Amy Reyes

It’s been just over 1 month since UnitedHealthcare (UHC) launched its advance notification program requiring providers to record nonscreening colonoscopy and other gastroenterology procedures to be eligible for its 2024 Gold Card program.

The program, which will begin next year, may eliminate prior authorization requirements for providers who successfully complete the advance notification program this year. However, there is no guarantee that providers who complete the advance notification program will be enrolled in the Gold Card program, which means they would have to seek prior authorization for nonscreening procedures, according to the American Gastroenterological Association.

While UHC has provided some information about how advance notification works, there are many unanswered questions, said Barbara H. Jung, MD,AGAF, AGA president.

AGA

“UnitedHealthcare’s haphazard approach to rolling out a policy that will ultimately control patient access to critical, often lifesaving medical procedures are the opposite of what should be our common goal of expeditious access to essential care,” she said in a written statement.

The advance notification program was announced on June 1 when UHC said it was dropping its controversial prior authorization program, which was due to go into effect that day.

AGA is concerned that UHC’s advance notification program is merely a delay tactic because prior authorization may be required next year for providers who are not accepted into the Gold Card program. Providers who are not accepted into the program may face delays in administering procedures due to the need for prior authorizations. Thousands of endoscopies and colonoscopies could potentially be disrupted in the first month alone due to canceled procedures because of new prior authorization requirements, they said.

UHC has been trying to rein in health care costs by first considering prior authorizations for most gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures, except for screening colonoscopy, but ultimately adopting advance notification. Providers, UHC has said, don’t always follow evidence-based medicine treatment recommendations or they overutilize procedures. Their goal, according to a summary document it issued outlining changes to advance notification and prior authorization requirements, is “better care, improved health outcomes, and lower costs.”

“Clinical studies demonstrate overutilization of these procedures and lack of adherence to specialty society–endorsed guidelines and recommendations. Up to one-third of upper GI procedures and almost half of nonscreening colonoscopies performed for common clinical conditions are not consistent with clinical guidelines,” UHC stated in an FAQ. “A UHC review of upper endoscopy and lower endoscopy procedures performed in 2022 revealed two- to fivefold practice-level variation in the use of both procedure types, even after adjusting for member characteristics including age and comorbidities.”

However, according to a statement from the AGA, it has not seen utilization data specific to UHC: “It is clear that UHC does not currently have any data indicating significant overutilization of critical colonoscopy and endoscopy procedures and therefore no justification to impose burdensome barriers like prior authorization.” AGA also pointed to research showing there is an unmet need for colonoscopies in the United States, which suggests there is an underutilization of this crucial procedure.

The advance notification policy comes despite immense pressure from physicians, patients, lawmakers, and regulators to crack down on prior authorization policies. “AGA has expressed its willingness to work collaboratively with UnitedHealthcare to address any concerns and educate physicians, but communication and transparency with the insurer are nearly nonexistent. Instead, the GI community is confronted with a nebulous concept called advance notification, which is not conducive to seamless patient care. Ultimately, it appears advance notification will form the basis of prior authorization, which we know can delay, disrupt, and deny timely care,” Dr. Jung said.
 

How advance notification works

Beginning June 1, providers have been asked to provide advance notification for nonscreening GI endoscopy procedures that include: esophagogastroduodenoscopy, capsule endoscopy, diagnostic colonoscopy and surveillance colonoscopy. The notification can be made by phone (866-889-8054) or through a UHC online portal at UHCprovider.com.

The AGA has said that some GI practices have found the portal to be confusing and it lacks a standard software application raising concerns for high error rates.

Advance notification applies to patients who have UHC commercial plans, including UnitedHealthcare, UnitedHealthcare Plan of the River Valley, Neighborhood Health Partnership, UnitedHealthcare Level Funded, and UnitedHealthcare Oxford Health Plans in all states, except Rhode Island, Kentucky, and New Mexico.

Providers who opt out of participating in advance notification will not be eligible to participate in the Gold Card program in 2024. The program will essentially allow providers to order most GI endoscopy procedures, except for screening colonoscopy, without prior authorization. However, UHC has not released any information about how it will implement its planned Gold Card prior authorization program or how many providers will be accepted into the program.

UHC has assured providers it will not issue medical necessity denials through this process, but it may ask providers to participate in a “comprehensive peer-to-peer discussion with a board-certified gastroenterologist around clinical guidelines.”

The fear for practices is that advance notification will be an onerous process adding burdensome paperwork that practices are not equipped to manage. UHC is the largest health insurer in the country representing 46% of the total market.

Lawrence Kim, MD, AGAF, vice president of AGA and a gastroenterologist practicing in Denver said that each physician in his practice does over 1,000 procedures annually and 25% of their patients carry UHC.

“We are currently completing 30-40 notifications a day, requiring two staff members to comply with this program. UHC is not asking for any clinical information, just procedure and diagnosis codes, and in some cases site of service. Therefore, the advance notification program as it stands will not provide UHC with any additional information beyond what they already have through claims data. This highlights the strain these requirements are putting on providers and practices for repetitive data,” he said.

For more details about UHC’s advance notification program, UHC has prepared this FAQ. To learn more about AGA’s advocacy, visit www.gastro.org/UHC.

It’s been just over 1 month since UnitedHealthcare (UHC) launched its advance notification program requiring providers to record nonscreening colonoscopy and other gastroenterology procedures to be eligible for its 2024 Gold Card program.

The program, which will begin next year, may eliminate prior authorization requirements for providers who successfully complete the advance notification program this year. However, there is no guarantee that providers who complete the advance notification program will be enrolled in the Gold Card program, which means they would have to seek prior authorization for nonscreening procedures, according to the American Gastroenterological Association.

While UHC has provided some information about how advance notification works, there are many unanswered questions, said Barbara H. Jung, MD,AGAF, AGA president.

AGA

“UnitedHealthcare’s haphazard approach to rolling out a policy that will ultimately control patient access to critical, often lifesaving medical procedures are the opposite of what should be our common goal of expeditious access to essential care,” she said in a written statement.

The advance notification program was announced on June 1 when UHC said it was dropping its controversial prior authorization program, which was due to go into effect that day.

AGA is concerned that UHC’s advance notification program is merely a delay tactic because prior authorization may be required next year for providers who are not accepted into the Gold Card program. Providers who are not accepted into the program may face delays in administering procedures due to the need for prior authorizations. Thousands of endoscopies and colonoscopies could potentially be disrupted in the first month alone due to canceled procedures because of new prior authorization requirements, they said.

