, leading to discontinuation of the vaccine program.

But these disappointments and failures are normal parts of medical research and drug development and have allowed for incremental advances that helped fuel renewed interest and hope for cancer vaccines, when the timing was right, explained vaccine pioneer Larry W. Kwak, MD, PhD, deputy director of the Comprehensive Cancer Center at City of Hope, Duarte, California.

When it comes to vaccine progress, timing makes a difference. In 2011, Kwak and colleagues published promising phase 3 trial results on a personalized vaccine. The vaccine was a patient-specific tumor-derived antigen for patients with follicular lymphoma in their first remission following chemotherapy. Patients who received the vaccine demonstrated significantly longer disease-free survival.

But, at the time, personalized vaccines faced strong headwinds due, largely, to high costs, and commercial interest failed to materialize. “That’s been the major hurdle for a long time,” said Kwak.

Now, however, interest has returned alongside advances in technology and research. The big shift has been the emergence of lower-cost rapid-production mRNA and DNA platforms and a better understanding of how vaccines and potent immune stimulants, like checkpoint inhibitors, can work together to improve outcomes, he explained.

“The timing wasn’t right” back then, Kwak noted. “Now, it’s a different environment and a different time.”

 

A Turning Point?

Indeed, a decade later, cancer vaccine development appears to be headed in a more promising direction.

Among key cancer vaccines to watch is the mRNA-4157 vaccine, developed by Merck and Moderna, designed to prevent melanoma recurrence. In a recent phase 2 study, patients receiving the mRNA-4157 vaccine alongside pembrolizumab had nearly half the risk for melanoma recurrence or death at 3 years compared with those receiving pembrolizumab alone. Investigators are now evaluating the vaccine in a global phase 3 study in patients with high-risk, stage IIB to IV melanoma following surgery.

Another one to watch is the BNT116 NSCLC vaccine from BioNTech. This vaccine presents the immune system with NSCLC tumor markers to encourage the body to fight cancer cells expressing those markers while ignoring healthy cells. BioNTech also launched a global clinical trial for its vaccine this year.

Other notables include a pancreatic cancer mRNA vaccine, which has shown promising early results in a small trial of 16 patients. Of 16 patients who received the vaccine alongside chemotherapy and after surgery and immunotherapy, 8 responded. Of these eight, six remained recurrence free at 3 years. Investigators noted that the vaccine appeared to stimulate a durable T-cell response in patients who responded.

Kwak has also continued his work on lymphoma vaccines. In August, his team published promising first-in-human data on the use of personalized neoantigen vaccines as an early intervention in untreated patients with lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma. Among nine asymptomatic patients who received the vaccine, all achieved stable disease or better, with no dose-limiting toxicities. One patient had a minor response, and the median time to progression was greater than 72 months.

“The current setting is more for advanced disease,” Kwak explained. “It’s a tougher task, but combined with checkpoint blockade, it may be potent enough to work.” 

Still, caution is important. Despite early promise, it’s too soon to tell which, if any, of these investigational vaccines will pan out in the long run. Like investigational drugs, cancer vaccines may show big promising initially but then fail in larger trials.

One key to success, according to Kwak, is to design trials so that even negative results will inform next steps.

But, he noted, failures in large clinical trials will “put a chilling effect on cancer vaccine research again.”

“That’s what keeps me up at night,” he said. “We know the science is fundamentally sound and we have seen glimpses over decades of research that cancer vaccines can work, so it’s really just a matter of tweaking things to optimize trial design.”

Companies tend to design trials to test if a vaccine works or not, without trying to understand why, he said.

“What we need to do is design those so that we can learn from negative results,” he said. That’s what he and his colleagues attempted to do in their recent trial. “We didn’t just look at clinical results; we’re interrogating the actual tumor environment to understand what worked and didn’t and how to tweak that for the next trial.”

Kwak and his colleagues found, for instance, that the vaccine had a greater effect on B cell–derived tumor cells than on cells of plasma origin, so “the most rational design for the next iteration is to combine the vaccine with agents that work directly against plasma cells,” he explained.

As for what’s next, Kwak said: “We’re just focused on trying to do good science and understand. We’ve seen glimpses of success. That’s where we are.”

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

Vaccines for treating and preventing cancer have long been considered a holy grail in oncology.

