Hematology News

Nearly one in three physicians endorsing drugs and devices on the social media platform X did not disclose that they received payments from the manufacturers, according to a new study published in JAMA.

Lead author Aaron Mitchell, MD, MPH, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, told this news organization that he and his colleagues undertook the study in part to see whether physicians were adhering to professional and industry guidelines regarding marketing communications.

The team reviewed posts by physicians on X during 2022, looking for key words that might indicate that the posts were intended as endorsements of a product. The researchers then delved into the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database to see how many of those identified as having endorsed a product were paid by the manufacturers.

What Dr. Mitchell found concerned him, he said.

Overall, the researchers identified 28 physician endorsers who received a total of $1.4 million from sponsors in 2022. Among these, 26 physicians (93%) received payments from the product’s manufacturer, totaling $713,976, and 24 physicians (86%) accepted payments related to the endorsed drug or device, totaling $492,098.

While most did disclose that the posts were sponsored — by adding the word “sponsored” or using #sponsored — nine physicians did not.

Although 28 physician endorsers represent a “small fraction” of the overall number of physicians who use X, each endorsement was ultimately posted dozens, if not hundreds of times, said Dr. Mitchell. In fact, he said he saw the same particular endorsement post every time he opened his X app for months.

Overall, Dr. Mitchell noted that it’s less about the fact that the endorsements are occurring on social media and more that there are these paid endorsements taking place at all.

Among the physician specialties promoting a product, urologists and oncologists dominated. Almost one third were urologists, and 57% were oncologists — six medical oncologists, six radiation oncologists, and four gynecologic oncologists. Of the remaining three physicians, two were internists and one was a pulmonary and critical care medicine specialist.

The authors tracked posts from physicians and industry accounts. Many of the posts on industry accounts were physician testimonials, usually videos. Almost half — 8 of 17 — of those testimonials did not disclose that the doctor was being paid by the manufacturer. In another case, a physician did not disclose that they were paid to endorse a white paper.

Fifteen promotional posts were for a Boston Scientific product, followed by six for GlaxoSmithKline, two for Eisai, two for Exelixis, and one each for AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Pfizer.

In general, Dr. Mitchell said, industry guidelines suggest that manufacturer-paid speakers or consultants should have well-regarded expertise in the area they are being asked to weigh in on, but most physician endorsers in the study were not key opinion leaders or experts.

The authors examined the paid endorsers’ H-index — a measure of academic productivity provided by Scopus. Overall, 19 of the 28 physicians had an H-index below 20, which is considered less accomplished, and 14 had no published research related to the endorsed product.

Ten received payments from manufacturers for research purposes, and only one received research payments related to the endorsed product ($224,577).

“Physicians’ participation in industry marketing raises questions regarding professionalism and their responsibilities as patient advocates,” the JAMA authors wrote.

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Mitchell reported no relevant financial relationships. Coauthors Samer Al Hadidi, MD, reported receiving personal fees from Pfizer, Sanofi, and Janssen during the conduct of the study, and Timothy S. Anderson, MD, reported receiving grants from the National Institute on Aging, the American Heart Association, and the American College of Cardiology, and receiving consulting fees from the American Medical Student Association. Dr. Anderson is also an associate editor of JAMA Internal Medicine.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Nearly one in three physicians endorsing drugs and devices on the social media platform X did not disclose that they received payments from the manufacturers, according to a new study published in JAMA.

Lead author Aaron Mitchell, MD, MPH, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, told this news organization that he and his colleagues undertook the study in part to see whether physicians were adhering to professional and industry guidelines regarding marketing communications.

The team reviewed posts by physicians on X during 2022, looking for key words that might indicate that the posts were intended as endorsements of a product. The researchers then delved into the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database to see how many of those identified as having endorsed a product were paid by the manufacturers.

What Dr. Mitchell found concerned him, he said.

Overall, the researchers identified 28 physician endorsers who received a total of $1.4 million from sponsors in 2022. Among these, 26 physicians (93%) received payments from the product’s manufacturer, totaling $713,976, and 24 physicians (86%) accepted payments related to the endorsed drug or device, totaling $492,098.

While most did disclose that the posts were sponsored — by adding the word “sponsored” or using #sponsored — nine physicians did not.

Although 28 physician endorsers represent a “small fraction” of the overall number of physicians who use X, each endorsement was ultimately posted dozens, if not hundreds of times, said Dr. Mitchell. In fact, he said he saw the same particular endorsement post every time he opened his X app for months.

Overall, Dr. Mitchell noted that it’s less about the fact that the endorsements are occurring on social media and more that there are these paid endorsements taking place at all.

Among the physician specialties promoting a product, urologists and oncologists dominated. Almost one third were urologists, and 57% were oncologists — six medical oncologists, six radiation oncologists, and four gynecologic oncologists. Of the remaining three physicians, two were internists and one was a pulmonary and critical care medicine specialist.

The authors tracked posts from physicians and industry accounts. Many of the posts on industry accounts were physician testimonials, usually videos. Almost half — 8 of 17 — of those testimonials did not disclose that the doctor was being paid by the manufacturer. In another case, a physician did not disclose that they were paid to endorse a white paper.

Fifteen promotional posts were for a Boston Scientific product, followed by six for GlaxoSmithKline, two for Eisai, two for Exelixis, and one each for AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Pfizer.

In general, Dr. Mitchell said, industry guidelines suggest that manufacturer-paid speakers or consultants should have well-regarded expertise in the area they are being asked to weigh in on, but most physician endorsers in the study were not key opinion leaders or experts.

The authors examined the paid endorsers’ H-index — a measure of academic productivity provided by Scopus. Overall, 19 of the 28 physicians had an H-index below 20, which is considered less accomplished, and 14 had no published research related to the endorsed product.

Ten received payments from manufacturers for research purposes, and only one received research payments related to the endorsed product ($224,577).

“Physicians’ participation in industry marketing raises questions regarding professionalism and their responsibilities as patient advocates,” the JAMA authors wrote.

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Mitchell reported no relevant financial relationships. Coauthors Samer Al Hadidi, MD, reported receiving personal fees from Pfizer, Sanofi, and Janssen during the conduct of the study, and Timothy S. Anderson, MD, reported receiving grants from the National Institute on Aging, the American Heart Association, and the American College of Cardiology, and receiving consulting fees from the American Medical Student Association. Dr. Anderson is also an associate editor of JAMA Internal Medicine.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Nearly one in three physicians endorsing drugs and devices on the social media platform X did not disclose that they received payments from the manufacturers, according to a new study published in JAMA.

Lead author Aaron Mitchell, MD, MPH, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, told this news organization that he and his colleagues undertook the study in part to see whether physicians were adhering to professional and industry guidelines regarding marketing communications.

The team reviewed posts by physicians on X during 2022, looking for key words that might indicate that the posts were intended as endorsements of a product. The researchers then delved into the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database to see how many of those identified as having endorsed a product were paid by the manufacturers.

What Dr. Mitchell found concerned him, he said.

Overall, the researchers identified 28 physician endorsers who received a total of $1.4 million from sponsors in 2022. Among these, 26 physicians (93%) received payments from the product’s manufacturer, totaling $713,976, and 24 physicians (86%) accepted payments related to the endorsed drug or device, totaling $492,098.

While most did disclose that the posts were sponsored — by adding the word “sponsored” or using #sponsored — nine physicians did not.

Although 28 physician endorsers represent a “small fraction” of the overall number of physicians who use X, each endorsement was ultimately posted dozens, if not hundreds of times, said Dr. Mitchell. In fact, he said he saw the same particular endorsement post every time he opened his X app for months.

Overall, Dr. Mitchell noted that it’s less about the fact that the endorsements are occurring on social media and more that there are these paid endorsements taking place at all.

Among the physician specialties promoting a product, urologists and oncologists dominated. Almost one third were urologists, and 57% were oncologists — six medical oncologists, six radiation oncologists, and four gynecologic oncologists. Of the remaining three physicians, two were internists and one was a pulmonary and critical care medicine specialist.

The authors tracked posts from physicians and industry accounts. Many of the posts on industry accounts were physician testimonials, usually videos. Almost half — 8 of 17 — of those testimonials did not disclose that the doctor was being paid by the manufacturer. In another case, a physician did not disclose that they were paid to endorse a white paper.

Fifteen promotional posts were for a Boston Scientific product, followed by six for GlaxoSmithKline, two for Eisai, two for Exelixis, and one each for AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Pfizer.

In general, Dr. Mitchell said, industry guidelines suggest that manufacturer-paid speakers or consultants should have well-regarded expertise in the area they are being asked to weigh in on, but most physician endorsers in the study were not key opinion leaders or experts.

The authors examined the paid endorsers’ H-index — a measure of academic productivity provided by Scopus. Overall, 19 of the 28 physicians had an H-index below 20, which is considered less accomplished, and 14 had no published research related to the endorsed product.

Ten received payments from manufacturers for research purposes, and only one received research payments related to the endorsed product ($224,577).

“Physicians’ participation in industry marketing raises questions regarding professionalism and their responsibilities as patient advocates,” the JAMA authors wrote.

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Mitchell reported no relevant financial relationships. Coauthors Samer Al Hadidi, MD, reported receiving personal fees from Pfizer, Sanofi, and Janssen during the conduct of the study, and Timothy S. Anderson, MD, reported receiving grants from the National Institute on Aging, the American Heart Association, and the American College of Cardiology, and receiving consulting fees from the American Medical Student Association. Dr. Anderson is also an associate editor of JAMA Internal Medicine.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

CHICAGO — Carlos, a 21-year-old, lay in a hospital bed, barely clinging to life. Following a stem cell transplant for leukemia, Carlos had developed a life-threatening case of graft-vs-host disease.

But Carlos’ mother had faith.

“I have hope things will get better,” she said, via interpreter, to Richard Leiter, MD, a palliative care doctor in training at that time.

“I hope they will,” Dr. Leiter told her.

“I should have stopped there,” said Dr. Leiter, recounting an early-career lesson on hope during the ASCO Voices session at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting. “But in my eagerness to show my attending and myself that I could handle this conversation, I kept going, mistakenly.”

“But none of us think they will,” Dr. Leiter continued.

Carlos’ mother looked Dr. Leiter in the eye. “You want him to die,” she said.

“I knew, even then, that she was right,” recalled Dr. Leiter, now a palliative care physician at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women’s Hospital and an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Although there was nothing he could do to save Carlos, Dr. Leiter also couldn’t sit with the extreme suffering. “The pain was too great,” Dr. Leiter said. “I needed her to adopt our narrative that we had done everything we could to help him live, and now, we would do everything we could to help his death be a comfortable one.”

But looking back, Dr. Leiter realized, “How could we have asked her to accept what was fundamentally unacceptable, to comprehend the incomprehensible?”
 

The Importance of Hope

Hope is not only a feature of human cognition but also a measurable and malleable construct that can affect life outcomes, Alan B. Astrow, MD, said during an ASCO symposium on “The Art and Science of Hope.”

“How we think about hope directly influences patient care,” said Dr. Astrow, chief of hematology and medical oncology at NewYork-Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital and a professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City.

Hope, whatever it turns out to be neurobiologically, is “very much a gift” that underlies human existence, he said.

Physicians have the capacity to restore or shatter a patient’s hopes, and those who come to understand the importance of hope will wish to extend the gift to others, Dr. Astrow said.

Asking patients about their hopes is the “golden question,” Steven Z. Pantilat, MD, said at the symposium. “When you think about the future, what do you hope for?”

Often, the answers reveal not only “things beyond a cure that matter tremendously to the patient but things that we can help with,” said Dr. Pantilat, professor and chief of the Division of Palliative Medicine at the University of California San Francisco.

Dr. Pantilat recalled a patient with advanced pancreatic cancer who wished to see her daughter’s wedding in 10 months. He knew that was unlikely, but the discussion led to another solution.

Her daughter moved the wedding to the ICU.

Hope can persist and uplift even in the darkest of times, and “as clinicians, we need to be in the true hope business,” he said.

While some patients may wish for a cure, others may want more time with family or comfort in the face of suffering. People can “hope for all the things that can still be, despite the fact that there’s a lot of things that can’t,” he said.

However, fear that a patient will hope for a cure, and that the difficult discussions to follow might destroy hope or lead to false hope, sometimes means physicians won’t begin the conversation.

“We want to be honest with our patients — compassionate and kind, but honest — when we talk about their hopes,” Dr. Pantilat explained. Sometimes that means he needs to tell patients, “I wish that could happen. I wish I had a treatment that could make your cancer go away, but unfortunately, I don’t. So let’s think about what else we can do to help you.”

Having these difficult discussions matters. The evidence, although limited, indicates that feeling hopeful can improve patients’ well-being and may even boost their cancer outcomes.

One recent study found, for instance, that patients who reported feeling more hopeful also had lower levels of depression and anxiety. Early research also suggests that greater levels of hope may have a hand in reducing inflammation in patients with ovarian cancer and could even improve survival in some patients with advanced cancer.

For Dr. Leiter, while these lessons came early in his career as a palliative care physician, they persist and influence his practice today.

“I know that I could not have prevented Carlos’ death. None of us could have, and none of us could have protected his mother from the unimaginable grief that will stay with her for the rest of her life,” he said. “But I could have made things just a little bit less difficult for her.

“I could have acted as her guide rather than her cross-examiner,” he continued, explaining that he now sees hope as “a generous collaborator” that can coexist with rising creatinine levels, failing livers, and fears about intubation.

“As clinicians, we can always find space to hope with our patients and their families,” he said. “So now, years later when I sit with a terrified and grieving family and they tell me they hope their loved one gets better, I remember Carlos’ mother’s eyes piercing mine ... and I know how to respond: ‘I hope so, too.’ And I do.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

CHICAGO — Carlos, a 21-year-old, lay in a hospital bed, barely clinging to life. Following a stem cell transplant for leukemia, Carlos had developed a life-threatening case of graft-vs-host disease.

But Carlos’ mother had faith.

“I have hope things will get better,” she said, via interpreter, to Richard Leiter, MD, a palliative care doctor in training at that time.

“I hope they will,” Dr. Leiter told her.

“I should have stopped there,” said Dr. Leiter, recounting an early-career lesson on hope during the ASCO Voices session at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting. “But in my eagerness to show my attending and myself that I could handle this conversation, I kept going, mistakenly.”

“But none of us think they will,” Dr. Leiter continued.