UHC has been trying to rein in health care costs by first considering prior authorizations for most gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures, except for screening colonoscopy, but ultimately adopting advance notification. Providers, UHC has said, don’t always follow evidence-based medicine treatment recommendations or they overutilize procedures. Their goal, according to a summary document it issued outlining changes to advance notification and prior authorization requirements, is “better care, improved health outcomes, and lower costs.”

“Clinical studies demonstrate overutilization of these procedures and lack of adherence to specialty society–endorsed guidelines and recommendations. Up to one-third of upper GI procedures and almost half of nonscreening colonoscopies performed for common clinical conditions are not consistent with clinical guidelines,” UHC stated in an FAQ. “A UHC review of upper endoscopy and lower endoscopy procedures performed in 2022 revealed two- to fivefold practice-level variation in the use of both procedure types, even after adjusting for member characteristics including age and comorbidities.”

However, according to a statement from the AGA, it has not seen utilization data specific to UHC: “It is clear that UHC does not currently have any data indicating significant overutilization of critical colonoscopy and endoscopy procedures and therefore no justification to impose burdensome barriers like prior authorization.” AGA also pointed to research showing there is an unmet need for colonoscopies in the United States, which suggests there is an underutilization of this crucial procedure.

The advance notification policy comes despite immense pressure from physicians, patients, lawmakers, and regulators to crack down on prior authorization policies. “AGA has expressed its willingness to work collaboratively with UnitedHealthcare to address any concerns and educate physicians, but communication and transparency with the insurer are nearly nonexistent. Instead, the GI community is confronted with a nebulous concept called advance notification, which is not conducive to seamless patient care. Ultimately, it appears advance notification will form the basis of prior authorization, which we know can delay, disrupt, and deny timely care,” Dr. Jung said.
 

How advance notification works

Beginning June 1, providers have been asked to provide advance notification for nonscreening GI endoscopy procedures that include: esophagogastroduodenoscopy, capsule endoscopy, diagnostic colonoscopy and surveillance colonoscopy. The notification can be made by phone (866-889-8054) or through a UHC online portal at UHCprovider.com.

The AGA has said that some GI practices have found the portal to be confusing and it lacks a standard software application raising concerns for high error rates.

Advance notification applies to patients who have UHC commercial plans, including UnitedHealthcare, UnitedHealthcare Plan of the River Valley, Neighborhood Health Partnership, UnitedHealthcare Level Funded, and UnitedHealthcare Oxford Health Plans in all states, except Rhode Island, Kentucky, and New Mexico.

Providers who opt out of participating in advance notification will not be eligible to participate in the Gold Card program in 2024. The program will essentially allow providers to order most GI endoscopy procedures, except for screening colonoscopy, without prior authorization. However, UHC has not released any information about how it will implement its planned Gold Card prior authorization program or how many providers will be accepted into the program.

UHC has assured providers it will not issue medical necessity denials through this process, but it may ask providers to participate in a “comprehensive peer-to-peer discussion with a board-certified gastroenterologist around clinical guidelines.”

The fear for practices is that advance notification will be an onerous process adding burdensome paperwork that practices are not equipped to manage. UHC is the largest health insurer in the country representing 46% of the total market.

Lawrence Kim, MD, AGAF, vice president of AGA and a gastroenterologist practicing in Denver said that each physician in his practice does over 1,000 procedures annually and 25% of their patients carry UHC.

“We are currently completing 30-40 notifications a day, requiring two staff members to comply with this program. UHC is not asking for any clinical information, just procedure and diagnosis codes, and in some cases site of service. Therefore, the advance notification program as it stands will not provide UHC with any additional information beyond what they already have through claims data. This highlights the strain these requirements are putting on providers and practices for repetitive data,” he said.

For more details about UHC’s advance notification program, UHC has prepared this FAQ. To learn more about AGA’s advocacy, visit www.gastro.org/UHC.

It’s been just over 1 month since UnitedHealthcare (UHC) launched its advance notification program requiring providers to record nonscreening colonoscopy and other gastroenterology procedures to be eligible for its 2024 Gold Card program.

The program, which will begin next year, may eliminate prior authorization requirements for providers who successfully complete the advance notification program this year. However, there is no guarantee that providers who complete the advance notification program will be enrolled in the Gold Card program, which means they would have to seek prior authorization for nonscreening procedures, according to the American Gastroenterological Association.

While UHC has provided some information about how advance notification works, there are many unanswered questions, said Barbara H. Jung, MD,AGAF, AGA president.

AGA

“UnitedHealthcare’s haphazard approach to rolling out a policy that will ultimately control patient access to critical, often lifesaving medical procedures are the opposite of what should be our common goal of expeditious access to essential care,” she said in a written statement.

The advance notification program was announced on June 1 when UHC said it was dropping its controversial prior authorization program, which was due to go into effect that day.

AGA is concerned that UHC’s advance notification program is merely a delay tactic because prior authorization may be required next year for providers who are not accepted into the Gold Card program. Providers who are not accepted into the program may face delays in administering procedures due to the need for prior authorizations. Thousands of endoscopies and colonoscopies could potentially be disrupted in the first month alone due to canceled procedures because of new prior authorization requirements, they said.

UHC has been trying to rein in health care costs by first considering prior authorizations for most gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures, except for screening colonoscopy, but ultimately adopting advance notification. Providers, UHC has said, don’t always follow evidence-based medicine treatment recommendations or they overutilize procedures. Their goal, according to a summary document it issued outlining changes to advance notification and prior authorization requirements, is “better care, improved health outcomes, and lower costs.”

“Clinical studies demonstrate overutilization of these procedures and lack of adherence to specialty society–endorsed guidelines and recommendations. Up to one-third of upper GI procedures and almost half of nonscreening colonoscopies performed for common clinical conditions are not consistent with clinical guidelines,” UHC stated in an FAQ. “A UHC review of upper endoscopy and lower endoscopy procedures performed in 2022 revealed two- to fivefold practice-level variation in the use of both procedure types, even after adjusting for member characteristics including age and comorbidities.”

However, according to a statement from the AGA, it has not seen utilization data specific to UHC: “It is clear that UHC does not currently have any data indicating significant overutilization of critical colonoscopy and endoscopy procedures and therefore no justification to impose burdensome barriers like prior authorization.” AGA also pointed to research showing there is an unmet need for colonoscopies in the United States, which suggests there is an underutilization of this crucial procedure.

The advance notification policy comes despite immense pressure from physicians, patients, lawmakers, and regulators to crack down on prior authorization policies. “AGA has expressed its willingness to work collaboratively with UnitedHealthcare to address any concerns and educate physicians, but communication and transparency with the insurer are nearly nonexistent. Instead, the GI community is confronted with a nebulous concept called advance notification, which is not conducive to seamless patient care. Ultimately, it appears advance notification will form the basis of prior authorization, which we know can delay, disrupt, and deny timely care,” Dr. Jung said.
 