But aside from a few notable exceptions — including the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, which has dramatically reduced the incidence of HPV-related cancers, and a Bacillus Calmette-Guerin vaccine, which helps prevent early-stage bladder cancer recurrence — most have failed to deliver.

Following a string of disappointments over the past decade, recent advances in the immunotherapy space are bringing renewed hope for progress.

In an American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) series earlier in 2024, Catherine J. Wu, MD, predicted big strides for cancer vaccines, especially for personalized vaccines that target patient-specific neoantigens — the proteins that form on cancer cells — as well as vaccines that can treat diverse tumor types.

“A focus on neoantigens that arise from driver mutations in different tumor types could allow us to make progress in creating off-the-shelf vaccines,” said Wu, the Lavine Family Chair of Preventative Cancer Therapies at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, Massachusetts.

A prime example is a personalized, messenger RNA (mRNA)–based vaccine designed to prevent melanoma recurrence. The mRNA-4157 vaccine encodes up to 34 different patient-specific neoantigens.

“This is one of the most exciting developments in modern cancer therapy,” said Lawrence Young, a virologist and professor of molecular oncology at the University of Warwick, Coventry, England, who commented on the investigational vaccine via the UK-based Science Media Centre.

Other promising options are on the horizon as well. In August, BioNTech announced a phase 1 global trial to study BNT116 — a vaccine to treat non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). BNT116, like mRNA-4157, targets specific antigens in the lung cancer cells.

“This technology is the next big phase of cancer treatment,” Siow Ming Lee, MD, a consultant medical oncologist at University College London Hospitals in England, which is leading the UK trial for the lung cancer and melanoma vaccines, told The Guardian. “We are now entering this very exciting new era of mRNA-based immunotherapy clinical trials to investigate the treatment of lung cancer.”

Still, these predictions have a familiar ring. While the prospects are exciting, delivering on them is another story. There are simply no guarantees these strategies will work as hoped.

 

Then: Where We Were

Cancer vaccine research began to ramp up in the 2000s, and in 2006, the first-generation HPV vaccine, Gardasil, was approved. Gardasil prevents infection from four strains of HPV that cause about 80% of cervical cancer cases.

In 2010, the Food and Drug Administration approved sipuleucel-T, the first therapeutic cancer vaccine, which improved overall survival in patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer.

Researchers predicted this approval would “pave the way for developing innovative, next generation of vaccines with enhanced antitumor potency.”

In a 2015 AACR research forecast report, Drew Pardoll, MD, PhD, co-director of the Cancer Immunology and Hematopoiesis Program at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, said that “we can expect to see encouraging results from studies using cancer vaccines.”

Despite the excitement surrounding cancer vaccines alongside a few successes, the next decade brought a longer string of late-phase disappointments.

In 2016, the phase 3 ACT IV trial of a therapeutic vaccine to treat glioblastoma multiforme (CDX-110) was terminated after it failed to demonstrate improved survival.

In 2017, a phase 3 trial of the therapeutic pancreatic cancer vaccine, GVAX, was stopped early for lack of efficacy.

That year, an attenuated Listeria monocytogenes vaccine to treat pancreatic cancer and mesothelioma also failed to come to fruition. In late 2017, concerns over listeria infections prompted Aduro Biotech to cancel its listeria-based cancer treatment program.

In 2018, a phase 3 trial of belagenpumatucel-L, a therapeutic NSCLC vaccine, failed to demonstrate a significant improvement in survival and further study was discontinued.

And in 2019, a vaccine targeting MAGE-A3, a cancer-testis antigen present in multiple tumor types, failed to meet endpoints for improved survival in a phase 3 trial, leading to discontinuation of the vaccine program.

But these disappointments and failures are normal parts of medical research and drug development and have allowed for incremental advances that helped fuel renewed interest and hope for cancer vaccines, when the timing was right, explained vaccine pioneer Larry W. Kwak, MD, PhD, deputy director of the Comprehensive Cancer Center at City of Hope, Duarte, California.

When it comes to vaccine progress, timing makes a difference. In 2011, Kwak and colleagues published promising phase 3 trial results on a personalized vaccine. The vaccine was a patient-specific tumor-derived antigen for patients with follicular lymphoma in their first remission following chemotherapy. Patients who received the vaccine demonstrated significantly longer disease-free survival.