Carlos’ mother looked Dr. Leiter in the eye. “You want him to die,” she said.

“I knew, even then, that she was right,” recalled Dr. Leiter, now a palliative care physician at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women’s Hospital and an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Although there was nothing he could do to save Carlos, Dr. Leiter also couldn’t sit with the extreme suffering. “The pain was too great,” Dr. Leiter said. “I needed her to adopt our narrative that we had done everything we could to help him live, and now, we would do everything we could to help his death be a comfortable one.”

But looking back, Dr. Leiter realized, “How could we have asked her to accept what was fundamentally unacceptable, to comprehend the incomprehensible?”
 

The Importance of Hope

Hope is not only a feature of human cognition but also a measurable and malleable construct that can affect life outcomes, Alan B. Astrow, MD, said during an ASCO symposium on “The Art and Science of Hope.”

“How we think about hope directly influences patient care,” said Dr. Astrow, chief of hematology and medical oncology at NewYork-Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital and a professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City.

Hope, whatever it turns out to be neurobiologically, is “very much a gift” that underlies human existence, he said.

Physicians have the capacity to restore or shatter a patient’s hopes, and those who come to understand the importance of hope will wish to extend the gift to others, Dr. Astrow said.

Asking patients about their hopes is the “golden question,” Steven Z. Pantilat, MD, said at the symposium. “When you think about the future, what do you hope for?”

Often, the answers reveal not only “things beyond a cure that matter tremendously to the patient but things that we can help with,” said Dr. Pantilat, professor and chief of the Division of Palliative Medicine at the University of California San Francisco.

Dr. Pantilat recalled a patient with advanced pancreatic cancer who wished to see her daughter’s wedding in 10 months. He knew that was unlikely, but the discussion led to another solution.

Her daughter moved the wedding to the ICU.

Hope can persist and uplift even in the darkest of times, and “as clinicians, we need to be in the true hope business,” he said.

While some patients may wish for a cure, others may want more time with family or comfort in the face of suffering. People can “hope for all the things that can still be, despite the fact that there’s a lot of things that can’t,” he said.

However, fear that a patient will hope for a cure, and that the difficult discussions to follow might destroy hope or lead to false hope, sometimes means physicians won’t begin the conversation.

“We want to be honest with our patients — compassionate and kind, but honest — when we talk about their hopes,” Dr. Pantilat explained. Sometimes that means he needs to tell patients, “I wish that could happen. I wish I had a treatment that could make your cancer go away, but unfortunately, I don’t. So let’s think about what else we can do to help you.”

Having these difficult discussions matters. The evidence, although limited, indicates that feeling hopeful can improve patients’ well-being and may even boost their cancer outcomes.

One recent study found, for instance, that patients who reported feeling more hopeful also had lower levels of depression and anxiety. Early research also suggests that greater levels of hope may have a hand in reducing inflammation in patients with ovarian cancer and could even improve survival in some patients with advanced cancer.

For Dr. Leiter, while these lessons came early in his career as a palliative care physician, they persist and influence his practice today.

“I know that I could not have prevented Carlos’ death. None of us could have, and none of us could have protected his mother from the unimaginable grief that will stay with her for the rest of her life,” he said. “But I could have made things just a little bit less difficult for her.

“I could have acted as her guide rather than her cross-examiner,” he continued, explaining that he now sees hope as “a generous collaborator” that can coexist with rising creatinine levels, failing livers, and fears about intubation.

“As clinicians, we can always find space to hope with our patients and their families,” he said. “So now, years later when I sit with a terrified and grieving family and they tell me they hope their loved one gets better, I remember Carlos’ mother’s eyes piercing mine ... and I know how to respond: ‘I hope so, too.’ And I do.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

CHICAGO — Carlos, a 21-year-old, lay in a hospital bed, barely clinging to life. Following a stem cell transplant for leukemia, Carlos had developed a life-threatening case of graft-vs-host disease.

But Carlos’ mother had faith.

“I have hope things will get better,” she said, via interpreter, to Richard Leiter, MD, a palliative care doctor in training at that time.

“I hope they will,” Dr. Leiter told her.

“I should have stopped there,” said Dr. Leiter, recounting an early-career lesson on hope during the ASCO Voices session at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting. “But in my eagerness to show my attending and myself that I could handle this conversation, I kept going, mistakenly.”

“But none of us think they will,” Dr. Leiter continued.

Carlos’ mother looked Dr. Leiter in the eye. “You want him to die,” she said.

“I knew, even then, that she was right,” recalled Dr. Leiter, now a palliative care physician at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women’s Hospital and an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Although there was nothing he could do to save Carlos, Dr. Leiter also couldn’t sit with the extreme suffering. “The pain was too great,” Dr. Leiter said. “I needed her to adopt our narrative that we had done everything we could to help him live, and now, we would do everything we could to help his death be a comfortable one.”

But looking back, Dr. Leiter realized, “How could we have asked her to accept what was fundamentally unacceptable, to comprehend the incomprehensible?”
 

The Importance of Hope

Hope is not only a feature of human cognition but also a measurable and malleable construct that can affect life outcomes, Alan B. Astrow, MD, said during an ASCO symposium on “The Art and Science of Hope.”

“How we think about hope directly influences patient care,” said Dr. Astrow, chief of hematology and medical oncology at NewYork-Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital and a professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City.

Hope, whatever it turns out to be neurobiologically, is “very much a gift” that underlies human existence, he said.

Physicians have the capacity to restore or shatter a patient’s hopes, and those who come to understand the importance of hope will wish to extend the gift to others, Dr. Astrow said.

Asking patients about their hopes is the “golden question,” Steven Z. Pantilat, MD, said at the symposium. “When you think about the future, what do you hope for?”

Often, the answers reveal not only “things beyond a cure that matter tremendously to the patient but things that we can help with,” said Dr. Pantilat, professor and chief of the Division of Palliative Medicine at the University of California San Francisco.

Dr. Pantilat recalled a patient with advanced pancreatic cancer who wished to see her daughter’s wedding in 10 months. He knew that was unlikely, but the discussion led to another solution.

Her daughter moved the wedding to the ICU.

Hope can persist and uplift even in the darkest of times, and “as clinicians, we need to be in the true hope business,” he said.

While some patients may wish for a cure, others may want more time with family or comfort in the face of suffering. People can “hope for all the things that can still be, despite the fact that there’s a lot of things that can’t,” he said.

However, fear that a patient will hope for a cure, and that the difficult discussions to follow might destroy hope or lead to false hope, sometimes means physicians won’t begin the conversation.

“We want to be honest with our patients — compassionate and kind, but honest — when we talk about their hopes,” Dr. Pantilat explained. Sometimes that means he needs to tell patients, “I wish that could happen. I wish I had a treatment that could make your cancer go away, but unfortunately, I don’t. So let’s think about what else we can do to help you.”

Having these difficult discussions matters. The evidence, although limited, indicates that feeling hopeful can improve patients’ well-being and may even boost their cancer outcomes.

One recent study found, for instance, that patients who reported feeling more hopeful also had lower levels of depression and anxiety. Early research also suggests that greater levels of hope may have a hand in reducing inflammation in patients with ovarian cancer and could even improve survival in some patients with advanced cancer.

For Dr. Leiter, while these lessons came early in his career as a palliative care physician, they persist and influence his practice today.

“I know that I could not have prevented Carlos’ death. None of us could have, and none of us could have protected his mother from the unimaginable grief that will stay with her for the rest of her life,” he said. “But I could have made things just a little bit less difficult for her.

“I could have acted as her guide rather than her cross-examiner,” he continued, explaining that he now sees hope as “a generous collaborator” that can coexist with rising creatinine levels, failing livers, and fears about intubation.

“As clinicians, we can always find space to hope with our patients and their families,” he said. “So now, years later when I sit with a terrified and grieving family and they tell me they hope their loved one gets better, I remember Carlos’ mother’s eyes piercing mine ... and I know how to respond: ‘I hope so, too.’ And I do.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s time to renew two of my three narcotic prescribing licenses. For the first time in my career, I’ve waffled on whether the financial outlay to the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) is worth it. 

At $888 each, I’ve considered letting two licenses lapse because I only work part-time in Montana. But several friends advised me to keep a “spare” in case I transfer to a new location. 

I thought about just paying the fees until I could do a little more research, but there is no mechanism for a refund unless I die within the first year of the 3-year cycle, provide incorrect credit card digits, or accidentally duplicate payments.

The renewal fee is just part of the issue.
 

Mandatory 8-Hour Training

I also received an alert about the requirement for more “narcotics prescribing education” thanks to the Medication Access and Training Expansion Act (MATE). 

The requirement seems counterintuitive because opioid prescribing has decreased for the 10th consecutive year, according to the AMA Overdose Epidemic Report. The continuing rise in overdose deaths is largely due to illegitimate manufacturing of synthetic opioids. 

I’ve written zero outpatient narcotics prescriptions in the past 6 years, and I’ve written very few in my 33 years of practice. My use is limited to intravenous morphine for flash pulmonary edema or refractory angina, but unless you graduated from a training program within 5 years of the June 2023 mandate or are boarded in addiction medicine, there is no way to escape the 8-hour education requirement.

The problem is that these courses are never just 8 hours in duration. After signing up for one such CME course that cost $150, I was still dying of boredom and at risk for DVT 4 days later. That’s how long it took to sit through.

Instead of the 30 seconds it should have taken to review the simple instructions to deliver Narcan, there were scores of screens followed by juvenile quizlets and cartoons. All but about 2 hours out of the 4 days is now relegated to that category of “hours of my life that I can never get back.” Additionally, none of that mandatory “education” will change my prescribing habits one whit. 

And beware the penalty. 

keshophucitotrumuhidruwrorobrubauestetowrirostakoswijocraviphuswuclumineketretichodanacromuclalislolo

vepribuspekucrukulemacrefrisoclutagaswegopregiprowrastauuchiclethasluslochouifricrecosteslobrijetumudraraprajotrufrauuchuuimevewrufradojashuthouejoshudrefracredriclofridrevechuchisivuphastaphusitinacredepavitrereswivupaprecrabrohosustivijukacludi

Changes Needed

The only good thing that came of those 4 long days of opioid education was a motivation to drive change in our current licensing and educational experience. Why not use this opportunity to reform the DEA-physician/prescriber relationship? 

The educational requirements should be curtailed for those of us who do not provide outpatient narcotic prescriptions even if we use inpatient opioids. Meds with low abuse potential should be rescheduled to minimize who gets caught in the broad net of the education requirement. 

We should reduce overregulation of the legitimate prescribers by lowering, instead of increasing, licensing fees. We should change to a single license number that covers every state. In this digital age, there is no legitimate excuse to prevent this from happening. 

After all, the settlements from opioid manufacturers and distributors will in time total $50 billion. It seems that at least some of the responsibilities of the DEA could shift to states, cities, and towns. 

My friend Siamak Karimian, MD, who provides locum services in multiple states, pays for seven active DEA licenses every 3 years. He pointed out the hypocrisy in the current regulatory system: “It’s funny that you can have only one DEA or state license and work for the government in all other states or territories with no limits, including the VA, Indian healthcare systems, or prison systems.”

All other prescribers require a separate DEA number for every state. Ultimately, you’d think tracking prescriptions for a single DEA number should be far simpler than tracking someone with seven. 

Competent physicians not guilty of criminal overprescribing seem to be the last to be considered in nearly every healthcare endeavor these days. It would be refreshing if they would reduce our fees and prevent this waste of our time. 

And while we are at it, perhaps a more fitting punishment is due for Richard Sackler and all the Purdue Pharma–affiliated family members. The Sacklers will pay out $6 billion in exchange for immunity against civil litigation. That doesn’t seem like much when they are worth $11 billion. 

Perhaps they should be made to take an 8-hour course on opioid prescribing, annually and in perpetuity. Let’s see them complete a few quizlets and sit through screens of instruction on how to administer Naloxone. Of course, that would be a mild punishment for those who manufactured a drug that killed hundreds of thousands. But it would be a start. 
 

Dr. Walton-Shirley, a clinical cardiologist in Nashville, Tennessee, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s time to renew two of my three narcotic prescribing licenses. For the first time in my career, I’ve waffled on whether the financial outlay to the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) is worth it. 

At $888 each, I’ve considered letting two licenses lapse because I only work part-time in Montana. But several friends advised me to keep a “spare” in case I transfer to a new location. 

I thought about just paying the fees until I could do a little more research, but there is no mechanism for a refund unless I die within the first year of the 3-year cycle, provide incorrect credit card digits, or accidentally duplicate payments.

The renewal fee is just part of the issue.
 

Mandatory 8-Hour Training

I also received an alert about the requirement for more “narcotics prescribing education” thanks to the Medication Access and Training Expansion Act (MATE). 

The requirement seems counterintuitive because opioid prescribing has decreased for the 10th consecutive year, according to the AMA Overdose Epidemic Report. The continuing rise in overdose deaths is largely due to illegitimate manufacturing of synthetic opioids. 

I’ve written zero outpatient narcotics prescriptions in the past 6 years, and I’ve written very few in my 33 years of practice. My use is limited to intravenous morphine for flash pulmonary edema or refractory angina, but unless you graduated from a training program within 5 years of the June 2023 mandate or are boarded in addiction medicine, there is no way to escape the 8-hour education requirement.

The problem is that these courses are never just 8 hours in duration. After signing up for one such CME course that cost $150, I was still dying of boredom and at risk for DVT 4 days later. That’s how long it took to sit through.

Instead of the 30 seconds it should have taken to review the simple instructions to deliver Narcan, there were scores of screens followed by juvenile quizlets and cartoons. All but about 2 hours out of the 4 days is now relegated to that category of “hours of my life that I can never get back.” Additionally, none of that mandatory “education” will change my prescribing habits one whit. 

And beware the penalty. 

keshophucitotrumuhidruwrorobrubauestetowrirostakoswijocraviphuswuclumineketretichodanacromuclalislolo

vepribuspekucrukulemacrefrisoclutagaswegopregiprowrastauuchiclethasluslochouifricrecosteslobrijetumudraraprajotrufrauuchuuimevewrufradojashuthouejoshudrefracredriclofridrevechuchisivuphastaphusitinacredepavitrereswivupaprecrabrohosustivijukacludi

Changes Needed

The only good thing that came of those 4 long days of opioid education was a motivation to drive change in our current licensing and educational experience. Why not use this opportunity to reform the DEA-physician/prescriber relationship? 