How advance notification works

Beginning June 1, providers have been asked to provide advance notification for nonscreening GI endoscopy procedures that include: esophagogastroduodenoscopy, capsule endoscopy, diagnostic colonoscopy and surveillance colonoscopy. The notification can be made by phone (866-889-8054) or through a UHC online portal at UHCprovider.com.

The AGA has said that some GI practices have found the portal to be confusing and it lacks a standard software application raising concerns for high error rates.

Advance notification applies to patients who have UHC commercial plans, including UnitedHealthcare, UnitedHealthcare Plan of the River Valley, Neighborhood Health Partnership, UnitedHealthcare Level Funded, and UnitedHealthcare Oxford Health Plans in all states, except Rhode Island, Kentucky, and New Mexico.

Providers who opt out of participating in advance notification will not be eligible to participate in the Gold Card program in 2024. The program will essentially allow providers to order most GI endoscopy procedures, except for screening colonoscopy, without prior authorization. However, UHC has not released any information about how it will implement its planned Gold Card prior authorization program or how many providers will be accepted into the program.

UHC has assured providers it will not issue medical necessity denials through this process, but it may ask providers to participate in a “comprehensive peer-to-peer discussion with a board-certified gastroenterologist around clinical guidelines.”

The fear for practices is that advance notification will be an onerous process adding burdensome paperwork that practices are not equipped to manage. UHC is the largest health insurer in the country representing 46% of the total market.

Lawrence Kim, MD, AGAF, vice president of AGA and a gastroenterologist practicing in Denver said that each physician in his practice does over 1,000 procedures annually and 25% of their patients carry UHC.

“We are currently completing 30-40 notifications a day, requiring two staff members to comply with this program. UHC is not asking for any clinical information, just procedure and diagnosis codes, and in some cases site of service. Therefore, the advance notification program as it stands will not provide UHC with any additional information beyond what they already have through claims data. This highlights the strain these requirements are putting on providers and practices for repetitive data,” he said.

For more details about UHC’s advance notification program, UHC has prepared this FAQ. To learn more about AGA’s advocacy, visit www.gastro.org/UHC.

Burnout for oncology health care providers has been worse in recent years, but not only for physicians – the entire health care system is under more stress.

Fahri Saatcioglu, PhD, and colleagues, whose report was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, described it as a “dire situation” with resolutions needed “urgently” to “mitigate the negative consequences of physician burnout.” Both individual and whole-system approaches are needed, wrote Dr. Saatcioglu, a researcher with Oslo University Hospital in Norway who reviewed well-being interventions designed to mitigate physician stress.

When burnout sets in it is marked by emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and a lack of confidence in one’s ability to do his or her job effectively (often because of lack of support or organizational constraints). It can lead to reduced work efficacy, medical errors, job dissatisfaction, and turnover, Fay J. Hlubocky, PhD, and colleagues, wrote in a report published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, patients postponed doctor visits and procedures. Telemedicine was adopted in place of in-person visits, surgeries were delayed, and oral chemotherapy was prescribed over intravenous therapies, wrote Dr. Hlubocky and colleagues, who addressed the heightened sense of burnout oncologists experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic.

But before the pandemic, oncologists were already overburdened by a system unable to meet the demand for services. And now, because patients delayed doctor visits, more patients are being diagnosed with advanced malignancies.

According to the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the demand for cancer-related services is expected to grow by 40% over the next 6 years. And, by 2025, there will be a shortage of more than 2,200 oncologists in the United States.

Addressing physician burnout can affect the bottom line. According to a report published in Annals of Internal Medicine, physician turnover and reduced clinical hours due to burnout costs the United States $4.6 billion each year.

“It is estimated that 30%-50% of physicians either have burnout symptoms or they experience burnout. A recent study on oncologists in Canada found that symptoms of burnout may reach 73%,” wrote Dr. Saatcioglu and colleagues. “It is clear, for example, that an appropriate workload, resource sufficiency, positive work culture and values, and sufficient social and community support are all very critical for a sustainable and successful health care organization. All of these are also required for the professional satisfaction and well-being of physicians.”

Physician stress has become so serious, that Dr. Saatcioglu and colleagues recommend that hospital administrators “firmly establish the culture of wellness at the workplace” by including physician wellness under the institutional initiatives umbrella. Hospital leadership, they wrote, should strive to mitigate burnout at all levels by addressing issues and adopting strategies for physicians as a workforce and as individuals.

“There is a distinct need to approach the personal needs of the physician as an individual who is experiencing chronic stress that can trigger psychologic symptoms, which further affects not only their own health, family life, etc., but also their clinical performance, quality of the resulting health care, patient satisfaction, and finally the health economy,” the authors wrote.

Some health care organizations have adopted programs and made institutional changes designed to reduce burnout for health care workers. These include online wellness programs both free and paid, but there is little data on the efficacy of these programs.

The review by Dr. Saatcioglu and coauthors included the Online Breath and Meditation Program, a Sudarshan Kriya Yoga (SKY) program of three 90-minute sessions on yoga, effective breathing techniques, and cognitive coping and stressor evaluation strategies that have been effective in helping war veterans, prisoners, patients, and students. The ultimate goal would be to have participants adopt a daily yoga routine. Among 803 health care workers who participated in the program and completed a survey, 85% said they benefited from the program and 94% reported experiencing less stress. And, 81% felt the program would help improve their job performance.

“In the future, we believe that the best place for the individual approaches to physician wellness would be to have them as an integral part of the organizational measures, and ideally, implemented as part of the daily work routine of the physician where the organizational and individual responsibilities would merge,” the authors wrote.

Freelance writer Lorraine L. Janeczko, MPH, contributed to this article.

Burnout for oncology health care providers has been worse in recent years, but not only for physicians – the entire health care system is under more stress.

Fahri Saatcioglu, PhD, and colleagues, whose report was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, described it as a “dire situation” with resolutions needed “urgently” to “mitigate the negative consequences of physician burnout.” Both individual and whole-system approaches are needed, wrote Dr. Saatcioglu, a researcher with Oslo University Hospital in Norway who reviewed well-being interventions designed to mitigate physician stress.