But, at the time, personalized vaccines faced strong headwinds due, largely, to high costs, and commercial interest failed to materialize. “That’s been the major hurdle for a long time,” said Kwak.

Now, however, interest has returned alongside advances in technology and research. The big shift has been the emergence of lower-cost rapid-production mRNA and DNA platforms and a better understanding of how vaccines and potent immune stimulants, like checkpoint inhibitors, can work together to improve outcomes, he explained.

“The timing wasn’t right” back then, Kwak noted. “Now, it’s a different environment and a different time.”

 

A Turning Point?

Indeed, a decade later, cancer vaccine development appears to be headed in a more promising direction.

Among key cancer vaccines to watch is the mRNA-4157 vaccine, developed by Merck and Moderna, designed to prevent melanoma recurrence. In a recent phase 2 study, patients receiving the mRNA-4157 vaccine alongside pembrolizumab had nearly half the risk for melanoma recurrence or death at 3 years compared with those receiving pembrolizumab alone. Investigators are now evaluating the vaccine in a global phase 3 study in patients with high-risk, stage IIB to IV melanoma following surgery.

Another one to watch is the BNT116 NSCLC vaccine from BioNTech. This vaccine presents the immune system with NSCLC tumor markers to encourage the body to fight cancer cells expressing those markers while ignoring healthy cells. BioNTech also launched a global clinical trial for its vaccine this year.

Other notables include a pancreatic cancer mRNA vaccine, which has shown promising early results in a small trial of 16 patients. Of 16 patients who received the vaccine alongside chemotherapy and after surgery and immunotherapy, 8 responded. Of these eight, six remained recurrence free at 3 years. Investigators noted that the vaccine appeared to stimulate a durable T-cell response in patients who responded.

Kwak has also continued his work on lymphoma vaccines. In August, his team published promising first-in-human data on the use of personalized neoantigen vaccines as an early intervention in untreated patients with lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma. Among nine asymptomatic patients who received the vaccine, all achieved stable disease or better, with no dose-limiting toxicities. One patient had a minor response, and the median time to progression was greater than 72 months.

“The current setting is more for advanced disease,” Kwak explained. “It’s a tougher task, but combined with checkpoint blockade, it may be potent enough to work.” 

Still, caution is important. Despite early promise, it’s too soon to tell which, if any, of these investigational vaccines will pan out in the long run. Like investigational drugs, cancer vaccines may show big promising initially but then fail in larger trials.

One key to success, according to Kwak, is to design trials so that even negative results will inform next steps.

But, he noted, failures in large clinical trials will “put a chilling effect on cancer vaccine research again.”

“That’s what keeps me up at night,” he said. “We know the science is fundamentally sound and we have seen glimpses over decades of research that cancer vaccines can work, so it’s really just a matter of tweaking things to optimize trial design.”

Companies tend to design trials to test if a vaccine works or not, without trying to understand why, he said.

“What we need to do is design those so that we can learn from negative results,” he said. That’s what he and his colleagues attempted to do in their recent trial. “We didn’t just look at clinical results; we’re interrogating the actual tumor environment to understand what worked and didn’t and how to tweak that for the next trial.”

Kwak and his colleagues found, for instance, that the vaccine had a greater effect on B cell–derived tumor cells than on cells of plasma origin, so “the most rational design for the next iteration is to combine the vaccine with agents that work directly against plasma cells,” he explained.

As for what’s next, Kwak said: “We’re just focused on trying to do good science and understand. We’ve seen glimpses of success. That’s where we are.”

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

As the respiratory season approaches, the risk of asthma emergencies often increases, particularly for those with preexisting conditions. Respiratory illness, cold weather, and fluctuating temperatures can all exacerbate asthma symptoms, leading to potentially serious health complications. Understanding how to mitigate these risks is crucial for maintaining respiratory health and ensuring a safe and healthy season. 

As schools across the US have just ended their fall semester, students of all ages will spend their time off away from school. Respiratory season is among us, and children with asthma are at risk for severe asthma exacerbation from viruses that may lead to hospitalization. Since students will soon return for their spring semester, it is important to be reminded of asthma care during respiratory season.