The educational requirements should be curtailed for those of us who do not provide outpatient narcotic prescriptions even if we use inpatient opioids. Meds with low abuse potential should be rescheduled to minimize who gets caught in the broad net of the education requirement. 

We should reduce overregulation of the legitimate prescribers by lowering, instead of increasing, licensing fees. We should change to a single license number that covers every state. In this digital age, there is no legitimate excuse to prevent this from happening. 

After all, the settlements from opioid manufacturers and distributors will in time total $50 billion. It seems that at least some of the responsibilities of the DEA could shift to states, cities, and towns. 

My friend Siamak Karimian, MD, who provides locum services in multiple states, pays for seven active DEA licenses every 3 years. He pointed out the hypocrisy in the current regulatory system: “It’s funny that you can have only one DEA or state license and work for the government in all other states or territories with no limits, including the VA, Indian healthcare systems, or prison systems.”

All other prescribers require a separate DEA number for every state. Ultimately, you’d think tracking prescriptions for a single DEA number should be far simpler than tracking someone with seven. 

Competent physicians not guilty of criminal overprescribing seem to be the last to be considered in nearly every healthcare endeavor these days. It would be refreshing if they would reduce our fees and prevent this waste of our time. 

And while we are at it, perhaps a more fitting punishment is due for Richard Sackler and all the Purdue Pharma–affiliated family members. The Sacklers will pay out $6 billion in exchange for immunity against civil litigation. That doesn’t seem like much when they are worth $11 billion. 

Perhaps they should be made to take an 8-hour course on opioid prescribing, annually and in perpetuity. Let’s see them complete a few quizlets and sit through screens of instruction on how to administer Naloxone. Of course, that would be a mild punishment for those who manufactured a drug that killed hundreds of thousands. But it would be a start. 
 

Dr. Walton-Shirley, a clinical cardiologist in Nashville, Tennessee, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s time to renew two of my three narcotic prescribing licenses. For the first time in my career, I’ve waffled on whether the financial outlay to the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) is worth it. 

At $888 each, I’ve considered letting two licenses lapse because I only work part-time in Montana. But several friends advised me to keep a “spare” in case I transfer to a new location. 

I thought about just paying the fees until I could do a little more research, but there is no mechanism for a refund unless I die within the first year of the 3-year cycle, provide incorrect credit card digits, or accidentally duplicate payments.

The renewal fee is just part of the issue.
 

Mandatory 8-Hour Training

I also received an alert about the requirement for more “narcotics prescribing education” thanks to the Medication Access and Training Expansion Act (MATE). 

The requirement seems counterintuitive because opioid prescribing has decreased for the 10th consecutive year, according to the AMA Overdose Epidemic Report. The continuing rise in overdose deaths is largely due to illegitimate manufacturing of synthetic opioids. 

I’ve written zero outpatient narcotics prescriptions in the past 6 years, and I’ve written very few in my 33 years of practice. My use is limited to intravenous morphine for flash pulmonary edema or refractory angina, but unless you graduated from a training program within 5 years of the June 2023 mandate or are boarded in addiction medicine, there is no way to escape the 8-hour education requirement.

The problem is that these courses are never just 8 hours in duration. After signing up for one such CME course that cost $150, I was still dying of boredom and at risk for DVT 4 days later. That’s how long it took to sit through.

Instead of the 30 seconds it should have taken to review the simple instructions to deliver Narcan, there were scores of screens followed by juvenile quizlets and cartoons. All but about 2 hours out of the 4 days is now relegated to that category of “hours of my life that I can never get back.” Additionally, none of that mandatory “education” will change my prescribing habits one whit. 

And beware the penalty. 

keshophucitotrumuhidruwrorobrubauestetowrirostakoswijocraviphuswuclumineketretichodanacromuclalislolo

vepribuspekucrukulemacrefrisoclutagaswegopregiprowrastauuchiclethasluslochouifricrecosteslobrijetumudraraprajotrufrauuchuuimevewrufradojashuthouejoshudrefracredriclofridrevechuchisivuphastaphusitinacredepavitrereswivupaprecrabrohosustivijukacludi

Changes Needed

The only good thing that came of those 4 long days of opioid education was a motivation to drive change in our current licensing and educational experience. Why not use this opportunity to reform the DEA-physician/prescriber relationship? 

The educational requirements should be curtailed for those of us who do not provide outpatient narcotic prescriptions even if we use inpatient opioids. Meds with low abuse potential should be rescheduled to minimize who gets caught in the broad net of the education requirement. 

We should reduce overregulation of the legitimate prescribers by lowering, instead of increasing, licensing fees. We should change to a single license number that covers every state. In this digital age, there is no legitimate excuse to prevent this from happening. 

After all, the settlements from opioid manufacturers and distributors will in time total $50 billion. It seems that at least some of the responsibilities of the DEA could shift to states, cities, and towns. 

My friend Siamak Karimian, MD, who provides locum services in multiple states, pays for seven active DEA licenses every 3 years. He pointed out the hypocrisy in the current regulatory system: “It’s funny that you can have only one DEA or state license and work for the government in all other states or territories with no limits, including the VA, Indian healthcare systems, or prison systems.”

All other prescribers require a separate DEA number for every state. Ultimately, you’d think tracking prescriptions for a single DEA number should be far simpler than tracking someone with seven. 

Competent physicians not guilty of criminal overprescribing seem to be the last to be considered in nearly every healthcare endeavor these days. It would be refreshing if they would reduce our fees and prevent this waste of our time. 

And while we are at it, perhaps a more fitting punishment is due for Richard Sackler and all the Purdue Pharma–affiliated family members. The Sacklers will pay out $6 billion in exchange for immunity against civil litigation. That doesn’t seem like much when they are worth $11 billion. 

Perhaps they should be made to take an 8-hour course on opioid prescribing, annually and in perpetuity. Let’s see them complete a few quizlets and sit through screens of instruction on how to administer Naloxone. Of course, that would be a mild punishment for those who manufactured a drug that killed hundreds of thousands. But it would be a start. 
 

Dr. Walton-Shirley, a clinical cardiologist in Nashville, Tennessee, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

When she got the news that her young son had been diagnosed with the rare blood disorder known as transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia, Yusara Ahmed knew the drill. Her sister had also experienced the inherited condition and needed to undergo regular blood transfusions simply to survive.

With luck, maybe Ms. Ahmed’s son could follow in his aunt’s footsteps and get a stem cell transplant from a compatible family donor. But while little Yusuf Saeed has a twin sister of his own, she wasn’t a match. Without another treatment option, he’d face the prospect of a lifetime not only cut short but burdened by multiple monthly transfusions and severe limitations.

Then came glimpses of hope. One of Yusuf’s physicians at Cohen Children’s Medical Center in Long Island, New York, told Yusuf’s mother about a new kind of gene therapy on the horizon. But it took time to get FDA approval. Yusuf grew older, heading toward his teenage years, when regular transfusions would be a huge burden. “He’s turning 5 and 6, and there’s nothing,” Ms. Ahmed recalled, and the family worried.

Finally, the FDA approved the one-time treatment — betibeglogene autotemcel (beti-cel, Zynteglo) in 2022. By January 2024, the hospital was ready to treat Yusuf. At age 8, he became the first patient in the state of New York to undergo gene therapy for beta thalassemia.

A medical team infused Yusuf with his own stem cells, which had been genetically engineered to boost production of hemoglobin and prevent thalassemia’s devastating effects.

There are caveats about the treatment. It’s an extraordinarily expensive therapy that can be performed at only a few institutions. And it’s so brand new that caveats may not even have appeared yet. Yet, for kids like Yusuf, the gene therapy could transform a life.

“We feel like a weight has been lifted,” Ms. Ahmed said in an interview. “It’s something we’ve been waiting for.”
 

Anemia Becomes a Lifetime Threat

Among all genetic diseases, thalassemia stands alone. It’s the most common condition caused by a single gene, according to Hanny Al-Samkari, MD, a hematologist/clinical investigator at Massachusetts General Hospital and associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, in Boston, Massachusetts.

Millions of people have the thalassemia trait, especially in southern Europe, the Middle East, southeast Asia, and Africa, Dr. Al-Samkari said. (Yusuf’s parents are from Pakistan.)

The trait, which appears to provide protection against malaria, may cause mild anemia in some cases but is otherwise harmless. However, a child born to parents with the same kind of trait has a high risk of developing alpha thalassemia or beta thalassemia. Like his aunt, Yusuf developed beta thalassemia, which is generally more severe. Yusuf’s bleeding disorder requires him to be transfusion-dependent.

In these patients, the disease disrupts the production of red blood cells in the bone marrow, Dr. Al-Samkari said. Hemoglobin levels can fall to 7 or 8 g/dL, compared with the normal levels of 12-16 g/dL in adults. “They’re chronically anemic, and that low hemoglobin that leads to things you associate with anemia: fatigue, reduced exercise tolerance, mind fog, challenges with work or school, and hypersomnolence.”

In addition, the bones become thinner and more brittle, he said, leading to fractures.

Transfusions are one treatment option, but they’re needed for a lifetime and cause their own problems, such as iron overload. Care of thalassemia patients “becomes quite complex and quite challenging for both families and medical institutions,” Alexis A. Thompson MD, MPH, chief of hematology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, said in an interview.

Yusara Ahmed remembers her sister’s endless visits to the hospital after she was diagnosed at age 4. “We were all very traumatized by the hospital environment,” she said. But good news came in 2008, a few years later, when her sister was able to get a stem cell transplant from their brother.

But while stem cell transplants can be curative, most children don’t have a relative who can be a suitable match as a donor, Dr. Thompson said. Now, gene therapy offers another option, by turning a patient into his or her own matched donor.
 

Stem Cells Out, Stem Cells In

Last year, Yusuf went to Cohen Children’s Medical Center to donate stem cells, which were sent to a laboratory where they were genetically engineered to add copies of the beta-globin gene. Then, in January 2024, the modified stem cells were infused back into Yusuf after he underwent chemotherapy to make room for them in his bone marrow.

In April, a bald-headed Yusuf played with toy dinosaurs while his mother and clinicians met the media at a hospital press conference about his so-far-successful treatment. Early reports about the efficacy of the treatment suggest it may be the proverbial “game changer” for many of the estimated 100,000-plus people in the world who are diagnosed with transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia each year.

Over a median follow-up of 29.5 months, 20 of 22 patients treated with beti-cel no longer needed transfusions, according to a 2022 open-label phase 3 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Only one adverse event — thrombocytopenia in one patient — was considered both serious and related to the treatment, the industry-funded trial reported.
 

Costly Treatment Seems to Be Cost-Effective

As of 2022, gene therapy for transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia was listed as $2.8 million per treatment making it the most expensive single-treatment therapy ever approved in the United States. The price is “extraordinary,” said Dr. Thompson. “For some families, it gives them pause when they first hear about it.”

The hospital makes the case to insurers that covering the treatment is cost-effective in the long run, considering the high cost of traditional treatment, she said. “We’ve been very successful in getting coverage.”

In addition, the independent Institute for Clinical and Economic Review reported in 2022 that the treatment will be cost-effective at the “anticipated price of $2.1 million with an 80% payback option for patients who do not achieve and maintain transfusion independence over a 5-year period.”
 

Moving Forward, Clinicians Want to Reduce Complications

What’s next for transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia treatment? Earlier this year, the FDA approved a second gene therapy treatment called exagamglogene autotemcel (exa-cel, Casgevy). “We’re just beginning to evaluate individuals for the product, and we intend to make it available for families as well,” Dr. Thompson said.

In the bigger picture, she said gene therapy still has room for improvement. The need for chemotherapy is one target. According to her, it causes most of the complications related to gene therapy.

“Chemotherapy is a part of all gene therapies today because one has to make space in the bone marrow in order to have modified stem cells to come back to settle in and grow,” she said.

One strategy is to reduce the number of stem cells that are required for the therapy to work. “That would essentially eliminate the need for chemotherapy,” she said. “We’re not there yet.”

Another goal is to reduce the small risk of complications from gene therapy itself, she said. “Overall, though, this doesn’t detract us at all from being very excited about how well children are doing with the current approach. We’re very enthusiastic and very confident in recommending it to families.”
 

Back on Long Island, a Sense of Relief

Several months after his treatment, Yusuf is doing well. His hemoglobin levels are increasing, and his bone marrow has grown back, his mother said. He’s being home-schooled for the time being because he still faces a risk of infection. (Ms. Ahmed, a stay-at-home mom, has worked a teacher and mosque volunteer. Her husband runs a consumer electronics business.)

As Yusuf gets better, his parents hope they’ll soon be able to take a long trip back home to Pakistan to see relatives. They’ll be able to share their son with family along with something else: a sense of relief.

Dr. Al-Samkari discloses consulting for Agios. Dr. Thompson discloses research for Beam, Bluebird Bio, Editas, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk and consulting for Beam, Bluebird Bio, Editas, Roche, and Vertex.

When she got the news that her young son had been diagnosed with the rare blood disorder known as transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia, Yusara Ahmed knew the drill. Her sister had also experienced the inherited condition and needed to undergo regular blood transfusions simply to survive.

With luck, maybe Ms. Ahmed’s son could follow in his aunt’s footsteps and get a stem cell transplant from a compatible family donor. But while little Yusuf Saeed has a twin sister of his own, she wasn’t a match. Without another treatment option, he’d face the prospect of a lifetime not only cut short but burdened by multiple monthly transfusions and severe limitations.

Then came glimpses of hope. One of Yusuf’s physicians at Cohen Children’s Medical Center in Long Island, New York, told Yusuf’s mother about a new kind of gene therapy on the horizon. But it took time to get FDA approval. Yusuf grew older, heading toward his teenage years, when regular transfusions would be a huge burden. “He’s turning 5 and 6, and there’s nothing,” Ms. Ahmed recalled, and the family worried.

Finally, the FDA approved the one-time treatment — betibeglogene autotemcel (beti-cel, Zynteglo) in 2022. By January 2024, the hospital was ready to treat Yusuf. At age 8, he became the first patient in the state of New York to undergo gene therapy for beta thalassemia.

A medical team infused Yusuf with his own stem cells, which had been genetically engineered to boost production of hemoglobin and prevent thalassemia’s devastating effects.

There are caveats about the treatment. It’s an extraordinarily expensive therapy that can be performed at only a few institutions. And it’s so brand new that caveats may not even have appeared yet. Yet, for kids like Yusuf, the gene therapy could transform a life.