When burnout sets in it is marked by emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and a lack of confidence in one’s ability to do his or her job effectively (often because of lack of support or organizational constraints). It can lead to reduced work efficacy, medical errors, job dissatisfaction, and turnover, Fay J. Hlubocky, PhD, and colleagues, wrote in a report published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, patients postponed doctor visits and procedures. Telemedicine was adopted in place of in-person visits, surgeries were delayed, and oral chemotherapy was prescribed over intravenous therapies, wrote Dr. Hlubocky and colleagues, who addressed the heightened sense of burnout oncologists experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic.

But before the pandemic, oncologists were already overburdened by a system unable to meet the demand for services. And now, because patients delayed doctor visits, more patients are being diagnosed with advanced malignancies.

According to the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the demand for cancer-related services is expected to grow by 40% over the next 6 years. And, by 2025, there will be a shortage of more than 2,200 oncologists in the United States.

Addressing physician burnout can affect the bottom line. According to a report published in Annals of Internal Medicine, physician turnover and reduced clinical hours due to burnout costs the United States $4.6 billion each year.

“It is estimated that 30%-50% of physicians either have burnout symptoms or they experience burnout. A recent study on oncologists in Canada found that symptoms of burnout may reach 73%,” wrote Dr. Saatcioglu and colleagues. “It is clear, for example, that an appropriate workload, resource sufficiency, positive work culture and values, and sufficient social and community support are all very critical for a sustainable and successful health care organization. All of these are also required for the professional satisfaction and well-being of physicians.”

Physician stress has become so serious, that Dr. Saatcioglu and colleagues recommend that hospital administrators “firmly establish the culture of wellness at the workplace” by including physician wellness under the institutional initiatives umbrella. Hospital leadership, they wrote, should strive to mitigate burnout at all levels by addressing issues and adopting strategies for physicians as a workforce and as individuals.

“There is a distinct need to approach the personal needs of the physician as an individual who is experiencing chronic stress that can trigger psychologic symptoms, which further affects not only their own health, family life, etc., but also their clinical performance, quality of the resulting health care, patient satisfaction, and finally the health economy,” the authors wrote.

Some health care organizations have adopted programs and made institutional changes designed to reduce burnout for health care workers. These include online wellness programs both free and paid, but there is little data on the efficacy of these programs.

The review by Dr. Saatcioglu and coauthors included the Online Breath and Meditation Program, a Sudarshan Kriya Yoga (SKY) program of three 90-minute sessions on yoga, effective breathing techniques, and cognitive coping and stressor evaluation strategies that have been effective in helping war veterans, prisoners, patients, and students. The ultimate goal would be to have participants adopt a daily yoga routine. Among 803 health care workers who participated in the program and completed a survey, 85% said they benefited from the program and 94% reported experiencing less stress. And, 81% felt the program would help improve their job performance.

“In the future, we believe that the best place for the individual approaches to physician wellness would be to have them as an integral part of the organizational measures, and ideally, implemented as part of the daily work routine of the physician where the organizational and individual responsibilities would merge,” the authors wrote.

Freelance writer Lorraine L. Janeczko, MPH, contributed to this article.

Burnout for oncology health care providers has been worse in recent years, but not only for physicians – the entire health care system is under more stress.

Fahri Saatcioglu, PhD, and colleagues, whose report was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, described it as a “dire situation” with resolutions needed “urgently” to “mitigate the negative consequences of physician burnout.” Both individual and whole-system approaches are needed, wrote Dr. Saatcioglu, a researcher with Oslo University Hospital in Norway who reviewed well-being interventions designed to mitigate physician stress.

When burnout sets in it is marked by emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and a lack of confidence in one’s ability to do his or her job effectively (often because of lack of support or organizational constraints). It can lead to reduced work efficacy, medical errors, job dissatisfaction, and turnover, Fay J. Hlubocky, PhD, and colleagues, wrote in a report published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, patients postponed doctor visits and procedures. Telemedicine was adopted in place of in-person visits, surgeries were delayed, and oral chemotherapy was prescribed over intravenous therapies, wrote Dr. Hlubocky and colleagues, who addressed the heightened sense of burnout oncologists experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic.

But before the pandemic, oncologists were already overburdened by a system unable to meet the demand for services. And now, because patients delayed doctor visits, more patients are being diagnosed with advanced malignancies.

According to the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the demand for cancer-related services is expected to grow by 40% over the next 6 years. And, by 2025, there will be a shortage of more than 2,200 oncologists in the United States.

Addressing physician burnout can affect the bottom line. According to a report published in Annals of Internal Medicine, physician turnover and reduced clinical hours due to burnout costs the United States $4.6 billion each year.

“It is estimated that 30%-50% of physicians either have burnout symptoms or they experience burnout. A recent study on oncologists in Canada found that symptoms of burnout may reach 73%,” wrote Dr. Saatcioglu and colleagues. “It is clear, for example, that an appropriate workload, resource sufficiency, positive work culture and values, and sufficient social and community support are all very critical for a sustainable and successful health care organization. All of these are also required for the professional satisfaction and well-being of physicians.”

Physician stress has become so serious, that Dr. Saatcioglu and colleagues recommend that hospital administrators “firmly establish the culture of wellness at the workplace” by including physician wellness under the institutional initiatives umbrella. Hospital leadership, they wrote, should strive to mitigate burnout at all levels by addressing issues and adopting strategies for physicians as a workforce and as individuals.

“There is a distinct need to approach the personal needs of the physician as an individual who is experiencing chronic stress that can trigger psychologic symptoms, which further affects not only their own health, family life, etc., but also their clinical performance, quality of the resulting health care, patient satisfaction, and finally the health economy,” the authors wrote.

Some health care organizations have adopted programs and made institutional changes designed to reduce burnout for health care workers. These include online wellness programs both free and paid, but there is little data on the efficacy of these programs.

The review by Dr. Saatcioglu and coauthors included the Online Breath and Meditation Program, a Sudarshan Kriya Yoga (SKY) program of three 90-minute sessions on yoga, effective breathing techniques, and cognitive coping and stressor evaluation strategies that have been effective in helping war veterans, prisoners, patients, and students. The ultimate goal would be to have participants adopt a daily yoga routine. Among 803 health care workers who participated in the program and completed a survey, 85% said they benefited from the program and 94% reported experiencing less stress. And, 81% felt the program would help improve their job performance.

“In the future, we believe that the best place for the individual approaches to physician wellness would be to have them as an integral part of the organizational measures, and ideally, implemented as part of the daily work routine of the physician where the organizational and individual responsibilities would merge,” the authors wrote.

Freelance writer Lorraine L. Janeczko, MPH, contributed to this article.