Ten percent of school-aged children in the US have a diagnosis of asthma, with a higher prevalence in lower socioeconomic populations. In a classroom of 30 students, three students carry an asthma diagnosis. Of these children, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) reports 60% will experience asthma exacerbations. These exacerbations not only cause patients with asthma to have a total of 13.8 million absences annually but also lead to approximately 767,000 emergency department visits and 74,000 hospitalizations on an annual basis.¹

 

As we consider these statistics, safe asthma care during respiratory season requires preparation and a proactive approach. Partnering with families and school personnel will increase the likelihood that students will have a safe return for their next semester. 

Patients with asthma are at higher risk for complications from respiratory illnesses such as COVID-19, influenza, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), and streptococcal pneumonia viruses. While RSV vaccination is not widely available yet, vaccination is recommended as early as possible for influenza and COVID-19, as well as consideration for streptococcal pneumonia for patients with severe asthma. Vaccination for all family members should also be considered by the health care team. The health care team should regularly check in with families of patients with asthma to ensure they are educated about the importance of vaccinations and opportunities for immunization.²

Most children with asthma submit their asthma action plan to their school at the beginning of the year. It is important for families to be reminded that if there is a change to their asthma action plan, the updated plan should be discussed and reviewed with school personnel who are responsible for medication administration. Health care providers often will partner with schools and families to create a 504 plan. Many families may not be familiar with this plan and how to request one. Within the state of Illinois, for example, some school districts require 504 plans and others do not. It is derived from Section 504 of the Americans with Disabilities Act and is a contract outlining a child’s asthma care while at school. Families should be reminded that these 504 plans need to be updated at least once a school year.³

Asthma guidelines recommend all children with asthma have access to quick relief medications.⁴ While this guideline exists, we are reminded by families that their child oftentimes has difficulty obtaining their medication while at school. Despite stock albuterol programs considered by the NIH as being a safe, practical, and potentially lifesaving option for children with asthma, schools across the country are slow to adopt this practice.¹ Families often express financial concern about accessing these medications, mainly due to insurance quantity limitations for either single maintenance and reliever therapy intervention or short-acting β2-agonist therapy. 

While self-carry is an option in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, parents report poor memory and reliability of their child to administer their medication appropriately. Parents report their children have a poor understanding of time and may administer medication too frequently, or they lack the necessary dexterity to properly administer an inhaler. The correct use of inhalation devices and adherence to prescribed therapy are key aspects in achieving better clinical control and improved quality of life. Parents express fear associated with children having access but poor direct supervision when using their quick relief medication.⁵ Families need a minimum of two quick relief inhalers (one for home and one for school)—or even three in a co-parenting situation. 

Stock albuterol programs mitigate the risk of quick relief medication accessibility. Families may have been required to leave a quick relief inhaler with the school nurse when school started last fall. Despite medication being available from a stock program or supplied from a family, medication expiration dates should be monitored to ensure the medication is available when needed.¹ It is important to remind families to track the expiration of medication and request a refill from their asthma provider for replacement at school if a stock albuterol program is not available.

Mitigating the risk of asthma emergencies during respiratory season requires a proactive approach. By partnering with families and schools through vaccination, updating asthma action plans, creating 504 plans, and working to ensure quick relief medication is available, providers and families can work together to decrease the risk of asthma emergencies during respiratory season. Taking these steps can lead to a safer and healthier respiratory season for all.

Emily Simmons, MSN, APN, CPNP-PC, and Alexandra Kacena, MSN, APN, CPNP-PC, are advanced practice provider colleagues at Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, Division of Pulmonary & Sleep Medicine. Partnering with one of the attending pulmonologists, they provide evidence-based, state-of-the-art care to high-risk patients with severe asthma, both within the hospital and in a mobile asthma clinic setting. 

References:

1. Lowe AA, Gerald JK, Clemens CJ, Stern DA, Gerald LB. Managing respiratory emergencies at school: a county-wide stock inhaler program. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2021;148(2):420-427.e5. Preprint. Posted online February 10, 2021. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2021.01.028

2. 5 Reasons Why Children With Asthma Need Important Vaccines for the Back-to-School Season. Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America. https://community.aafa.org/blog/5-reasons-why-children-with-asthma-need-important-vaccines-before-heading-back-to-school

3. Dudvarski Ilic A, Zugic V, Zvezdin B, et al. Influence of inhaler technique on asthma and COPD control: a multicenter experience. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2016;11:2509-2517. doi: 10.2147/COPD.S114576