“We feel like a weight has been lifted,” Ms. Ahmed said in an interview. “It’s something we’ve been waiting for.”
 

Anemia Becomes a Lifetime Threat

Among all genetic diseases, thalassemia stands alone. It’s the most common condition caused by a single gene, according to Hanny Al-Samkari, MD, a hematologist/clinical investigator at Massachusetts General Hospital and associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, in Boston, Massachusetts.

Millions of people have the thalassemia trait, especially in southern Europe, the Middle East, southeast Asia, and Africa, Dr. Al-Samkari said. (Yusuf’s parents are from Pakistan.)

The trait, which appears to provide protection against malaria, may cause mild anemia in some cases but is otherwise harmless. However, a child born to parents with the same kind of trait has a high risk of developing alpha thalassemia or beta thalassemia. Like his aunt, Yusuf developed beta thalassemia, which is generally more severe. Yusuf’s bleeding disorder requires him to be transfusion-dependent.

In these patients, the disease disrupts the production of red blood cells in the bone marrow, Dr. Al-Samkari said. Hemoglobin levels can fall to 7 or 8 g/dL, compared with the normal levels of 12-16 g/dL in adults. “They’re chronically anemic, and that low hemoglobin that leads to things you associate with anemia: fatigue, reduced exercise tolerance, mind fog, challenges with work or school, and hypersomnolence.”

In addition, the bones become thinner and more brittle, he said, leading to fractures.

Transfusions are one treatment option, but they’re needed for a lifetime and cause their own problems, such as iron overload. Care of thalassemia patients “becomes quite complex and quite challenging for both families and medical institutions,” Alexis A. Thompson MD, MPH, chief of hematology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, said in an interview.

Yusara Ahmed remembers her sister’s endless visits to the hospital after she was diagnosed at age 4. “We were all very traumatized by the hospital environment,” she said. But good news came in 2008, a few years later, when her sister was able to get a stem cell transplant from their brother.

But while stem cell transplants can be curative, most children don’t have a relative who can be a suitable match as a donor, Dr. Thompson said. Now, gene therapy offers another option, by turning a patient into his or her own matched donor.
 

Stem Cells Out, Stem Cells In

Last year, Yusuf went to Cohen Children’s Medical Center to donate stem cells, which were sent to a laboratory where they were genetically engineered to add copies of the beta-globin gene. Then, in January 2024, the modified stem cells were infused back into Yusuf after he underwent chemotherapy to make room for them in his bone marrow.

In April, a bald-headed Yusuf played with toy dinosaurs while his mother and clinicians met the media at a hospital press conference about his so-far-successful treatment. Early reports about the efficacy of the treatment suggest it may be the proverbial “game changer” for many of the estimated 100,000-plus people in the world who are diagnosed with transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia each year.

Over a median follow-up of 29.5 months, 20 of 22 patients treated with beti-cel no longer needed transfusions, according to a 2022 open-label phase 3 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Only one adverse event — thrombocytopenia in one patient — was considered both serious and related to the treatment, the industry-funded trial reported.
 

Costly Treatment Seems to Be Cost-Effective

As of 2022, gene therapy for transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia was listed as $2.8 million per treatment making it the most expensive single-treatment therapy ever approved in the United States. The price is “extraordinary,” said Dr. Thompson. “For some families, it gives them pause when they first hear about it.”

The hospital makes the case to insurers that covering the treatment is cost-effective in the long run, considering the high cost of traditional treatment, she said. “We’ve been very successful in getting coverage.”

In addition, the independent Institute for Clinical and Economic Review reported in 2022 that the treatment will be cost-effective at the “anticipated price of $2.1 million with an 80% payback option for patients who do not achieve and maintain transfusion independence over a 5-year period.”
 

Moving Forward, Clinicians Want to Reduce Complications

What’s next for transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia treatment? Earlier this year, the FDA approved a second gene therapy treatment called exagamglogene autotemcel (exa-cel, Casgevy). “We’re just beginning to evaluate individuals for the product, and we intend to make it available for families as well,” Dr. Thompson said.

In the bigger picture, she said gene therapy still has room for improvement. The need for chemotherapy is one target. According to her, it causes most of the complications related to gene therapy.

“Chemotherapy is a part of all gene therapies today because one has to make space in the bone marrow in order to have modified stem cells to come back to settle in and grow,” she said.

One strategy is to reduce the number of stem cells that are required for the therapy to work. “That would essentially eliminate the need for chemotherapy,” she said. “We’re not there yet.”

Another goal is to reduce the small risk of complications from gene therapy itself, she said. “Overall, though, this doesn’t detract us at all from being very excited about how well children are doing with the current approach. We’re very enthusiastic and very confident in recommending it to families.”
 

Back on Long Island, a Sense of Relief

Several months after his treatment, Yusuf is doing well. His hemoglobin levels are increasing, and his bone marrow has grown back, his mother said. He’s being home-schooled for the time being because he still faces a risk of infection. (Ms. Ahmed, a stay-at-home mom, has worked a teacher and mosque volunteer. Her husband runs a consumer electronics business.)

As Yusuf gets better, his parents hope they’ll soon be able to take a long trip back home to Pakistan to see relatives. They’ll be able to share their son with family along with something else: a sense of relief.

Dr. Al-Samkari discloses consulting for Agios. Dr. Thompson discloses research for Beam, Bluebird Bio, Editas, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk and consulting for Beam, Bluebird Bio, Editas, Roche, and Vertex.

When she got the news that her young son had been diagnosed with the rare blood disorder known as transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia, Yusara Ahmed knew the drill. Her sister had also experienced the inherited condition and needed to undergo regular blood transfusions simply to survive.

With luck, maybe Ms. Ahmed’s son could follow in his aunt’s footsteps and get a stem cell transplant from a compatible family donor. But while little Yusuf Saeed has a twin sister of his own, she wasn’t a match. Without another treatment option, he’d face the prospect of a lifetime not only cut short but burdened by multiple monthly transfusions and severe limitations.

Then came glimpses of hope. One of Yusuf’s physicians at Cohen Children’s Medical Center in Long Island, New York, told Yusuf’s mother about a new kind of gene therapy on the horizon. But it took time to get FDA approval. Yusuf grew older, heading toward his teenage years, when regular transfusions would be a huge burden. “He’s turning 5 and 6, and there’s nothing,” Ms. Ahmed recalled, and the family worried.

Finally, the FDA approved the one-time treatment — betibeglogene autotemcel (beti-cel, Zynteglo) in 2022. By January 2024, the hospital was ready to treat Yusuf. At age 8, he became the first patient in the state of New York to undergo gene therapy for beta thalassemia.

A medical team infused Yusuf with his own stem cells, which had been genetically engineered to boost production of hemoglobin and prevent thalassemia’s devastating effects.

There are caveats about the treatment. It’s an extraordinarily expensive therapy that can be performed at only a few institutions. And it’s so brand new that caveats may not even have appeared yet. Yet, for kids like Yusuf, the gene therapy could transform a life.

“We feel like a weight has been lifted,” Ms. Ahmed said in an interview. “It’s something we’ve been waiting for.”
 

Anemia Becomes a Lifetime Threat

Among all genetic diseases, thalassemia stands alone. It’s the most common condition caused by a single gene, according to Hanny Al-Samkari, MD, a hematologist/clinical investigator at Massachusetts General Hospital and associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, in Boston, Massachusetts.

Millions of people have the thalassemia trait, especially in southern Europe, the Middle East, southeast Asia, and Africa, Dr. Al-Samkari said. (Yusuf’s parents are from Pakistan.)

The trait, which appears to provide protection against malaria, may cause mild anemia in some cases but is otherwise harmless. However, a child born to parents with the same kind of trait has a high risk of developing alpha thalassemia or beta thalassemia. Like his aunt, Yusuf developed beta thalassemia, which is generally more severe. Yusuf’s bleeding disorder requires him to be transfusion-dependent.

In these patients, the disease disrupts the production of red blood cells in the bone marrow, Dr. Al-Samkari said. Hemoglobin levels can fall to 7 or 8 g/dL, compared with the normal levels of 12-16 g/dL in adults. “They’re chronically anemic, and that low hemoglobin that leads to things you associate with anemia: fatigue, reduced exercise tolerance, mind fog, challenges with work or school, and hypersomnolence.”

In addition, the bones become thinner and more brittle, he said, leading to fractures.

Transfusions are one treatment option, but they’re needed for a lifetime and cause their own problems, such as iron overload. Care of thalassemia patients “becomes quite complex and quite challenging for both families and medical institutions,” Alexis A. Thompson MD, MPH, chief of hematology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, said in an interview.

Yusara Ahmed remembers her sister’s endless visits to the hospital after she was diagnosed at age 4. “We were all very traumatized by the hospital environment,” she said. But good news came in 2008, a few years later, when her sister was able to get a stem cell transplant from their brother.

But while stem cell transplants can be curative, most children don’t have a relative who can be a suitable match as a donor, Dr. Thompson said. Now, gene therapy offers another option, by turning a patient into his or her own matched donor.
 

Stem Cells Out, Stem Cells In

Last year, Yusuf went to Cohen Children’s Medical Center to donate stem cells, which were sent to a laboratory where they were genetically engineered to add copies of the beta-globin gene. Then, in January 2024, the modified stem cells were infused back into Yusuf after he underwent chemotherapy to make room for them in his bone marrow.

In April, a bald-headed Yusuf played with toy dinosaurs while his mother and clinicians met the media at a hospital press conference about his so-far-successful treatment. Early reports about the efficacy of the treatment suggest it may be the proverbial “game changer” for many of the estimated 100,000-plus people in the world who are diagnosed with transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia each year.

Over a median follow-up of 29.5 months, 20 of 22 patients treated with beti-cel no longer needed transfusions, according to a 2022 open-label phase 3 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Only one adverse event — thrombocytopenia in one patient — was considered both serious and related to the treatment, the industry-funded trial reported.
 

Costly Treatment Seems to Be Cost-Effective

As of 2022, gene therapy for transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia was listed as $2.8 million per treatment making it the most expensive single-treatment therapy ever approved in the United States. The price is “extraordinary,” said Dr. Thompson. “For some families, it gives them pause when they first hear about it.”

The hospital makes the case to insurers that covering the treatment is cost-effective in the long run, considering the high cost of traditional treatment, she said. “We’ve been very successful in getting coverage.”

In addition, the independent Institute for Clinical and Economic Review reported in 2022 that the treatment will be cost-effective at the “anticipated price of $2.1 million with an 80% payback option for patients who do not achieve and maintain transfusion independence over a 5-year period.”
 

Moving Forward, Clinicians Want to Reduce Complications

What’s next for transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia treatment? Earlier this year, the FDA approved a second gene therapy treatment called exagamglogene autotemcel (exa-cel, Casgevy). “We’re just beginning to evaluate individuals for the product, and we intend to make it available for families as well,” Dr. Thompson said.

In the bigger picture, she said gene therapy still has room for improvement. The need for chemotherapy is one target. According to her, it causes most of the complications related to gene therapy.

“Chemotherapy is a part of all gene therapies today because one has to make space in the bone marrow in order to have modified stem cells to come back to settle in and grow,” she said.

One strategy is to reduce the number of stem cells that are required for the therapy to work. “That would essentially eliminate the need for chemotherapy,” she said. “We’re not there yet.”

Another goal is to reduce the small risk of complications from gene therapy itself, she said. “Overall, though, this doesn’t detract us at all from being very excited about how well children are doing with the current approach. We’re very enthusiastic and very confident in recommending it to families.”
 

Back on Long Island, a Sense of Relief

Several months after his treatment, Yusuf is doing well. His hemoglobin levels are increasing, and his bone marrow has grown back, his mother said. He’s being home-schooled for the time being because he still faces a risk of infection. (Ms. Ahmed, a stay-at-home mom, has worked a teacher and mosque volunteer. Her husband runs a consumer electronics business.)

As Yusuf gets better, his parents hope they’ll soon be able to take a long trip back home to Pakistan to see relatives. They’ll be able to share their son with family along with something else: a sense of relief.

Dr. Al-Samkari discloses consulting for Agios. Dr. Thompson discloses research for Beam, Bluebird Bio, Editas, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk and consulting for Beam, Bluebird Bio, Editas, Roche, and Vertex.

The largest US physician organization wrestled with the professional risks and rewards of artificial intelligence (AI) at its annual meeting, delaying action even as it adopted new policies on prior authorization and other concerns for clinicians and patients.

Physicians and medical students at the annual meeting of the American Medical Association (AMA) House of Delegates in Chicago intensely debated a report and two key resolutions on AI but could not reach consensus, pushing off decision-making until a future meeting in November.

One resolution would establish “augmented intelligence” as the preferred term for AI, reflecting the desired role of these tools in supporting — not making — physicians’ decisions. The other resolution focused on insurers’ use of AI in determining medical necessity.

(See specific policies adopted at the meeting, held June 8-12, below.)

A comprehensive AMA trustees’ report on AI considered additional issues including requirements for disclosing AI use, liability for harms due to flawed application of AI, data privacy, and cybersecurity.

The AMA intends to “continue to methodically assess these issues and make informed recommendations in proposing new policy,” said Bobby Mukkamala, MD, an otolaryngologist from Flint, Michigan, who became the AMA’s new president-elect.

AMA members at the meeting largely applauded the aim of these AI proposals, but some objected to parts of the trustees’ report.

They raised questions about what, exactly, constitutes an AI-powered service and whether all AI tools need the kind of guardrails the AMA may seek. There also were concerns about calls to make AI use more transparent.

While transparency might be an admirable goal, it might prove too hard to achieve given that AI-powered tools and products are already woven into medical practice in ways that physicians may not know or understand, said Christopher Libby, MD, MPH, a clinical informaticist and emergency physician at Cedars Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles.

“It’s hard for the practicing clinician to know how every piece of technology works in order to describe it to the patient,” Dr. Libby said at the meeting. “How many people here can identify when algorithms are used in their EHR today?”

He suggested asking for more transparency from the companies that make and sell AI-powered software and tools to insurers and healthcare systems.

Steven H. Kroft, MD, the editor of the American Journal of Clinical Pathology, raised concerns about the unintended harm that unchecked use of AI may pose to scientific research.

He asked the AMA to address “a significant omission in an otherwise comprehensive report” — the need to protect the integrity of study results that can direct patient care.

