Key Points Question How substantial are cancer disparities on the basis of county levels of income, and what are the factors that may mediate the disparities? Findings In this cross-sectional study of 3135 US counties, cancer death rates varied significantly in counties of different income levels, with a mean cancer death rate per 100 000 person-years of 185.9 in high-income counties, 204.9 in medium-income counties, and 229.7 in low-income counties. The strongest possible mediators were health risk behaviors, cost and quality of clinical care, and food insecurity. Meaning There are multiple county-level factors that may serve as mediators of cancer disparities and that may be targeted by future efforts to achieve equity in cancer outcomes.

The mechanisms guiding cells toward bone surfaces are generally unknown. Here, Nevius et al. show that the Gαi protein–coupled receptor EBI2 is expressed in mouse osteoclast precursors to guide these cells toward bone surfaces. Defective EBI2 signaling increased bone mass in male mice and protected female mice from age- and estrogen deficiency–induced osteoporosis.

IMPORTANCE After US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of a new drug, sponsors can submit additional clinical data to obtain supplemental approval for use for new indications.OBJECTIVE To characterize pivotal trials supporting recent supplemental new indication approvals of drugs and biologics by the FDA and to compare them with pivotal trials that supported these therapeutics' original indication approvals. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This is a cross-sectional study characterizing pivotal trialssupporting supplemental indication approvals by the FDA between 2017 and 2019 and pivotal trials that supported these therapeutics' original indication approvals. Data analysis was performed from August to October 2020. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESNumber and design of pivotal trials supporting both supplemental and original indication approvals. RESULTS From 2017 to 2019, the FDA approved 146 supplemental indications for 107 therapeutics on the basis of 181 pivotal efficacy trials. The median (interquartile range) number of trials per supplemental indication was 1 (1-1). Most trials used either placebo (77 trials [42.5%; 95% CI, 35.6%-49.8%]) or active comparators (65 trials [35.9%; 95% CI, 29.3%-43.1%]), and most of these multigroup trials were randomized (141 trials [99.3%; 95% CI, 96.0%-100.0%]) and double-blinded (106 trials [74.5%; 95% CI, 66.6%-81.0%]); 80 trials (44.2%; 95 CI, 37.2%-51.5%) used clinicaloutcomes as the primary efficacy end point. There was no difference between oncology therapies and those approved for other therapeutic areas to have supplemental indication approvals be based on at least 2 pivotal trials (11.5% vs 20.6%; difference, 9.1%; 95% CI, 2.9%-21.0%; P = .10). Similarly, there was no difference in use of randomization (98.3% vs 100.0%; difference, 1.7%; 95% CI, 1.6%-5.0%; P = .43) among multigroup trials, although these trials were less likely to be double-blinded (50.8% vs 92.3%; difference, 41.5%; 95% CI, 27.4%-55.5%; P < .001); overall, these trials were less likely to use either placebo or active comparators (64.9% vs 86.7%; difference, 21.8% 95% CI, 9.8%-33.9%; P < .001) or to use clinical outcomes as their primary efficacy end point (27.5% vs 61.1%; difference, 33.6%; 95% CI, 14.1%-40.9%; P < .001) and were longer (median [interquartile range], 17 weeks vs 95 [39-146] weeks). Original approvals were more likely than supplemental indication approvals to be based on at least 2 pivotal trials (44.0% [95% CI, 33.7%-42.6%] vs 15.8% [95% CI, 10.7%-22.5%]; difference, 28.2%; 95% CI, 17.6%-39.6%; P < .001) and less likely to be supported by at least 1 trial of 12 months' duration (27.6% [95% CI, 17.9%-35.0%] vs 54.8% [95% CI, 46.7%-62.6%]; difference, 27.2%; 95% CI, 14.5%-37.8%; P < .001). Pivotal trial designs were otherwise not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEThese findings suggest that the number and design of the pivotal trials supporting supplemental indication approvals by the FDA varied across therapeutic areas, with (continued) Key Points Question What i...

Objective To characterize potential drug safety signals identified from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS), from 2008 to 2019, to determine how often these signals resulted in regulatory action by the FDA and whether these actions were corroborated by published research findings or public assessments by the Sentinel Initiative. Design Cross sectional study. Setting USA. Population Safety signals identified from the FAERS and publicly reported by the FDA between 2008 and 2019; and review of the relevant literature published before and after safety signals were reported in 2014-15. Literature searches were performed in November 2019, Sentinel Initiative assessments were searched in December 2021, and data analysis was finalized in December 2021. Main outcome measures Safety signals and resulting regulatory actions; number and characteristics of published studies, including corroboration of regulatory action as evidenced by significant associations (or no associations) between the drug related to the signal and the adverse event. Results From 2008 to 2019, 603 potential safety signals identified from the FAERS were reported by the FDA (median 48 annually, interquartile range 41-61), of which 413 (68.5%) were resolved as of December 2021 (372 of 399 (93.2%) signals ≥3 years old were resolved). Among the resolved safety signals, 91 (22.0%) led to no regulatory action and 322 (78.0%) resulted in regulatory action, including 319 (77.2%) changes to drug labeling and 59 (14.3%) drug safety communications or other public communications from the FDA. For a subset of 82 potential safety signals reported in 2014-15, a literature search identified 1712 relevant publications; 1201 (70.2%) were case reports or case series. Among these 82 safety signals, 76 (92.7%) were resolved, of which relevant published research was identified for 57 (75.0%) signals and relevant Sentinel Initiative assessments for four (5.3%) signals. Regulatory actions by the FDA were corroborated by at least one relevant published research study for 17 of the 57 (29.8%) resolved safety signals; none of the relevant Sentinel Initiative assessments corroborated FDA regulatory action. Conclusions Most potential safety signals identified from the FAERS led to regulatory action by the FDA. Only a third of regulatory actions were corroborated by published research, however, and none by public assessments from the Sentinel Initiative. These findings suggest that either the FDA is taking regulatory actions based on evidence not made publicly available or more comprehensive safety evaluations might be needed when potential safety signals are identified.

Bone surfaces attract hematopoietic and nonhematopoietic cells, such as osteoclasts (OCs) and osteoblasts (OBs), and are targeted by bone metastatic cancers. However, the mechanisms guiding cells toward bone surfaces are essentially unknown. Here, we show that the Gi protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) EBI2 is expressed in mouse monocyte/OC precursors (OCPs) and its oxysterol ligand 7,25-dihydroxycholesterol (7,25-OHC) is secreted abundantly by OBs. Using in vitro time-lapse microscopy and intravital two-photon microscopy, we show that EBI2 enhances the development of large OCs by promoting OCP motility, thus facilitating cell-cell interactions and fusion in vitro and in vivo. EBI2 is also necessary and sufficient for guiding OCPs toward bone surfaces. Interestingly, OCPs also secrete 7,25-OHC, which promotes autocrine EBI2 signaling and reduces OCP migration toward bone surfaces in vivo. Defective EBI2 signaling led to increased bone mass in male mice and protected female mice from age-and estrogen deficiency-induced osteoporosis. This study identifies a novel pathway involved in OCP homing to the bone surface that may have significant therapeutic potential.

No abstract

This cross-sectional study examines the proportion of US nonprofit hospitals with community health needs assessments and implementation strategies as required by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

No abstract