4. Volerman A, Lowe AA, Pappalardo AA, etc. Ensuring access to albuterol in schools: from policy to implementation. An official ATS/AANMA/ALA/NASN policy statement. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2021;204(5):508-522. doi: 10.1164/rccm.202106-1550ST

5. Volerman A, Kim TY, Sridharan G, et al. A mixed-methods study examining inhaler carry and use among children at school. J Asthma. 2020;57(10):1071-1082. Preprint. Posted online July 16, 2019. doi: 10.1080/02770903.2019.1640729

6. Toups MM, Press VG, Volerman A. National analysis of state health policies on students’ right to self-carry and self-administer asthma inhalers at school. J Sch Health. 2018;88(10):776-784. doi: 10.1111/josh.12681

7. 504 Plans for Asthma. Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America. https://aafa.org/asthma/living-with-asthma/504-plans-for-asthma/

As the respiratory season approaches, the risk of asthma emergencies often increases, particularly for those with preexisting conditions. Respiratory illness, cold weather, and fluctuating temperatures can all exacerbate asthma symptoms, leading to potentially serious health complications. Understanding how to mitigate these risks is crucial for maintaining respiratory health and ensuring a safe and healthy season. 

As schools across the US have just ended their fall semester, students of all ages will spend their time off away from school. Respiratory season is among us, and children with asthma are at risk for severe asthma exacerbation from viruses that may lead to hospitalization. Since students will soon return for their spring semester, it is important to be reminded of asthma care during respiratory season.

Ten percent of school-aged children in the US have a diagnosis of asthma, with a higher prevalence in lower socioeconomic populations. In a classroom of 30 students, three students carry an asthma diagnosis. Of these children, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) reports 60% will experience asthma exacerbations. These exacerbations not only cause patients with asthma to have a total of 13.8 million absences annually but also lead to approximately 767,000 emergency department visits and 74,000 hospitalizations on an annual basis.¹

 

As we consider these statistics, safe asthma care during respiratory season requires preparation and a proactive approach. Partnering with families and school personnel will increase the likelihood that students will have a safe return for their next semester. 

Patients with asthma are at higher risk for complications from respiratory illnesses such as COVID-19, influenza, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), and streptococcal pneumonia viruses. While RSV vaccination is not widely available yet, vaccination is recommended as early as possible for influenza and COVID-19, as well as consideration for streptococcal pneumonia for patients with severe asthma. Vaccination for all family members should also be considered by the health care team. The health care team should regularly check in with families of patients with asthma to ensure they are educated about the importance of vaccinations and opportunities for immunization.²

Most children with asthma submit their asthma action plan to their school at the beginning of the year. It is important for families to be reminded that if there is a change to their asthma action plan, the updated plan should be discussed and reviewed with school personnel who are responsible for medication administration. Health care providers often will partner with schools and families to create a 504 plan. Many families may not be familiar with this plan and how to request one. Within the state of Illinois, for example, some school districts require 504 plans and others do not. It is derived from Section 504 of the Americans with Disabilities Act and is a contract outlining a child’s asthma care while at school. Families should be reminded that these 504 plans need to be updated at least once a school year.³

Asthma guidelines recommend all children with asthma have access to quick relief medications.⁴ While this guideline exists, we are reminded by families that their child oftentimes has difficulty obtaining their medication while at school. Despite stock albuterol programs considered by the NIH as being a safe, practical, and potentially lifesaving option for children with asthma, schools across the country are slow to adopt this practice.¹ Families often express financial concern about accessing these medications, mainly due to insurance quantity limitations for either single maintenance and reliever therapy intervention or short-acting β2-agonist therapy. 

While self-carry is an option in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, parents report poor memory and reliability of their child to administer their medication appropriately. Parents report their children have a poor understanding of time and may administer medication too frequently, or they lack the necessary dexterity to properly administer an inhaler. The correct use of inhalation devices and adherence to prescribed therapy are key aspects in achieving better clinical control and improved quality of life. Parents express fear associated with children having access but poor direct supervision when using their quick relief medication.⁵ Families need a minimum of two quick relief inhalers (one for home and one for school)—or even three in a co-parenting situation. 