“While sham science is not a new issue, large language models make it far easier for authors to generate fake papers and far harder for editors, reviewers, and publishers to identify them,” Dr. Kroft said. “This is a rapidly growing phenomenon that is threatening the integrity of the literature. These papers become embedded in the evidence bases that drive clinical decision-making.”

AMA has been working with specialty societies and outside AI experts to refine an effective set of recommendations. The new policies, once finalized, are intended to build on steps AMA already has taken, including last year releasing principles for AI development, deployment, and use.
 

Congress Mulling

The AMA delegates are far from alone in facing AI policy challenges.

Leaders in Congress also are examining AI guardrails, with influential panels such as the Senate Finance and House Energy and Commerce committees holding hearings.

A key congressional AI effort to watch is the expected implementation of a bipartisan Senate “road map,” which Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and colleagues released in May, said Miranda A. Franco, a senior policy advisor at the law firm Holland & Knight.

The product of many months of deliberation, this Senate road map identifies priorities for future legislation, including:

• Creating appropriate guardrails and safety measures to protect patients.
• Making healthcare and biomedical data available for machine learning and data science research while carefully addressing privacy issues.
• Providing transparency for clinicians and the public about the use of AI in medical products and clinical support services, including the data used to train models.
• Examining the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ reimbursement mechanisms as well as guardrails to ensure accountability, appropriate use, and broad application of AI across all populations.

Congress likely will address issues of AI in healthcare in piecemeal fashion, taking on different aspects of these challenges at different times, Ms. Franco said. The Senate road map gives the key committees directions on where to proceed in their efforts to develop new laws.

“I think this is all going to be slow and rolling, not big and sweeping,” Ms. Franco told this news organization. “I don’t think we’re going to see an encompassing AI bill.”
 

AMA Policies Adopted on Other Issues

At the June meeting, AMA delegates adopted the following policies aiming to:

• Increase oversight and accountability of health insurers’ use of prior authorization controls on patient access to care.
• Encourage policy changes allowing physicians to receive loan forgiveness when they practice in an Indian Health Service, Tribal, or Urban Indian Health Program, similar to physicians practicing in a Veterans Administration facility.
• Advocate for federal policy that limits a patient’s out-of-pocket cost to be the same or less than the amount that a patient with traditional Medicare plus a Medigap plan would pay.
• Oppose state or national legislation that could criminalize in vitro fertilization.
• Limit what the AMA calls the “expensive” cost for Medicare Advantage enrollees who need physician-administered drugs or biologics.
• Help physicians address the handling of de-identified patient data in a rapidly changing digital health ecosystem.
• Support efforts to decriminalize the possession of non-prescribed buprenorphine for personal use by individuals who lack access to a physician for the treatment of opioid use disorder.
• Expand access to hearing, vision, and dental care. The new AMA policy advocates working with state medical associations to support coverage of hearing exams, hearing aids, cochlear implants, and vision exams and aids. The revised AMA policy also supports working with the American Dental Association and other national organizations to improve access to dental care for people enrolled in Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP programs.
• Increase enrollment of more women and sexual and gender minority populations in clinical trials.

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

The largest US physician organization wrestled with the professional risks and rewards of artificial intelligence (AI) at its annual meeting, delaying action even as it adopted new policies on prior authorization and other concerns for clinicians and patients.

Physicians and medical students at the annual meeting of the American Medical Association (AMA) House of Delegates in Chicago intensely debated a report and two key resolutions on AI but could not reach consensus, pushing off decision-making until a future meeting in November.

One resolution would establish “augmented intelligence” as the preferred term for AI, reflecting the desired role of these tools in supporting — not making — physicians’ decisions. The other resolution focused on insurers’ use of AI in determining medical necessity.

(See specific policies adopted at the meeting, held June 8-12, below.)

A comprehensive AMA trustees’ report on AI considered additional issues including requirements for disclosing AI use, liability for harms due to flawed application of AI, data privacy, and cybersecurity.

The AMA intends to “continue to methodically assess these issues and make informed recommendations in proposing new policy,” said Bobby Mukkamala, MD, an otolaryngologist from Flint, Michigan, who became the AMA’s new president-elect.

AMA members at the meeting largely applauded the aim of these AI proposals, but some objected to parts of the trustees’ report.

They raised questions about what, exactly, constitutes an AI-powered service and whether all AI tools need the kind of guardrails the AMA may seek. There also were concerns about calls to make AI use more transparent.

While transparency might be an admirable goal, it might prove too hard to achieve given that AI-powered tools and products are already woven into medical practice in ways that physicians may not know or understand, said Christopher Libby, MD, MPH, a clinical informaticist and emergency physician at Cedars Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles.

“It’s hard for the practicing clinician to know how every piece of technology works in order to describe it to the patient,” Dr. Libby said at the meeting. “How many people here can identify when algorithms are used in their EHR today?”

He suggested asking for more transparency from the companies that make and sell AI-powered software and tools to insurers and healthcare systems.

Steven H. Kroft, MD, the editor of the American Journal of Clinical Pathology, raised concerns about the unintended harm that unchecked use of AI may pose to scientific research.

He asked the AMA to address “a significant omission in an otherwise comprehensive report” — the need to protect the integrity of study results that can direct patient care.

“While sham science is not a new issue, large language models make it far easier for authors to generate fake papers and far harder for editors, reviewers, and publishers to identify them,” Dr. Kroft said. “This is a rapidly growing phenomenon that is threatening the integrity of the literature. These papers become embedded in the evidence bases that drive clinical decision-making.”

AMA has been working with specialty societies and outside AI experts to refine an effective set of recommendations. The new policies, once finalized, are intended to build on steps AMA already has taken, including last year releasing principles for AI development, deployment, and use.
 

Congress Mulling

The AMA delegates are far from alone in facing AI policy challenges.

Leaders in Congress also are examining AI guardrails, with influential panels such as the Senate Finance and House Energy and Commerce committees holding hearings.

A key congressional AI effort to watch is the expected implementation of a bipartisan Senate “road map,” which Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and colleagues released in May, said Miranda A. Franco, a senior policy advisor at the law firm Holland & Knight.

The product of many months of deliberation, this Senate road map identifies priorities for future legislation, including:

• Creating appropriate guardrails and safety measures to protect patients.
• Making healthcare and biomedical data available for machine learning and data science research while carefully addressing privacy issues.
• Providing transparency for clinicians and the public about the use of AI in medical products and clinical support services, including the data used to train models.
• Examining the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ reimbursement mechanisms as well as guardrails to ensure accountability, appropriate use, and broad application of AI across all populations.

Congress likely will address issues of AI in healthcare in piecemeal fashion, taking on different aspects of these challenges at different times, Ms. Franco said. The Senate road map gives the key committees directions on where to proceed in their efforts to develop new laws.

“I think this is all going to be slow and rolling, not big and sweeping,” Ms. Franco told this news organization. “I don’t think we’re going to see an encompassing AI bill.”
 

AMA Policies Adopted on Other Issues

At the June meeting, AMA delegates adopted the following policies aiming to:

• Increase oversight and accountability of health insurers’ use of prior authorization controls on patient access to care.
• Encourage policy changes allowing physicians to receive loan forgiveness when they practice in an Indian Health Service, Tribal, or Urban Indian Health Program, similar to physicians practicing in a Veterans Administration facility.
• Advocate for federal policy that limits a patient’s out-of-pocket cost to be the same or less than the amount that a patient with traditional Medicare plus a Medigap plan would pay.
• Oppose state or national legislation that could criminalize in vitro fertilization.
• Limit what the AMA calls the “expensive” cost for Medicare Advantage enrollees who need physician-administered drugs or biologics.
• Help physicians address the handling of de-identified patient data in a rapidly changing digital health ecosystem.
• Support efforts to decriminalize the possession of non-prescribed buprenorphine for personal use by individuals who lack access to a physician for the treatment of opioid use disorder.
• Expand access to hearing, vision, and dental care. The new AMA policy advocates working with state medical associations to support coverage of hearing exams, hearing aids, cochlear implants, and vision exams and aids. The revised AMA policy also supports working with the American Dental Association and other national organizations to improve access to dental care for people enrolled in Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP programs.
• Increase enrollment of more women and sexual and gender minority populations in clinical trials.

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

The largest US physician organization wrestled with the professional risks and rewards of artificial intelligence (AI) at its annual meeting, delaying action even as it adopted new policies on prior authorization and other concerns for clinicians and patients.

Physicians and medical students at the annual meeting of the American Medical Association (AMA) House of Delegates in Chicago intensely debated a report and two key resolutions on AI but could not reach consensus, pushing off decision-making until a future meeting in November.

One resolution would establish “augmented intelligence” as the preferred term for AI, reflecting the desired role of these tools in supporting — not making — physicians’ decisions. The other resolution focused on insurers’ use of AI in determining medical necessity.

(See specific policies adopted at the meeting, held June 8-12, below.)

A comprehensive AMA trustees’ report on AI considered additional issues including requirements for disclosing AI use, liability for harms due to flawed application of AI, data privacy, and cybersecurity.

The AMA intends to “continue to methodically assess these issues and make informed recommendations in proposing new policy,” said Bobby Mukkamala, MD, an otolaryngologist from Flint, Michigan, who became the AMA’s new president-elect.

AMA members at the meeting largely applauded the aim of these AI proposals, but some objected to parts of the trustees’ report.

They raised questions about what, exactly, constitutes an AI-powered service and whether all AI tools need the kind of guardrails the AMA may seek. There also were concerns about calls to make AI use more transparent.

While transparency might be an admirable goal, it might prove too hard to achieve given that AI-powered tools and products are already woven into medical practice in ways that physicians may not know or understand, said Christopher Libby, MD, MPH, a clinical informaticist and emergency physician at Cedars Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles.

“It’s hard for the practicing clinician to know how every piece of technology works in order to describe it to the patient,” Dr. Libby said at the meeting. “How many people here can identify when algorithms are used in their EHR today?”

He suggested asking for more transparency from the companies that make and sell AI-powered software and tools to insurers and healthcare systems.

Steven H. Kroft, MD, the editor of the American Journal of Clinical Pathology, raised concerns about the unintended harm that unchecked use of AI may pose to scientific research.

He asked the AMA to address “a significant omission in an otherwise comprehensive report” — the need to protect the integrity of study results that can direct patient care.

“While sham science is not a new issue, large language models make it far easier for authors to generate fake papers and far harder for editors, reviewers, and publishers to identify them,” Dr. Kroft said. “This is a rapidly growing phenomenon that is threatening the integrity of the literature. These papers become embedded in the evidence bases that drive clinical decision-making.”

AMA has been working with specialty societies and outside AI experts to refine an effective set of recommendations. The new policies, once finalized, are intended to build on steps AMA already has taken, including last year releasing principles for AI development, deployment, and use.
 

Congress Mulling

The AMA delegates are far from alone in facing AI policy challenges.

Leaders in Congress also are examining AI guardrails, with influential panels such as the Senate Finance and House Energy and Commerce committees holding hearings.

A key congressional AI effort to watch is the expected implementation of a bipartisan Senate “road map,” which Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and colleagues released in May, said Miranda A. Franco, a senior policy advisor at the law firm Holland & Knight.

The product of many months of deliberation, this Senate road map identifies priorities for future legislation, including:

• Creating appropriate guardrails and safety measures to protect patients.
• Making healthcare and biomedical data available for machine learning and data science research while carefully addressing privacy issues.
• Providing transparency for clinicians and the public about the use of AI in medical products and clinical support services, including the data used to train models.
• Examining the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ reimbursement mechanisms as well as guardrails to ensure accountability, appropriate use, and broad application of AI across all populations.

Congress likely will address issues of AI in healthcare in piecemeal fashion, taking on different aspects of these challenges at different times, Ms. Franco said. The Senate road map gives the key committees directions on where to proceed in their efforts to develop new laws.

“I think this is all going to be slow and rolling, not big and sweeping,” Ms. Franco told this news organization. “I don’t think we’re going to see an encompassing AI bill.”
 

AMA Policies Adopted on Other Issues

At the June meeting, AMA delegates adopted the following policies aiming to:

• Increase oversight and accountability of health insurers’ use of prior authorization controls on patient access to care.
• Encourage policy changes allowing physicians to receive loan forgiveness when they practice in an Indian Health Service, Tribal, or Urban Indian Health Program, similar to physicians practicing in a Veterans Administration facility.
• Advocate for federal policy that limits a patient’s out-of-pocket cost to be the same or less than the amount that a patient with traditional Medicare plus a Medigap plan would pay.
• Oppose state or national legislation that could criminalize in vitro fertilization.
• Limit what the AMA calls the “expensive” cost for Medicare Advantage enrollees who need physician-administered drugs or biologics.
• Help physicians address the handling of de-identified patient data in a rapidly changing digital health ecosystem.
• Support efforts to decriminalize the possession of non-prescribed buprenorphine for personal use by individuals who lack access to a physician for the treatment of opioid use disorder.
• Expand access to hearing, vision, and dental care. The new AMA policy advocates working with state medical associations to support coverage of hearing exams, hearing aids, cochlear implants, and vision exams and aids. The revised AMA policy also supports working with the American Dental Association and other national organizations to improve access to dental care for people enrolled in Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP programs.
• Increase enrollment of more women and sexual and gender minority populations in clinical trials.

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

The addition of an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody to the standard first-line combination treatment significantly improved outcomes in newly diagnosed, transplant-ineligible patients with multiple myeloma (MM), according to an interim analysis of an open-label, randomized, phase 3 trial.

Patients who took isatuximab (Sarclisa) plus bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) reached higher estimated progression-free survival at a median 59.7 months vs. those who took VRd alone (63.2% vs. 45.2%, respectively, 98.5% CI, hazard ratio [HR] = 0.60, P < .001), reported Thierry Facon, MD, professor of hematology at Lille University Hospital, France, and colleagues at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Chicago. The study was simultaneously published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

“The significant progression-free benefit observed with Sarclisa with combination therapy compared to VRd is important and encouraging for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma,” Dr. Facon said in an interview. The findings demonstrated the VRd-isatuximab’s potential as “a first-in-class combination to address gaps in care for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma transplant-ineligible patients,” he said.

According to Dr. Facon, more than 180,000 people worldwide are diagnosed with MM each year, he said, making it the second-most common hematologic malignancy. 

“There is a need for new frontline therapeutic options for all MM patients,” he said. “Effective frontline therapy has the potential to modify the course of the disease, which is a key outcome for transplant-ineligible patients who often face high rates of attrition in later lines of therapy.”