The combination of neoadjuvant chemotherapy with immunotherapy led to significant improvements in survival for patients with resectable stage IIIA-B non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to researchers reporting earlier this month in Chicago at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Advanced stage IIIA NSCLC is incurable in most patients with lung cancer, and with existing treatments only 30% of patients will live up to 5 years. In this study, neoadjuvant chemotherapy with nivolumab significantly increased the pathological complete response rate in 36.2% of patients, compared with 6.8% who received chemo alone, said study author Mariano Provencio-Pulla, MD, PhD, Instituto Investigacion Sanitaria Puerta de Hierro-Segovia de Arana, Spain. The major pathologic response (MPR) – which accounts for residual viable tumor of less than or equal to 10 – was better in the treatment group as compared with patients who received chemotherapy alone (52% vs 14%). The objective response rate (ORR) – or, the percentage of patients who had a partial or complete response to treatment – was 74% in the treatment group, compared with 48% among patients who received chemotherapy.

“In our opinion this should be the standard of care for patients,” Dr. Provencio-Pulla said during his presentation.

The ASCO treatment guidelines for stage III NSCLC, specify that some patients can receive immunotherapy for up to a year, but for resectable stage III disease, this therapy is still under investigation.

In this study, called NADIM II (NCT03838159), investigators enrolled 87 patients with resectable clinical stage IIIA disease between February 2019 and November 2021. NADIM II is an open-label, randomized, two-arm, phase 2, multicenter clinical trial. Patients had ECOG scores of 0-1 and no known EGFR/ALK alterations. Patients received either nivolumab 360 mg with paclitaxel 200 mg/m² and carboplatin AUC5 for three cycles every 21 days as treatment before or after surgery. Patients who received a resection that left no microscopic tumor in the primary tumor bed, received adjuvant nivolumab between weeks 3 and 8 after surgery for 6 months.

At 91%, almost all patients who received the immunotherapy and chemotherapy treatment underwent surgery, compared with 69% of patients in the chemotherapy treatment group. In the treatment group, patients with pathological complete response (pCR) had higher PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) scores (median 70%).

The primary endpoint was pathological complete response of 0% viable tumor cells in resected lung and lymph nodes. The major pathological response was no more than 10% viable tumor remaining. The secondary endpoints included overall response rate, toxicity profile, and potential predictive biomarkers.

The addition of neoadjuvant nivolumab to chemotherapy significantly improved pCR (odds ratio, 7.88). The safety profile was “tolerable” with a moderate increase in grade 3-4 toxicity; plus no surgery was delayed because of problems with the treatment, Dr. Provencio-Pulla said.

This study was funded by Fundación GECP. Dr. Provencio-Pulla has received funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, the maker of Opdivo (nivolumab).

The combination of neoadjuvant chemotherapy with immunotherapy led to significant improvements in survival for patients with resectable stage IIIA-B non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to researchers reporting earlier this month in Chicago at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Advanced stage IIIA NSCLC is incurable in most patients with lung cancer, and with existing treatments only 30% of patients will live up to 5 years. In this study, neoadjuvant chemotherapy with nivolumab significantly increased the pathological complete response rate in 36.2% of patients, compared with 6.8% who received chemo alone, said study author Mariano Provencio-Pulla, MD, PhD, Instituto Investigacion Sanitaria Puerta de Hierro-Segovia de Arana, Spain. The major pathologic response (MPR) – which accounts for residual viable tumor of less than or equal to 10 – was better in the treatment group as compared with patients who received chemotherapy alone (52% vs 14%). The objective response rate (ORR) – or, the percentage of patients who had a partial or complete response to treatment – was 74% in the treatment group, compared with 48% among patients who received chemotherapy.

“In our opinion this should be the standard of care for patients,” Dr. Provencio-Pulla said during his presentation.

The ASCO treatment guidelines for stage III NSCLC, specify that some patients can receive immunotherapy for up to a year, but for resectable stage III disease, this therapy is still under investigation.

In this study, called NADIM II (NCT03838159), investigators enrolled 87 patients with resectable clinical stage IIIA disease between February 2019 and November 2021. NADIM II is an open-label, randomized, two-arm, phase 2, multicenter clinical trial. Patients had ECOG scores of 0-1 and no known EGFR/ALK alterations. Patients received either nivolumab 360 mg with paclitaxel 200 mg/m² and carboplatin AUC5 for three cycles every 21 days as treatment before or after surgery. Patients who received a resection that left no microscopic tumor in the primary tumor bed, received adjuvant nivolumab between weeks 3 and 8 after surgery for 6 months.

At 91%, almost all patients who received the immunotherapy and chemotherapy treatment underwent surgery, compared with 69% of patients in the chemotherapy treatment group. In the treatment group, patients with pathological complete response (pCR) had higher PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) scores (median 70%).

The primary endpoint was pathological complete response of 0% viable tumor cells in resected lung and lymph nodes. The major pathological response was no more than 10% viable tumor remaining. The secondary endpoints included overall response rate, toxicity profile, and potential predictive biomarkers.

The addition of neoadjuvant nivolumab to chemotherapy significantly improved pCR (odds ratio, 7.88). The safety profile was “tolerable” with a moderate increase in grade 3-4 toxicity; plus no surgery was delayed because of problems with the treatment, Dr. Provencio-Pulla said.

This study was funded by Fundación GECP. Dr. Provencio-Pulla has received funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, the maker of Opdivo (nivolumab).

The combination of neoadjuvant chemotherapy with immunotherapy led to significant improvements in survival for patients with resectable stage IIIA-B non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to researchers reporting earlier this month in Chicago at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Advanced stage IIIA NSCLC is incurable in most patients with lung cancer, and with existing treatments only 30% of patients will live up to 5 years. In this study, neoadjuvant chemotherapy with nivolumab significantly increased the pathological complete response rate in 36.2% of patients, compared with 6.8% who received chemo alone, said study author Mariano Provencio-Pulla, MD, PhD, Instituto Investigacion Sanitaria Puerta de Hierro-Segovia de Arana, Spain. The major pathologic response (MPR) – which accounts for residual viable tumor of less than or equal to 10 – was better in the treatment group as compared with patients who received chemotherapy alone (52% vs 14%). The objective response rate (ORR) – or, the percentage of patients who had a partial or complete response to treatment – was 74% in the treatment group, compared with 48% among patients who received chemotherapy.

“In our opinion this should be the standard of care for patients,” Dr. Provencio-Pulla said during his presentation.

The ASCO treatment guidelines for stage III NSCLC, specify that some patients can receive immunotherapy for up to a year, but for resectable stage III disease, this therapy is still under investigation.