Stock albuterol programs mitigate the risk of quick relief medication accessibility. Families may have been required to leave a quick relief inhaler with the school nurse when school started last fall. Despite medication being available from a stock program or supplied from a family, medication expiration dates should be monitored to ensure the medication is available when needed.¹ It is important to remind families to track the expiration of medication and request a refill from their asthma provider for replacement at school if a stock albuterol program is not available.

Mitigating the risk of asthma emergencies during respiratory season requires a proactive approach. By partnering with families and schools through vaccination, updating asthma action plans, creating 504 plans, and working to ensure quick relief medication is available, providers and families can work together to decrease the risk of asthma emergencies during respiratory season. Taking these steps can lead to a safer and healthier respiratory season for all.

Emily Simmons, MSN, APN, CPNP-PC, and Alexandra Kacena, MSN, APN, CPNP-PC, are advanced practice provider colleagues at Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, Division of Pulmonary & Sleep Medicine. Partnering with one of the attending pulmonologists, they provide evidence-based, state-of-the-art care to high-risk patients with severe asthma, both within the hospital and in a mobile asthma clinic setting. 

References:

1. Lowe AA, Gerald JK, Clemens CJ, Stern DA, Gerald LB. Managing respiratory emergencies at school: a county-wide stock inhaler program. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2021;148(2):420-427.e5. Preprint. Posted online February 10, 2021. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2021.01.028

2. 5 Reasons Why Children With Asthma Need Important Vaccines for the Back-to-School Season. Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America. https://community.aafa.org/blog/5-reasons-why-children-with-asthma-need-important-vaccines-before-heading-back-to-school

3. Dudvarski Ilic A, Zugic V, Zvezdin B, et al. Influence of inhaler technique on asthma and COPD control: a multicenter experience. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2016;11:2509-2517. doi: 10.2147/COPD.S114576

4. Volerman A, Lowe AA, Pappalardo AA, etc. Ensuring access to albuterol in schools: from policy to implementation. An official ATS/AANMA/ALA/NASN policy statement. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2021;204(5):508-522. doi: 10.1164/rccm.202106-1550ST

5. Volerman A, Kim TY, Sridharan G, et al. A mixed-methods study examining inhaler carry and use among children at school. J Asthma. 2020;57(10):1071-1082. Preprint. Posted online July 16, 2019. doi: 10.1080/02770903.2019.1640729

6. Toups MM, Press VG, Volerman A. National analysis of state health policies on students’ right to self-carry and self-administer asthma inhalers at school. J Sch Health. 2018;88(10):776-784. doi: 10.1111/josh.12681

7. 504 Plans for Asthma. Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America. https://aafa.org/asthma/living-with-asthma/504-plans-for-asthma/

As the respiratory season approaches, the risk of asthma emergencies often increases, particularly for those with preexisting conditions. Respiratory illness, cold weather, and fluctuating temperatures can all exacerbate asthma symptoms, leading to potentially serious health complications. Understanding how to mitigate these risks is crucial for maintaining respiratory health and ensuring a safe and healthy season. 

As schools across the US have just ended their fall semester, students of all ages will spend their time off away from school. Respiratory season is among us, and children with asthma are at risk for severe asthma exacerbation from viruses that may lead to hospitalization. Since students will soon return for their spring semester, it is important to be reminded of asthma care during respiratory season.

Ten percent of school-aged children in the US have a diagnosis of asthma, with a higher prevalence in lower socioeconomic populations. In a classroom of 30 students, three students carry an asthma diagnosis. Of these children, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) reports 60% will experience asthma exacerbations. These exacerbations not only cause patients with asthma to have a total of 13.8 million absences annually but also lead to approximately 767,000 emergency department visits and 74,000 hospitalizations on an annual basis.¹

 

As we consider these statistics, safe asthma care during respiratory season requires preparation and a proactive approach. Partnering with families and school personnel will increase the likelihood that students will have a safe return for their next semester. 