For the industry-funded IMROZ study, researchers recruited patients aged 18-80 at 93 sites in 21 nations from 2017-2019. All were ineligible for transplant due to comorbidities or being aged 65 or older. Exclusions included Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status scores of more than 2.

The subjects were randomly assigned in a 3-to-2 ratio to isatuximab-VRd (n = 265) or VRd alone (n = 181) and received four induction cycles (6 weeks per cycle) followed by 4-week cycles of continuous treatment until disease progression, unacceptable adverse event, or other criteria for discontinuation. If progression occurred, patients could be switched from the VRd-only group to the isatuximab-VRd group.

The median age in both the isatuximab-VRd and VRd groups was 72. The percentages of women were 46.0% and 48.1%, respectively, and 72.5% and 72.4%, respectively, were White. The next largest race/ethnic group was Asian (11.7% and 9.4%, respectively). Almost all had ECOG status of 0 or 1 (88.7% and 89.5%, respectively).

At study cut-off in September 2023, the percentages of subjects in the isatuximab-VRd and VRd groups who were still receiving treatment were 47.2% and 24.3%, respectively.

An intention-to-treat analysis found that the two groups had similar rates of overall response (91.3% for isatuximab-VRd vs. 92.3% for VRd), but the isatuximab-VRd group had higher complete or better response (74.7% vs. 64.1%, P = .01).

The percentage of patients who were minimal residual disease (MRD)-negative and had a complete response was also higher in the VRd-isatuximab group vs. the VRd group (55.5% vs. 40.9%, respectively, P = .003). A total of 26.0% of patients in the VRd-isatuximab group died vs. 32.6% in the VRd group; the estimated overall survival rates at 60 months were 72.3% and 66.3%, respectively, HR = 0.78, 99.97% CI).

As for adverse events, grade 5 events were more common in the VRd-isatuximab group (11.0% vs. 5.5%), as were deaths within the first 60 days of treatment (1.5% vs. 0.6%). “The difference was driven in part by different treatment exposures,” the researchers reported. Treatment-emergent events led to treatment discontinuation in 22.8% and 26.0% of patients, respectively.

“The safety and tolerability of Sarclisa observed was consistent with the established safety profile of Sarclisa and VRd with no new safety signals observed,” Dr. Facon said.

In an interview, Zandra Klippel, MD, global product head for multiple myeloma at Sanofi — the maker of isatuximab and funder of the study — said the Food and Drug Administration has accepted a priority review application for the investigational use of isatuximab in combination with VRd for the treatment of patients with transplant-ineligible, newly diagnosed MM.

“Our FDA approval date is expected on September 27, 2024,” Dr. Klippel said. “If all goes well, we anticipate launching as early as 2024 in the US and rolling out in other key countries starting in 2025 and continuing through 2026.”

Dr. Klippel added that isatuximab “continues to be evaluated in multiple ongoing phase 3 clinical trials in combination with current standard treatments across the MM treatment continuum.”

In an interview, Sagar Lonial, MD, chair and professor of hematology and medical oncology and chief medical officer at Winship Cancer Institute at Emory University in Atlanta, said the study is “important.”

However, Dr. Lonial, who is familiar with the findings but didn’t take part in the study, said it’s difficult to understand the impact of the treatment on frail patients. It appears that the combination treatment may be good for frail patients, he said, “but I need to better understand the magnitude of the benefit in that subset a little more.”

As for adverse events, he said “they are what would be expected for a trial like this.”

Pneumonia and COVID-19 infections were higher in the VRd-isatuximab group, he said, and “we know in general that vaccine responses are blocked by CD38 antibodies.” This can be managed, he said, via intravenous immunoglobulin support.

Manni Mohyuddin, MD, assistant professor at Huntsman Cancer Institute in Utah, said in an interview that the findings suggest that in older, fit patients, “you can get fairly good outcomes without use of transplant.”

In the United States, many more patients in the cohort would have been considered transplant-eligible, he said, and not eliminated from consideration for transplant due to age over 65. However, as patients age, “you get more diminishing returns for transplants,” said Dr. Mohyuddin, who is familiar with the study findings but didn’t take part in the research.

All the drugs in the new combination are FDA approved, he said, although the combination isn’t. “I suspect this will make it to our guidelines very soon and then be reimbursed by insurance companies and Medicare.”

The study was funded by Sanofi and an M.D. Anderson Cancer Center support grant. Dr. Facon has no disclosures. Other study authors report multiple ties relationships with various drug makers. Dr. Lonial disclosed ties with Takeda, Amgen, Novartis, BMS, GSK, AbbVie, Genentech, Pfizer, Regeneron, Janssen, AstraZeneca, and TG Therapeutics). Dr. Mohyuddin disclosed a relationship with Janssen.

The addition of an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody to the standard first-line combination treatment significantly improved outcomes in newly diagnosed, transplant-ineligible patients with multiple myeloma (MM), according to an interim analysis of an open-label, randomized, phase 3 trial.

Patients who took isatuximab (Sarclisa) plus bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) reached higher estimated progression-free survival at a median 59.7 months vs. those who took VRd alone (63.2% vs. 45.2%, respectively, 98.5% CI, hazard ratio [HR] = 0.60, P < .001), reported Thierry Facon, MD, professor of hematology at Lille University Hospital, France, and colleagues at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Chicago. The study was simultaneously published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

“The significant progression-free benefit observed with Sarclisa with combination therapy compared to VRd is important and encouraging for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma,” Dr. Facon said in an interview. The findings demonstrated the VRd-isatuximab’s potential as “a first-in-class combination to address gaps in care for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma transplant-ineligible patients,” he said.

According to Dr. Facon, more than 180,000 people worldwide are diagnosed with MM each year, he said, making it the second-most common hematologic malignancy. 

“There is a need for new frontline therapeutic options for all MM patients,” he said. “Effective frontline therapy has the potential to modify the course of the disease, which is a key outcome for transplant-ineligible patients who often face high rates of attrition in later lines of therapy.”

For the industry-funded IMROZ study, researchers recruited patients aged 18-80 at 93 sites in 21 nations from 2017-2019. All were ineligible for transplant due to comorbidities or being aged 65 or older. Exclusions included Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status scores of more than 2.

The subjects were randomly assigned in a 3-to-2 ratio to isatuximab-VRd (n = 265) or VRd alone (n = 181) and received four induction cycles (6 weeks per cycle) followed by 4-week cycles of continuous treatment until disease progression, unacceptable adverse event, or other criteria for discontinuation. If progression occurred, patients could be switched from the VRd-only group to the isatuximab-VRd group.

The median age in both the isatuximab-VRd and VRd groups was 72. The percentages of women were 46.0% and 48.1%, respectively, and 72.5% and 72.4%, respectively, were White. The next largest race/ethnic group was Asian (11.7% and 9.4%, respectively). Almost all had ECOG status of 0 or 1 (88.7% and 89.5%, respectively).

At study cut-off in September 2023, the percentages of subjects in the isatuximab-VRd and VRd groups who were still receiving treatment were 47.2% and 24.3%, respectively.

An intention-to-treat analysis found that the two groups had similar rates of overall response (91.3% for isatuximab-VRd vs. 92.3% for VRd), but the isatuximab-VRd group had higher complete or better response (74.7% vs. 64.1%, P = .01).

The percentage of patients who were minimal residual disease (MRD)-negative and had a complete response was also higher in the VRd-isatuximab group vs. the VRd group (55.5% vs. 40.9%, respectively, P = .003). A total of 26.0% of patients in the VRd-isatuximab group died vs. 32.6% in the VRd group; the estimated overall survival rates at 60 months were 72.3% and 66.3%, respectively, HR = 0.78, 99.97% CI).

As for adverse events, grade 5 events were more common in the VRd-isatuximab group (11.0% vs. 5.5%), as were deaths within the first 60 days of treatment (1.5% vs. 0.6%). “The difference was driven in part by different treatment exposures,” the researchers reported. Treatment-emergent events led to treatment discontinuation in 22.8% and 26.0% of patients, respectively.

“The safety and tolerability of Sarclisa observed was consistent with the established safety profile of Sarclisa and VRd with no new safety signals observed,” Dr. Facon said.

In an interview, Zandra Klippel, MD, global product head for multiple myeloma at Sanofi — the maker of isatuximab and funder of the study — said the Food and Drug Administration has accepted a priority review application for the investigational use of isatuximab in combination with VRd for the treatment of patients with transplant-ineligible, newly diagnosed MM.

“Our FDA approval date is expected on September 27, 2024,” Dr. Klippel said. “If all goes well, we anticipate launching as early as 2024 in the US and rolling out in other key countries starting in 2025 and continuing through 2026.”

Dr. Klippel added that isatuximab “continues to be evaluated in multiple ongoing phase 3 clinical trials in combination with current standard treatments across the MM treatment continuum.”

In an interview, Sagar Lonial, MD, chair and professor of hematology and medical oncology and chief medical officer at Winship Cancer Institute at Emory University in Atlanta, said the study is “important.”

However, Dr. Lonial, who is familiar with the findings but didn’t take part in the study, said it’s difficult to understand the impact of the treatment on frail patients. It appears that the combination treatment may be good for frail patients, he said, “but I need to better understand the magnitude of the benefit in that subset a little more.”

As for adverse events, he said “they are what would be expected for a trial like this.”

Pneumonia and COVID-19 infections were higher in the VRd-isatuximab group, he said, and “we know in general that vaccine responses are blocked by CD38 antibodies.” This can be managed, he said, via intravenous immunoglobulin support.

Manni Mohyuddin, MD, assistant professor at Huntsman Cancer Institute in Utah, said in an interview that the findings suggest that in older, fit patients, “you can get fairly good outcomes without use of transplant.”

In the United States, many more patients in the cohort would have been considered transplant-eligible, he said, and not eliminated from consideration for transplant due to age over 65. However, as patients age, “you get more diminishing returns for transplants,” said Dr. Mohyuddin, who is familiar with the study findings but didn’t take part in the research.

All the drugs in the new combination are FDA approved, he said, although the combination isn’t. “I suspect this will make it to our guidelines very soon and then be reimbursed by insurance companies and Medicare.”

The study was funded by Sanofi and an M.D. Anderson Cancer Center support grant. Dr. Facon has no disclosures. Other study authors report multiple ties relationships with various drug makers. Dr. Lonial disclosed ties with Takeda, Amgen, Novartis, BMS, GSK, AbbVie, Genentech, Pfizer, Regeneron, Janssen, AstraZeneca, and TG Therapeutics). Dr. Mohyuddin disclosed a relationship with Janssen.

The addition of an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody to the standard first-line combination treatment significantly improved outcomes in newly diagnosed, transplant-ineligible patients with multiple myeloma (MM), according to an interim analysis of an open-label, randomized, phase 3 trial.

Patients who took isatuximab (Sarclisa) plus bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) reached higher estimated progression-free survival at a median 59.7 months vs. those who took VRd alone (63.2% vs. 45.2%, respectively, 98.5% CI, hazard ratio [HR] = 0.60, P < .001), reported Thierry Facon, MD, professor of hematology at Lille University Hospital, France, and colleagues at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Chicago. The study was simultaneously published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

“The significant progression-free benefit observed with Sarclisa with combination therapy compared to VRd is important and encouraging for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma,” Dr. Facon said in an interview. The findings demonstrated the VRd-isatuximab’s potential as “a first-in-class combination to address gaps in care for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma transplant-ineligible patients,” he said.

According to Dr. Facon, more than 180,000 people worldwide are diagnosed with MM each year, he said, making it the second-most common hematologic malignancy. 

“There is a need for new frontline therapeutic options for all MM patients,” he said. “Effective frontline therapy has the potential to modify the course of the disease, which is a key outcome for transplant-ineligible patients who often face high rates of attrition in later lines of therapy.”

For the industry-funded IMROZ study, researchers recruited patients aged 18-80 at 93 sites in 21 nations from 2017-2019. All were ineligible for transplant due to comorbidities or being aged 65 or older. Exclusions included Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status scores of more than 2.

The subjects were randomly assigned in a 3-to-2 ratio to isatuximab-VRd (n = 265) or VRd alone (n = 181) and received four induction cycles (6 weeks per cycle) followed by 4-week cycles of continuous treatment until disease progression, unacceptable adverse event, or other criteria for discontinuation. If progression occurred, patients could be switched from the VRd-only group to the isatuximab-VRd group.

The median age in both the isatuximab-VRd and VRd groups was 72. The percentages of women were 46.0% and 48.1%, respectively, and 72.5% and 72.4%, respectively, were White. The next largest race/ethnic group was Asian (11.7% and 9.4%, respectively). Almost all had ECOG status of 0 or 1 (88.7% and 89.5%, respectively).

At study cut-off in September 2023, the percentages of subjects in the isatuximab-VRd and VRd groups who were still receiving treatment were 47.2% and 24.3%, respectively.

An intention-to-treat analysis found that the two groups had similar rates of overall response (91.3% for isatuximab-VRd vs. 92.3% for VRd), but the isatuximab-VRd group had higher complete or better response (74.7% vs. 64.1%, P = .01).

The percentage of patients who were minimal residual disease (MRD)-negative and had a complete response was also higher in the VRd-isatuximab group vs. the VRd group (55.5% vs. 40.9%, respectively, P = .003). A total of 26.0% of patients in the VRd-isatuximab group died vs. 32.6% in the VRd group; the estimated overall survival rates at 60 months were 72.3% and 66.3%, respectively, HR = 0.78, 99.97% CI).

As for adverse events, grade 5 events were more common in the VRd-isatuximab group (11.0% vs. 5.5%), as were deaths within the first 60 days of treatment (1.5% vs. 0.6%). “The difference was driven in part by different treatment exposures,” the researchers reported. Treatment-emergent events led to treatment discontinuation in 22.8% and 26.0% of patients, respectively.

“The safety and tolerability of Sarclisa observed was consistent with the established safety profile of Sarclisa and VRd with no new safety signals observed,” Dr. Facon said.

In an interview, Zandra Klippel, MD, global product head for multiple myeloma at Sanofi — the maker of isatuximab and funder of the study — said the Food and Drug Administration has accepted a priority review application for the investigational use of isatuximab in combination with VRd for the treatment of patients with transplant-ineligible, newly diagnosed MM.

“Our FDA approval date is expected on September 27, 2024,” Dr. Klippel said. “If all goes well, we anticipate launching as early as 2024 in the US and rolling out in other key countries starting in 2025 and continuing through 2026.”