In this study, called NADIM II (NCT03838159), investigators enrolled 87 patients with resectable clinical stage IIIA disease between February 2019 and November 2021. NADIM II is an open-label, randomized, two-arm, phase 2, multicenter clinical trial. Patients had ECOG scores of 0-1 and no known EGFR/ALK alterations. Patients received either nivolumab 360 mg with paclitaxel 200 mg/m² and carboplatin AUC5 for three cycles every 21 days as treatment before or after surgery. Patients who received a resection that left no microscopic tumor in the primary tumor bed, received adjuvant nivolumab between weeks 3 and 8 after surgery for 6 months.

At 91%, almost all patients who received the immunotherapy and chemotherapy treatment underwent surgery, compared with 69% of patients in the chemotherapy treatment group. In the treatment group, patients with pathological complete response (pCR) had higher PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) scores (median 70%).

The primary endpoint was pathological complete response of 0% viable tumor cells in resected lung and lymph nodes. The major pathological response was no more than 10% viable tumor remaining. The secondary endpoints included overall response rate, toxicity profile, and potential predictive biomarkers.

The addition of neoadjuvant nivolumab to chemotherapy significantly improved pCR (odds ratio, 7.88). The safety profile was “tolerable” with a moderate increase in grade 3-4 toxicity; plus no surgery was delayed because of problems with the treatment, Dr. Provencio-Pulla said.

This study was funded by Fundación GECP. Dr. Provencio-Pulla has received funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, the maker of Opdivo (nivolumab).

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria for lung cancer screening should be expanded to include more women, especially those with a history of breast cancer, according to a new study published in BJS Open.

The 2021 screening guidelines include adults aged between 50 and 80 years who have a 20–pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years, but the guidelines do not include nonsmokers or patients with a history of previous malignancies, such as breast cancer.

Led by Daniela Molena, MD, a thoracic surgeon and director of esophageal surgery at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, researchers conducted an analysis of 2,192 women with first-time lung cancer who underwent lung resections at Memorial Sloan Kettering between January 2000 and December 2017. The study’s objective was to determine stage at diagnosis, survival, and eligibility for lung cancer screening among patients with lung cancer who had a previous breast cancer diagnosis and those who did not have a history of breast cancer.

Only 331 (15.1%) patients were previously diagnosed with breast cancer, which was not statistically significant. “Overall, there were no statistically significant differences in genomic or oncogenic pathway alterations between the two groups, which suggests that lung cancer in patients who previously had breast cancer may not be affected at the genomic level by the previous breast cancer,” the authors wrote.

However, at 58.4%, more than half of patients in the study (1,281 patients) were prior smokers and only 33.3% met the USPSTF criteria for lung cancer screening, which the authors said was concerning.

“The most important finding of the study was that a high percentage of women with lung cancer, regardless of breast cancer history, did not meet the current USPSTF criteria for lung cancer screening. This is very important given the observation that nearly half of the women included in the study did not have a history of smoking. As such, the role of imaging for other causes, such as cancer surveillance, becomes especially important for early cancer diagnosis,” Dr. Molena and colleagues wrote. “To reduce late-stage cancer diagnoses, further assessment of guidelines for lung cancer screening for all women may be needed.”

Instead, for almost half of women in the study group with a history of breast cancer, the lung cancer was detected on a routine follow-up imaging scan.

USPSTF guidelines for lung cancer screening do not include previous malignancy as a high-risk feature requiring evaluation, which may explain why so few women in this study were screened for lung cancer, even though lung cancer is more common in breast cancer survivors than the general population. Approximately 10% of women who have had breast cancer will develop a second malignancy within 10 years and in most cases, it will be lung cancer. Plus, according to the National Cancer Institute, breast, lung, and colorectal cancers are the three most common cancers in women and account for approximately 50% of all new cancer diagnoses in women in 2020.

A 2018 analysis published in Frontiers in Oncology found that, of more than 6,000 women with secondary primary lung cancer after having had breast cancer, 42% had distant-stage disease at the time of diagnosis which, Dr. Molena and colleagues said, suggests an ongoing need to update screening recommendations.

“Given that lung cancer has a 5-year overall survival rate of less than 20% (highlighting the benefits of early-stage diagnosis), a better understanding of lung cancer in women with a history of breast cancer could have important implications for screening and surveillance,” the authors wrote.

Estrogen is known to play a role in the development of lung cancer by activating the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). Previous research has shown an increased risk of lung cancer in patients with estrogen receptor–negative, progesterone receptor–negative, HER2-negative, or triple-negative breast cancer.

“Antiestrogen treatment has been demonstrated to decrease the incidence of lung cancer and has been associated with improved long-term survival in patients with lung cancer after breast cancer. Future studies should seek to identify high-risk populations on the basis of hormone receptor status and antiestrogen therapy use,” the authors wrote.

The authors noted a number of limitations to the study, including the single hospital as the sole source of data, plus, the analysis did not account for the length of time since patients quit smoking and a lung cancer diagnosis. Nor did it consider other risk factors, such as radiation, chemotherapy, or antiestrogen therapies.

The authors did not disclose any study-related conflicts of interests.

This article was updated 3/2/22.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria for lung cancer screening should be expanded to include more women, especially those with a history of breast cancer, according to a new study published in BJS Open.

The 2021 screening guidelines include adults aged between 50 and 80 years who have a 20–pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years, but the guidelines do not include nonsmokers or patients with a history of previous malignancies, such as breast cancer.

Led by Daniela Molena, MD, a thoracic surgeon and director of esophageal surgery at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, researchers conducted an analysis of 2,192 women with first-time lung cancer who underwent lung resections at Memorial Sloan Kettering between January 2000 and December 2017. The study’s objective was to determine stage at diagnosis, survival, and eligibility for lung cancer screening among patients with lung cancer who had a previous breast cancer diagnosis and those who did not have a history of breast cancer.

Only 331 (15.1%) patients were previously diagnosed with breast cancer, which was not statistically significant. “Overall, there were no statistically significant differences in genomic or oncogenic pathway alterations between the two groups, which suggests that lung cancer in patients who previously had breast cancer may not be affected at the genomic level by the previous breast cancer,” the authors wrote.

However, at 58.4%, more than half of patients in the study (1,281 patients) were prior smokers and only 33.3% met the USPSTF criteria for lung cancer screening, which the authors said was concerning.

“The most important finding of the study was that a high percentage of women with lung cancer, regardless of breast cancer history, did not meet the current USPSTF criteria for lung cancer screening. This is very important given the observation that nearly half of the women included in the study did not have a history of smoking. As such, the role of imaging for other causes, such as cancer surveillance, becomes especially important for early cancer diagnosis,” Dr. Molena and colleagues wrote. “To reduce late-stage cancer diagnoses, further assessment of guidelines for lung cancer screening for all women may be needed.”