Patients with asthma are at higher risk for complications from respiratory illnesses such as COVID-19, influenza, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), and streptococcal pneumonia viruses. While RSV vaccination is not widely available yet, vaccination is recommended as early as possible for influenza and COVID-19, as well as consideration for streptococcal pneumonia for patients with severe asthma. Vaccination for all family members should also be considered by the health care team. The health care team should regularly check in with families of patients with asthma to ensure they are educated about the importance of vaccinations and opportunities for immunization.²

Most children with asthma submit their asthma action plan to their school at the beginning of the year. It is important for families to be reminded that if there is a change to their asthma action plan, the updated plan should be discussed and reviewed with school personnel who are responsible for medication administration. Health care providers often will partner with schools and families to create a 504 plan. Many families may not be familiar with this plan and how to request one. Within the state of Illinois, for example, some school districts require 504 plans and others do not. It is derived from Section 504 of the Americans with Disabilities Act and is a contract outlining a child’s asthma care while at school. Families should be reminded that these 504 plans need to be updated at least once a school year.³

Asthma guidelines recommend all children with asthma have access to quick relief medications.⁴ While this guideline exists, we are reminded by families that their child oftentimes has difficulty obtaining their medication while at school. Despite stock albuterol programs considered by the NIH as being a safe, practical, and potentially lifesaving option for children with asthma, schools across the country are slow to adopt this practice.¹ Families often express financial concern about accessing these medications, mainly due to insurance quantity limitations for either single maintenance and reliever therapy intervention or short-acting β2-agonist therapy. 

While self-carry is an option in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, parents report poor memory and reliability of their child to administer their medication appropriately. Parents report their children have a poor understanding of time and may administer medication too frequently, or they lack the necessary dexterity to properly administer an inhaler. The correct use of inhalation devices and adherence to prescribed therapy are key aspects in achieving better clinical control and improved quality of life. Parents express fear associated with children having access but poor direct supervision when using their quick relief medication.⁵ Families need a minimum of two quick relief inhalers (one for home and one for school)—or even three in a co-parenting situation. 

Stock albuterol programs mitigate the risk of quick relief medication accessibility. Families may have been required to leave a quick relief inhaler with the school nurse when school started last fall. Despite medication being available from a stock program or supplied from a family, medication expiration dates should be monitored to ensure the medication is available when needed.¹ It is important to remind families to track the expiration of medication and request a refill from their asthma provider for replacement at school if a stock albuterol program is not available.

Mitigating the risk of asthma emergencies during respiratory season requires a proactive approach. By partnering with families and schools through vaccination, updating asthma action plans, creating 504 plans, and working to ensure quick relief medication is available, providers and families can work together to decrease the risk of asthma emergencies during respiratory season. Taking these steps can lead to a safer and healthier respiratory season for all.

Emily Simmons, MSN, APN, CPNP-PC, and Alexandra Kacena, MSN, APN, CPNP-PC, are advanced practice provider colleagues at Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, Division of Pulmonary & Sleep Medicine. Partnering with one of the attending pulmonologists, they provide evidence-based, state-of-the-art care to high-risk patients with severe asthma, both within the hospital and in a mobile asthma clinic setting. 

References:

1. Lowe AA, Gerald JK, Clemens CJ, Stern DA, Gerald LB. Managing respiratory emergencies at school: a county-wide stock inhaler program. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2021;148(2):420-427.e5. Preprint. Posted online February 10, 2021. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2021.01.028

2. 5 Reasons Why Children With Asthma Need Important Vaccines for the Back-to-School Season. Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America. https://community.aafa.org/blog/5-reasons-why-children-with-asthma-need-important-vaccines-before-heading-back-to-school

3. Dudvarski Ilic A, Zugic V, Zvezdin B, et al. Influence of inhaler technique on asthma and COPD control: a multicenter experience. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2016;11:2509-2517. doi: 10.2147/COPD.S114576

4. Volerman A, Lowe AA, Pappalardo AA, etc. Ensuring access to albuterol in schools: from policy to implementation. An official ATS/AANMA/ALA/NASN policy statement. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2021;204(5):508-522. doi: 10.1164/rccm.202106-1550ST

5. Volerman A, Kim TY, Sridharan G, et al. A mixed-methods study examining inhaler carry and use among children at school. J Asthma. 2020;57(10):1071-1082. Preprint. Posted online July 16, 2019. doi: 10.1080/02770903.2019.1640729

6. Toups MM, Press VG, Volerman A. National analysis of state health policies on students’ right to self-carry and self-administer asthma inhalers at school. J Sch Health. 2018;88(10):776-784. doi: 10.1111/josh.12681

7. 504 Plans for Asthma. Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America. https://aafa.org/asthma/living-with-asthma/504-plans-for-asthma/