Dr. Klippel added that isatuximab “continues to be evaluated in multiple ongoing phase 3 clinical trials in combination with current standard treatments across the MM treatment continuum.”

In an interview, Sagar Lonial, MD, chair and professor of hematology and medical oncology and chief medical officer at Winship Cancer Institute at Emory University in Atlanta, said the study is “important.”

However, Dr. Lonial, who is familiar with the findings but didn’t take part in the study, said it’s difficult to understand the impact of the treatment on frail patients. It appears that the combination treatment may be good for frail patients, he said, “but I need to better understand the magnitude of the benefit in that subset a little more.”

As for adverse events, he said “they are what would be expected for a trial like this.”

Pneumonia and COVID-19 infections were higher in the VRd-isatuximab group, he said, and “we know in general that vaccine responses are blocked by CD38 antibodies.” This can be managed, he said, via intravenous immunoglobulin support.

Manni Mohyuddin, MD, assistant professor at Huntsman Cancer Institute in Utah, said in an interview that the findings suggest that in older, fit patients, “you can get fairly good outcomes without use of transplant.”

In the United States, many more patients in the cohort would have been considered transplant-eligible, he said, and not eliminated from consideration for transplant due to age over 65. However, as patients age, “you get more diminishing returns for transplants,” said Dr. Mohyuddin, who is familiar with the study findings but didn’t take part in the research.

All the drugs in the new combination are FDA approved, he said, although the combination isn’t. “I suspect this will make it to our guidelines very soon and then be reimbursed by insurance companies and Medicare.”

The study was funded by Sanofi and an M.D. Anderson Cancer Center support grant. Dr. Facon has no disclosures. Other study authors report multiple ties relationships with various drug makers. Dr. Lonial disclosed ties with Takeda, Amgen, Novartis, BMS, GSK, AbbVie, Genentech, Pfizer, Regeneron, Janssen, AstraZeneca, and TG Therapeutics). Dr. Mohyuddin disclosed a relationship with Janssen.

TOPLINE:

A recent study suggests that delays in transitioning from pediatric to adult health care can increase hospitalizations and emergency department visits for young adults with sickle cell disease (SCD).

METHODOLOGY:

• Guidelines have recommended that young adults with SCD transfer from pediatric care within 6 months, but many transfers take longer — sometimes up to a year.
• Researchers evaluated the impact of prolonged transition gaps on health outcomes in 183 young adults who completed pediatric care between 2012 and 2018 and were transitioned to an adult care program. Patients were followed for 2-8 years from their first adult care visit.

TAKEAWAY:

• Approximately 88% of patients transferred to adult health care within 6 months, with a median transfer gap of 1.4 months. At 2 years of adult care, patients with a transition gap of 6 months or longer were 89% (relative risk, 1.89) more likely to have an inpatient visit and 75% (RR, 1.75) more likely to have ED visits.
• Those with transfer gaps of 6 months or longer had twice the rate of inpatient visits (rate ratio, 2.01) at 8 years of follow-up, compared with those who transitioned within 2 months.
• However, fewer adult care outpatient visits were seen (5.1 vs 6.7 visits per year) for young adults transferred in 6 or more months versus those within 6 months.

IN PRACTICE:

According to the authors, “longer delays in establishing adult health care following pediatric care were associated with greater acute health care resource utilization and fewer health care maintenance (ie, outpatient) SCD visits. These findings emphasize the importance of swift transfer from pediatric to adult care among young adults with SCD.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Kristen E. Howell, of the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Texas A&M School of Public Health, College Station, Texas, and was published online in Blood Advances.

LIMITATIONS:

Data was available only for patients within a specific health care system, limiting the generalizability of the findings. Involving only one pediatric and two adult programs could impact findings. Insurance loss or changes due to low income were not accounted for.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by U1EMC19331 and the American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities. The authors declared no relevant conflicts of interest.

TOPLINE:

A recent study suggests that delays in transitioning from pediatric to adult health care can increase hospitalizations and emergency department visits for young adults with sickle cell disease (SCD).

METHODOLOGY:

• Guidelines have recommended that young adults with SCD transfer from pediatric care within 6 months, but many transfers take longer — sometimes up to a year.
• Researchers evaluated the impact of prolonged transition gaps on health outcomes in 183 young adults who completed pediatric care between 2012 and 2018 and were transitioned to an adult care program. Patients were followed for 2-8 years from their first adult care visit.

TAKEAWAY:

• Approximately 88% of patients transferred to adult health care within 6 months, with a median transfer gap of 1.4 months. At 2 years of adult care, patients with a transition gap of 6 months or longer were 89% (relative risk, 1.89) more likely to have an inpatient visit and 75% (RR, 1.75) more likely to have ED visits.
• Those with transfer gaps of 6 months or longer had twice the rate of inpatient visits (rate ratio, 2.01) at 8 years of follow-up, compared with those who transitioned within 2 months.
• However, fewer adult care outpatient visits were seen (5.1 vs 6.7 visits per year) for young adults transferred in 6 or more months versus those within 6 months.

IN PRACTICE:

According to the authors, “longer delays in establishing adult health care following pediatric care were associated with greater acute health care resource utilization and fewer health care maintenance (ie, outpatient) SCD visits. These findings emphasize the importance of swift transfer from pediatric to adult care among young adults with SCD.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Kristen E. Howell, of the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Texas A&M School of Public Health, College Station, Texas, and was published online in Blood Advances.

LIMITATIONS:

Data was available only for patients within a specific health care system, limiting the generalizability of the findings. Involving only one pediatric and two adult programs could impact findings. Insurance loss or changes due to low income were not accounted for.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by U1EMC19331 and the American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities. The authors declared no relevant conflicts of interest.

TOPLINE:

A recent study suggests that delays in transitioning from pediatric to adult health care can increase hospitalizations and emergency department visits for young adults with sickle cell disease (SCD).

METHODOLOGY:

• Guidelines have recommended that young adults with SCD transfer from pediatric care within 6 months, but many transfers take longer — sometimes up to a year.
• Researchers evaluated the impact of prolonged transition gaps on health outcomes in 183 young adults who completed pediatric care between 2012 and 2018 and were transitioned to an adult care program. Patients were followed for 2-8 years from their first adult care visit.

TAKEAWAY:

• Approximately 88% of patients transferred to adult health care within 6 months, with a median transfer gap of 1.4 months. At 2 years of adult care, patients with a transition gap of 6 months or longer were 89% (relative risk, 1.89) more likely to have an inpatient visit and 75% (RR, 1.75) more likely to have ED visits.
• Those with transfer gaps of 6 months or longer had twice the rate of inpatient visits (rate ratio, 2.01) at 8 years of follow-up, compared with those who transitioned within 2 months.
• However, fewer adult care outpatient visits were seen (5.1 vs 6.7 visits per year) for young adults transferred in 6 or more months versus those within 6 months.

IN PRACTICE:

According to the authors, “longer delays in establishing adult health care following pediatric care were associated with greater acute health care resource utilization and fewer health care maintenance (ie, outpatient) SCD visits. These findings emphasize the importance of swift transfer from pediatric to adult care among young adults with SCD.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Kristen E. Howell, of the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Texas A&M School of Public Health, College Station, Texas, and was published online in Blood Advances.

LIMITATIONS:

Data was available only for patients within a specific health care system, limiting the generalizability of the findings. Involving only one pediatric and two adult programs could impact findings. Insurance loss or changes due to low income were not accounted for.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by U1EMC19331 and the American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities. The authors declared no relevant conflicts of interest.

The results of a large French study comparing the cancer risk in children conceived through assisted reproductive technology (ART) with that of naturally conceived children were published recently in JAMA Network Open. This study is one of the largest to date on this subject: It included 8,526,306 children born in France between 2010 and 2021, of whom 260,236 (3%) were conceived through ART, and followed them up to a median age of 6.7 years.

Motivations for the Study

ART (including artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization [IVF], or intracytoplasmic sperm injection [ICSI] with fresh or frozen embryo transfer) accounts for about 1 in 30 births in France. However, limited and heterogeneous data have suggested an increased risk for certain health disorders, including cancer, among children conceived through ART. Therefore, a large-scale evaluation of cancer risk in these children is important.

No Overall Increase

In all, 9256 children developed cancer, including 292 who were conceived through ART. Thus, this study did not show an increased risk for cancer (of all types combined) in children conceived through ART. Nevertheless, a slight increase in the risk for leukemia was observed in children conceived through IVF or ICSI. The investigators observed approximately one additional case for every 5000 newborns conceived through IVF or ICSI who reached age 10 years.

Epidemiological monitoring should be continued to better evaluate long-term risks and see whether the risk for leukemia is confirmed. If it is, then it will be useful to investigate the mechanisms related to ART techniques or the fertility disorders of parents that could lead to an increased risk for leukemia.

This story was translated from Univadis France, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The results of a large French study comparing the cancer risk in children conceived through assisted reproductive technology (ART) with that of naturally conceived children were published recently in JAMA Network Open. This study is one of the largest to date on this subject: It included 8,526,306 children born in France between 2010 and 2021, of whom 260,236 (3%) were conceived through ART, and followed them up to a median age of 6.7 years.

Motivations for the Study

ART (including artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization [IVF], or intracytoplasmic sperm injection [ICSI] with fresh or frozen embryo transfer) accounts for about 1 in 30 births in France. However, limited and heterogeneous data have suggested an increased risk for certain health disorders, including cancer, among children conceived through ART. Therefore, a large-scale evaluation of cancer risk in these children is important.

No Overall Increase

In all, 9256 children developed cancer, including 292 who were conceived through ART. Thus, this study did not show an increased risk for cancer (of all types combined) in children conceived through ART. Nevertheless, a slight increase in the risk for leukemia was observed in children conceived through IVF or ICSI. The investigators observed approximately one additional case for every 5000 newborns conceived through IVF or ICSI who reached age 10 years.

Epidemiological monitoring should be continued to better evaluate long-term risks and see whether the risk for leukemia is confirmed. If it is, then it will be useful to investigate the mechanisms related to ART techniques or the fertility disorders of parents that could lead to an increased risk for leukemia.

This story was translated from Univadis France, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The results of a large French study comparing the cancer risk in children conceived through assisted reproductive technology (ART) with that of naturally conceived children were published recently in JAMA Network Open. This study is one of the largest to date on this subject: It included 8,526,306 children born in France between 2010 and 2021, of whom 260,236 (3%) were conceived through ART, and followed them up to a median age of 6.7 years.

Motivations for the Study

ART (including artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization [IVF], or intracytoplasmic sperm injection [ICSI] with fresh or frozen embryo transfer) accounts for about 1 in 30 births in France. However, limited and heterogeneous data have suggested an increased risk for certain health disorders, including cancer, among children conceived through ART. Therefore, a large-scale evaluation of cancer risk in these children is important.

No Overall Increase

In all, 9256 children developed cancer, including 292 who were conceived through ART. Thus, this study did not show an increased risk for cancer (of all types combined) in children conceived through ART. Nevertheless, a slight increase in the risk for leukemia was observed in children conceived through IVF or ICSI. The investigators observed approximately one additional case for every 5000 newborns conceived through IVF or ICSI who reached age 10 years.

Epidemiological monitoring should be continued to better evaluate long-term risks and see whether the risk for leukemia is confirmed. If it is, then it will be useful to investigate the mechanisms related to ART techniques or the fertility disorders of parents that could lead to an increased risk for leukemia.

This story was translated from Univadis France, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved imetelstat (Rytelo, Geron Corporation) for certain patients with relapsed or refractory low- to intermediate-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS).

Specifically, the first-in-class oligonucleotide telomerase inhibitor, which received orphan drug designation, is indicated for adults with MDS who have transfusion-dependent anemia requiring four or more red blood cell units over 8 weeks and who have not responded to erythropoiesis-stimulating agents or who have lost response to or are not eligible for erythropoiesis-stimulating agents, according to an FDA press release.

“For patients with lower-risk MDS and anemia who are transfusion dependent, we have very few options today and often cycle through available therapies, making the approval of RYTELO potentially practice changing for us,” co-investigator Rami Komrokji, MD, of Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida, said in the Geron Corporation’s announcement of the approval.

Approval was based on efficacy and safety findings from the randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 IMerge trial, which found significantly improved red blood cell transfusion independence with treatment vs with placebo.

Overall, 178 patients were randomly assigned to the imetelstat arm (n = 118) and the placebo arm (n = 60). The median follow-up was 19.5 months in the treatment arm and 17.5 months in the placebo arm.

Patients received infusions of either 7.1 mg/kg of imetelstat or placebo in 28-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. All patients received supportive care, including red blood cell transfusions.

The rate of 8-week-or-greater red blood cell transfusion independence was 39.8% in the imetelstat vs 15% placebo arm. The rate of 24-week-or-greater red blood cell transfusion independence was 28% in the treatment arm vs 3.3% in the placebo arm.

An exploratory analysis among patients who achieved at least 8 weeks of red blood cell transfusion independence revealed that median increases in hemoglobin were 3.6 g/dL in the treatment group vs 0.8 g/dL in the placebo group.

Adverse reactions, occurring in at least 10% of patients and in at least 5% more patients in the treatment arm than in the placebo arm, included decreased platelets, white blood cells, and neutrophils; increased aspartate aminotransferase, alkaline phosphatase, and alanine aminotransferase; and fatigue, prolonged partial thromboplastin time, arthralgia/myalgia, COVID-19, and headache.

The recommended imetelstat dose is 7.1 mg/kg administered as an intravenous infusion over 2 hours every 28 days, according to the full prescribing information. 

“What is exciting about RYTELO is the totality of the clinical benefit across [lower risk] MDS patients irrespective of ring sideroblast status or high transfusion burden, including sustained and durable transfusion independence and increases in hemoglobin levels, all within a well-characterized safety profile of generally manageable cytopenias,” Dr. Komrokji stated. The treatment goal for patients with this condition “is transfusion-independence and before today, this wasn’t possible for many patients.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved imetelstat (Rytelo, Geron Corporation) for certain patients with relapsed or refractory low- to intermediate-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS).

Specifically, the first-in-class oligonucleotide telomerase inhibitor, which received orphan drug designation, is indicated for adults with MDS who have transfusion-dependent anemia requiring four or more red blood cell units over 8 weeks and who have not responded to erythropoiesis-stimulating agents or who have lost response to or are not eligible for erythropoiesis-stimulating agents, according to an FDA press release.