Instead, for almost half of women in the study group with a history of breast cancer, the lung cancer was detected on a routine follow-up imaging scan.

USPSTF guidelines for lung cancer screening do not include previous malignancy as a high-risk feature requiring evaluation, which may explain why so few women in this study were screened for lung cancer, even though lung cancer is more common in breast cancer survivors than the general population. Approximately 10% of women who have had breast cancer will develop a second malignancy within 10 years and in most cases, it will be lung cancer. Plus, according to the National Cancer Institute, breast, lung, and colorectal cancers are the three most common cancers in women and account for approximately 50% of all new cancer diagnoses in women in 2020.

A 2018 analysis published in Frontiers in Oncology found that, of more than 6,000 women with secondary primary lung cancer after having had breast cancer, 42% had distant-stage disease at the time of diagnosis which, Dr. Molena and colleagues said, suggests an ongoing need to update screening recommendations.

“Given that lung cancer has a 5-year overall survival rate of less than 20% (highlighting the benefits of early-stage diagnosis), a better understanding of lung cancer in women with a history of breast cancer could have important implications for screening and surveillance,” the authors wrote.

Estrogen is known to play a role in the development of lung cancer by activating the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). Previous research has shown an increased risk of lung cancer in patients with estrogen receptor–negative, progesterone receptor–negative, HER2-negative, or triple-negative breast cancer.

“Antiestrogen treatment has been demonstrated to decrease the incidence of lung cancer and has been associated with improved long-term survival in patients with lung cancer after breast cancer. Future studies should seek to identify high-risk populations on the basis of hormone receptor status and antiestrogen therapy use,” the authors wrote.

The authors noted a number of limitations to the study, including the single hospital as the sole source of data, plus, the analysis did not account for the length of time since patients quit smoking and a lung cancer diagnosis. Nor did it consider other risk factors, such as radiation, chemotherapy, or antiestrogen therapies.

The authors did not disclose any study-related conflicts of interests.

This article was updated 3/2/22.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria for lung cancer screening should be expanded to include more women, especially those with a history of breast cancer, according to a new study published in BJS Open.

The 2021 screening guidelines include adults aged between 50 and 80 years who have a 20–pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years, but the guidelines do not include nonsmokers or patients with a history of previous malignancies, such as breast cancer.

Led by Daniela Molena, MD, a thoracic surgeon and director of esophageal surgery at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, researchers conducted an analysis of 2,192 women with first-time lung cancer who underwent lung resections at Memorial Sloan Kettering between January 2000 and December 2017. The study’s objective was to determine stage at diagnosis, survival, and eligibility for lung cancer screening among patients with lung cancer who had a previous breast cancer diagnosis and those who did not have a history of breast cancer.

Only 331 (15.1%) patients were previously diagnosed with breast cancer, which was not statistically significant. “Overall, there were no statistically significant differences in genomic or oncogenic pathway alterations between the two groups, which suggests that lung cancer in patients who previously had breast cancer may not be affected at the genomic level by the previous breast cancer,” the authors wrote.

However, at 58.4%, more than half of patients in the study (1,281 patients) were prior smokers and only 33.3% met the USPSTF criteria for lung cancer screening, which the authors said was concerning.

“The most important finding of the study was that a high percentage of women with lung cancer, regardless of breast cancer history, did not meet the current USPSTF criteria for lung cancer screening. This is very important given the observation that nearly half of the women included in the study did not have a history of smoking. As such, the role of imaging for other causes, such as cancer surveillance, becomes especially important for early cancer diagnosis,” Dr. Molena and colleagues wrote. “To reduce late-stage cancer diagnoses, further assessment of guidelines for lung cancer screening for all women may be needed.”

Instead, for almost half of women in the study group with a history of breast cancer, the lung cancer was detected on a routine follow-up imaging scan.

USPSTF guidelines for lung cancer screening do not include previous malignancy as a high-risk feature requiring evaluation, which may explain why so few women in this study were screened for lung cancer, even though lung cancer is more common in breast cancer survivors than the general population. Approximately 10% of women who have had breast cancer will develop a second malignancy within 10 years and in most cases, it will be lung cancer. Plus, according to the National Cancer Institute, breast, lung, and colorectal cancers are the three most common cancers in women and account for approximately 50% of all new cancer diagnoses in women in 2020.

A 2018 analysis published in Frontiers in Oncology found that, of more than 6,000 women with secondary primary lung cancer after having had breast cancer, 42% had distant-stage disease at the time of diagnosis which, Dr. Molena and colleagues said, suggests an ongoing need to update screening recommendations.

“Given that lung cancer has a 5-year overall survival rate of less than 20% (highlighting the benefits of early-stage diagnosis), a better understanding of lung cancer in women with a history of breast cancer could have important implications for screening and surveillance,” the authors wrote.

Estrogen is known to play a role in the development of lung cancer by activating the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). Previous research has shown an increased risk of lung cancer in patients with estrogen receptor–negative, progesterone receptor–negative, HER2-negative, or triple-negative breast cancer.

“Antiestrogen treatment has been demonstrated to decrease the incidence of lung cancer and has been associated with improved long-term survival in patients with lung cancer after breast cancer. Future studies should seek to identify high-risk populations on the basis of hormone receptor status and antiestrogen therapy use,” the authors wrote.

The authors noted a number of limitations to the study, including the single hospital as the sole source of data, plus, the analysis did not account for the length of time since patients quit smoking and a lung cancer diagnosis. Nor did it consider other risk factors, such as radiation, chemotherapy, or antiestrogen therapies.

The authors did not disclose any study-related conflicts of interests.

This article was updated 3/2/22.

A new systematic review and meta-analysis finds that unvaccinated cancer patients who contracted COVID-19 last year, were more than two times more likely – than people without cancer – to develop a case of COVID-19 so severe it required hospitalization in an intensive care unit.

“Our study provides the most precise measure to date of the effect of COVID-19 in cancer patients,” wrote researchers who were led by Paolo Boffetta, MD, MPH, a specialist in population science with the Stony Brook Cancer Center in New York.

Dr. Boffetta and colleagues also found that patients with hematologic neoplasms had a higher mortality rate from COVID-19 comparable to that of all cancers combined.

Cancer patients have long been considered to be among those patients who are at high risk of developing COVID-19, and if they contract the disease, they are at high risk of having poor outcomes. Other high-risk patients include those with hypertension, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, or COPD, or the elderly. But how high the risk of developing severe COVID-19 disease is for cancer patients hasn’t yet been documented on a wide scale.