“For patients with lower-risk MDS and anemia who are transfusion dependent, we have very few options today and often cycle through available therapies, making the approval of RYTELO potentially practice changing for us,” co-investigator Rami Komrokji, MD, of Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida, said in the Geron Corporation’s announcement of the approval.

Approval was based on efficacy and safety findings from the randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 IMerge trial, which found significantly improved red blood cell transfusion independence with treatment vs with placebo.

Overall, 178 patients were randomly assigned to the imetelstat arm (n = 118) and the placebo arm (n = 60). The median follow-up was 19.5 months in the treatment arm and 17.5 months in the placebo arm.

Patients received infusions of either 7.1 mg/kg of imetelstat or placebo in 28-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. All patients received supportive care, including red blood cell transfusions.

The rate of 8-week-or-greater red blood cell transfusion independence was 39.8% in the imetelstat vs 15% placebo arm. The rate of 24-week-or-greater red blood cell transfusion independence was 28% in the treatment arm vs 3.3% in the placebo arm.

An exploratory analysis among patients who achieved at least 8 weeks of red blood cell transfusion independence revealed that median increases in hemoglobin were 3.6 g/dL in the treatment group vs 0.8 g/dL in the placebo group.

Adverse reactions, occurring in at least 10% of patients and in at least 5% more patients in the treatment arm than in the placebo arm, included decreased platelets, white blood cells, and neutrophils; increased aspartate aminotransferase, alkaline phosphatase, and alanine aminotransferase; and fatigue, prolonged partial thromboplastin time, arthralgia/myalgia, COVID-19, and headache.

The recommended imetelstat dose is 7.1 mg/kg administered as an intravenous infusion over 2 hours every 28 days, according to the full prescribing information. 

“What is exciting about RYTELO is the totality of the clinical benefit across [lower risk] MDS patients irrespective of ring sideroblast status or high transfusion burden, including sustained and durable transfusion independence and increases in hemoglobin levels, all within a well-characterized safety profile of generally manageable cytopenias,” Dr. Komrokji stated. The treatment goal for patients with this condition “is transfusion-independence and before today, this wasn’t possible for many patients.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved imetelstat (Rytelo, Geron Corporation) for certain patients with relapsed or refractory low- to intermediate-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS).

Specifically, the first-in-class oligonucleotide telomerase inhibitor, which received orphan drug designation, is indicated for adults with MDS who have transfusion-dependent anemia requiring four or more red blood cell units over 8 weeks and who have not responded to erythropoiesis-stimulating agents or who have lost response to or are not eligible for erythropoiesis-stimulating agents, according to an FDA press release.

“For patients with lower-risk MDS and anemia who are transfusion dependent, we have very few options today and often cycle through available therapies, making the approval of RYTELO potentially practice changing for us,” co-investigator Rami Komrokji, MD, of Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida, said in the Geron Corporation’s announcement of the approval.

Approval was based on efficacy and safety findings from the randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 IMerge trial, which found significantly improved red blood cell transfusion independence with treatment vs with placebo.

Overall, 178 patients were randomly assigned to the imetelstat arm (n = 118) and the placebo arm (n = 60). The median follow-up was 19.5 months in the treatment arm and 17.5 months in the placebo arm.

Patients received infusions of either 7.1 mg/kg of imetelstat or placebo in 28-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. All patients received supportive care, including red blood cell transfusions.

The rate of 8-week-or-greater red blood cell transfusion independence was 39.8% in the imetelstat vs 15% placebo arm. The rate of 24-week-or-greater red blood cell transfusion independence was 28% in the treatment arm vs 3.3% in the placebo arm.

An exploratory analysis among patients who achieved at least 8 weeks of red blood cell transfusion independence revealed that median increases in hemoglobin were 3.6 g/dL in the treatment group vs 0.8 g/dL in the placebo group.

Adverse reactions, occurring in at least 10% of patients and in at least 5% more patients in the treatment arm than in the placebo arm, included decreased platelets, white blood cells, and neutrophils; increased aspartate aminotransferase, alkaline phosphatase, and alanine aminotransferase; and fatigue, prolonged partial thromboplastin time, arthralgia/myalgia, COVID-19, and headache.

The recommended imetelstat dose is 7.1 mg/kg administered as an intravenous infusion over 2 hours every 28 days, according to the full prescribing information. 

“What is exciting about RYTELO is the totality of the clinical benefit across [lower risk] MDS patients irrespective of ring sideroblast status or high transfusion burden, including sustained and durable transfusion independence and increases in hemoglobin levels, all within a well-characterized safety profile of generally manageable cytopenias,” Dr. Komrokji stated. The treatment goal for patients with this condition “is transfusion-independence and before today, this wasn’t possible for many patients.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Three different definitions of nonanemic iron deficiency (ID), a common disorder causing substantial morbidity in women, were significantly associated with different population prevalence estimates, a data analysis of the cross-sectional Hemochromatosis and Iron Overload Screening Study (HEIRS) study found.

These differences held, regardless of self-reported age, pregnancy, or race and ethnicity, according to HEIRS researchers led by James C. Barton, MD, professor of hematology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

“Using higher serum ferritin thresholds to define ID could lead to diagnosis and treatment of more women with ID and greater reduction of related morbidity,” the investigators wrote. The study was published in JAMA Network Open.

The authors noted that ID affects about 2 billion people worldwide, mainly women and children, increasing risks of fatigue, impaired muscular performance, cold intolerance, mucosal and epithelial abnormalities, pica, disturbances of menstruation, and adverse pregnancy outcomes.

Manifestations of ID, including anemia, are less prevalent or less severe in adults with higher serum ferritin (SF), and the three definitions correspond, in sequence, to ID of increasing prevalence and decreasing severity, they explained.
 

The Study

HEIRS conducted multiethnic, primary care–based screening for iron disorders during 2001-2003 at four field centers in the United States and one in Canada at primary care venues.

In data for the current study analyzed from June to December, 2023, the three ID definitions were: combined transferrin saturation less than 10% and SF less than 15 ng/mL (HEIRS); SF less than 15 ng/mL (World Health Organization [WHO]); and SF less than 25 ng/mL, the threshold for ID-deficient erythropoiesis [IDE).

Among the cohort’s 62,685 women (mean age, 49.58 years, 27,072 White, 17,272 Black), the estimated prevalence of ID emerged as follows across the different definitions:

• 1957 (3.12%) according to HEIRS
• 4659 (7.43%) according to WHO
• 9611 (15.33%) according to IDE

Those figures translated to an increased relative ID prevalence of 2.4-fold (95% CI, 2.3-2.5; P < .001) according to the WHO standard and 4.9-fold (95% CI, 4.7-5.2; P < .001) according IDEs.

In addition, prevalence was higher in younger women, and within each racial and ethnic subgroup of participants aged 25-54 years, prevalence rose significantly from the HEIRS definition to the WHO and IDE definitions.

Notably, ID was significantly higher among Black and Hispanic participants than Asian and White participants.

An accompanying editorial pointed to gender-based health equity issues raised by the HEIRS analysis and argued that a similar passive acceptance of laboratory definitions of a debilitating but correctable condition in White males would be “frankly unimaginable.”

“Iron deficiency is the leading cause of years lived with disability among women of reproductive age,” wrote hematologist Michelle Sholzberg, MDCM, MSc, and Grace H. Tang, MSc, of St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto, Canada. “It is a factor clearly associated with maternal death and morbidity (including diminished IQ), and it is correctable, and, thus, unnecessary, in high-income, middle-income, and low-income geographic settings.”

The authors listed no specific funding for this analysis of HEIRS data. Dr. Barton reported contracts from the National Institutes of Health, National Human Genome Research Institute, outside of the submitted work. A coauthor reported grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the National Human Genome Research Institute outside of the submitted work. Dr. Sholzberg reported unrestricted research funding to her institution from Octapharma and Pfizer and speakers’ honoraria from Takeda, Sobi, and Medison outside of the submitted work.

Three different definitions of nonanemic iron deficiency (ID), a common disorder causing substantial morbidity in women, were significantly associated with different population prevalence estimates, a data analysis of the cross-sectional Hemochromatosis and Iron Overload Screening Study (HEIRS) study found.

These differences held, regardless of self-reported age, pregnancy, or race and ethnicity, according to HEIRS researchers led by James C. Barton, MD, professor of hematology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

“Using higher serum ferritin thresholds to define ID could lead to diagnosis and treatment of more women with ID and greater reduction of related morbidity,” the investigators wrote. The study was published in JAMA Network Open.

The authors noted that ID affects about 2 billion people worldwide, mainly women and children, increasing risks of fatigue, impaired muscular performance, cold intolerance, mucosal and epithelial abnormalities, pica, disturbances of menstruation, and adverse pregnancy outcomes.

Manifestations of ID, including anemia, are less prevalent or less severe in adults with higher serum ferritin (SF), and the three definitions correspond, in sequence, to ID of increasing prevalence and decreasing severity, they explained.
 

The Study

HEIRS conducted multiethnic, primary care–based screening for iron disorders during 2001-2003 at four field centers in the United States and one in Canada at primary care venues.

In data for the current study analyzed from June to December, 2023, the three ID definitions were: combined transferrin saturation less than 10% and SF less than 15 ng/mL (HEIRS); SF less than 15 ng/mL (World Health Organization [WHO]); and SF less than 25 ng/mL, the threshold for ID-deficient erythropoiesis [IDE).

Among the cohort’s 62,685 women (mean age, 49.58 years, 27,072 White, 17,272 Black), the estimated prevalence of ID emerged as follows across the different definitions:

• 1957 (3.12%) according to HEIRS
• 4659 (7.43%) according to WHO
• 9611 (15.33%) according to IDE

Those figures translated to an increased relative ID prevalence of 2.4-fold (95% CI, 2.3-2.5; P < .001) according to the WHO standard and 4.9-fold (95% CI, 4.7-5.2; P < .001) according IDEs.

In addition, prevalence was higher in younger women, and within each racial and ethnic subgroup of participants aged 25-54 years, prevalence rose significantly from the HEIRS definition to the WHO and IDE definitions.

Notably, ID was significantly higher among Black and Hispanic participants than Asian and White participants.

An accompanying editorial pointed to gender-based health equity issues raised by the HEIRS analysis and argued that a similar passive acceptance of laboratory definitions of a debilitating but correctable condition in White males would be “frankly unimaginable.”

“Iron deficiency is the leading cause of years lived with disability among women of reproductive age,” wrote hematologist Michelle Sholzberg, MDCM, MSc, and Grace H. Tang, MSc, of St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto, Canada. “It is a factor clearly associated with maternal death and morbidity (including diminished IQ), and it is correctable, and, thus, unnecessary, in high-income, middle-income, and low-income geographic settings.”

The authors listed no specific funding for this analysis of HEIRS data. Dr. Barton reported contracts from the National Institutes of Health, National Human Genome Research Institute, outside of the submitted work. A coauthor reported grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the National Human Genome Research Institute outside of the submitted work. Dr. Sholzberg reported unrestricted research funding to her institution from Octapharma and Pfizer and speakers’ honoraria from Takeda, Sobi, and Medison outside of the submitted work.

Three different definitions of nonanemic iron deficiency (ID), a common disorder causing substantial morbidity in women, were significantly associated with different population prevalence estimates, a data analysis of the cross-sectional Hemochromatosis and Iron Overload Screening Study (HEIRS) study found.

These differences held, regardless of self-reported age, pregnancy, or race and ethnicity, according to HEIRS researchers led by James C. Barton, MD, professor of hematology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

“Using higher serum ferritin thresholds to define ID could lead to diagnosis and treatment of more women with ID and greater reduction of related morbidity,” the investigators wrote. The study was published in JAMA Network Open.

The authors noted that ID affects about 2 billion people worldwide, mainly women and children, increasing risks of fatigue, impaired muscular performance, cold intolerance, mucosal and epithelial abnormalities, pica, disturbances of menstruation, and adverse pregnancy outcomes.

Manifestations of ID, including anemia, are less prevalent or less severe in adults with higher serum ferritin (SF), and the three definitions correspond, in sequence, to ID of increasing prevalence and decreasing severity, they explained.
 

The Study

HEIRS conducted multiethnic, primary care–based screening for iron disorders during 2001-2003 at four field centers in the United States and one in Canada at primary care venues.

In data for the current study analyzed from June to December, 2023, the three ID definitions were: combined transferrin saturation less than 10% and SF less than 15 ng/mL (HEIRS); SF less than 15 ng/mL (World Health Organization [WHO]); and SF less than 25 ng/mL, the threshold for ID-deficient erythropoiesis [IDE).

Among the cohort’s 62,685 women (mean age, 49.58 years, 27,072 White, 17,272 Black), the estimated prevalence of ID emerged as follows across the different definitions:

• 1957 (3.12%) according to HEIRS
• 4659 (7.43%) according to WHO
• 9611 (15.33%) according to IDE

Those figures translated to an increased relative ID prevalence of 2.4-fold (95% CI, 2.3-2.5; P < .001) according to the WHO standard and 4.9-fold (95% CI, 4.7-5.2; P < .001) according IDEs.

In addition, prevalence was higher in younger women, and within each racial and ethnic subgroup of participants aged 25-54 years, prevalence rose significantly from the HEIRS definition to the WHO and IDE definitions.

Notably, ID was significantly higher among Black and Hispanic participants than Asian and White participants.

An accompanying editorial pointed to gender-based health equity issues raised by the HEIRS analysis and argued that a similar passive acceptance of laboratory definitions of a debilitating but correctable condition in White males would be “frankly unimaginable.”

“Iron deficiency is the leading cause of years lived with disability among women of reproductive age,” wrote hematologist Michelle Sholzberg, MDCM, MSc, and Grace H. Tang, MSc, of St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto, Canada. “It is a factor clearly associated with maternal death and morbidity (including diminished IQ), and it is correctable, and, thus, unnecessary, in high-income, middle-income, and low-income geographic settings.”

The authors listed no specific funding for this analysis of HEIRS data. Dr. Barton reported contracts from the National Institutes of Health, National Human Genome Research Institute, outside of the submitted work. A coauthor reported grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the National Human Genome Research Institute outside of the submitted work. Dr. Sholzberg reported unrestricted research funding to her institution from Octapharma and Pfizer and speakers’ honoraria from Takeda, Sobi, and Medison outside of the submitted work.