The study, which was made available as a preprint on medRxiv on Oct. 23, is based on an analysis of COVID-19 cases that were documented in 35 reviews, meta-analyses, case reports, and studies indexed in PubMed from authors in North America, Europe, and Asia.

In this study, the pooled odds ratio for mortality for all patients with any cancer was 2.32 (95% confidence interval, 1.82-2.94; 24 studies). For ICU admission, the odds ratio was 2.39 (95% CI, 1.90-3.02; I2 0.0%; 5 studies). And, for disease severity or hospitalization, it was 2.08 (95% CI, 1.60-2.72; I2 92.1%; 15 studies). The pooled mortality odds ratio for hematologic neoplasms was 2.14 (95% CI, 1.87-2.44; I2 20.8%; 8 studies).

Their findings, which have not yet been peer reviewed, confirmed the results of a similar analysis from China published as a preprint in May 2020. The analysis included 181,323 patients (23,736 cancer patients) from 26 studies reported an odds ratio of 2.54 (95% CI, 1.47-4.42). “Cancer patients with COVID-19 have an increased likelihood of death compared to non-cancer COVID-19 patients,” Venkatesulu et al. wrote. And a systematic review and meta-analysis of five studies of 2,619 patients published in October 2020 in Medicine also found a significantly higher risk of death from COVID-19 among cancer patients (odds ratio, 2.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-6.06; P = .023; I2 = 26.4%).

Fakih et al., writing in the journal Hematology/Oncology and Stem Cell Therapy conducted a meta-analysis early last year finding a threefold increase for admission to the intensive care unit, an almost fourfold increase for a severe SARS-CoV-2 infection, and a fivefold increase for being intubated.

The three studies show that mortality rates were higher early in the pandemic “when diagnosis and treatment for SARS-CoV-2 might have been delayed, resulting in higher death rate,” Boffetta et al. wrote, adding that their analysis showed only a twofold increase most likely because it was a year-long analysis.

“Future studies will be able to better analyze this association for the different subtypes of cancer. Furthermore, they will eventually be able to evaluate whether the difference among vaccinated population is reduced,” Boffetta et al. wrote.

The authors noted several limitations for the study, including the fact that many of the studies included in the analysis did not include sex, age, comorbidities, and therapy. Nor were the authors able to analyze specific cancers other than hematologic neoplasms.

The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A new systematic review and meta-analysis finds that unvaccinated cancer patients who contracted COVID-19 last year, were more than two times more likely – than people without cancer – to develop a case of COVID-19 so severe it required hospitalization in an intensive care unit.

“Our study provides the most precise measure to date of the effect of COVID-19 in cancer patients,” wrote researchers who were led by Paolo Boffetta, MD, MPH, a specialist in population science with the Stony Brook Cancer Center in New York.

Dr. Boffetta and colleagues also found that patients with hematologic neoplasms had a higher mortality rate from COVID-19 comparable to that of all cancers combined.

Cancer patients have long been considered to be among those patients who are at high risk of developing COVID-19, and if they contract the disease, they are at high risk of having poor outcomes. Other high-risk patients include those with hypertension, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, or COPD, or the elderly. But how high the risk of developing severe COVID-19 disease is for cancer patients hasn’t yet been documented on a wide scale.

The study, which was made available as a preprint on medRxiv on Oct. 23, is based on an analysis of COVID-19 cases that were documented in 35 reviews, meta-analyses, case reports, and studies indexed in PubMed from authors in North America, Europe, and Asia.

In this study, the pooled odds ratio for mortality for all patients with any cancer was 2.32 (95% confidence interval, 1.82-2.94; 24 studies). For ICU admission, the odds ratio was 2.39 (95% CI, 1.90-3.02; I2 0.0%; 5 studies). And, for disease severity or hospitalization, it was 2.08 (95% CI, 1.60-2.72; I2 92.1%; 15 studies). The pooled mortality odds ratio for hematologic neoplasms was 2.14 (95% CI, 1.87-2.44; I2 20.8%; 8 studies).

Their findings, which have not yet been peer reviewed, confirmed the results of a similar analysis from China published as a preprint in May 2020. The analysis included 181,323 patients (23,736 cancer patients) from 26 studies reported an odds ratio of 2.54 (95% CI, 1.47-4.42). “Cancer patients with COVID-19 have an increased likelihood of death compared to non-cancer COVID-19 patients,” Venkatesulu et al. wrote. And a systematic review and meta-analysis of five studies of 2,619 patients published in October 2020 in Medicine also found a significantly higher risk of death from COVID-19 among cancer patients (odds ratio, 2.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-6.06; P = .023; I2 = 26.4%).

Fakih et al., writing in the journal Hematology/Oncology and Stem Cell Therapy conducted a meta-analysis early last year finding a threefold increase for admission to the intensive care unit, an almost fourfold increase for a severe SARS-CoV-2 infection, and a fivefold increase for being intubated.

The three studies show that mortality rates were higher early in the pandemic “when diagnosis and treatment for SARS-CoV-2 might have been delayed, resulting in higher death rate,” Boffetta et al. wrote, adding that their analysis showed only a twofold increase most likely because it was a year-long analysis.

“Future studies will be able to better analyze this association for the different subtypes of cancer. Furthermore, they will eventually be able to evaluate whether the difference among vaccinated population is reduced,” Boffetta et al. wrote.

The authors noted several limitations for the study, including the fact that many of the studies included in the analysis did not include sex, age, comorbidities, and therapy. Nor were the authors able to analyze specific cancers other than hematologic neoplasms.

The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A new systematic review and meta-analysis finds that unvaccinated cancer patients who contracted COVID-19 last year, were more than two times more likely – than people without cancer – to develop a case of COVID-19 so severe it required hospitalization in an intensive care unit.

“Our study provides the most precise measure to date of the effect of COVID-19 in cancer patients,” wrote researchers who were led by Paolo Boffetta, MD, MPH, a specialist in population science with the Stony Brook Cancer Center in New York.

Dr. Boffetta and colleagues also found that patients with hematologic neoplasms had a higher mortality rate from COVID-19 comparable to that of all cancers combined.

Cancer patients have long been considered to be among those patients who are at high risk of developing COVID-19, and if they contract the disease, they are at high risk of having poor outcomes. Other high-risk patients include those with hypertension, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, or COPD, or the elderly. But how high the risk of developing severe COVID-19 disease is for cancer patients hasn’t yet been documented on a wide scale.

The study, which was made available as a preprint on medRxiv on Oct. 23, is based on an analysis of COVID-19 cases that were documented in 35 reviews, meta-analyses, case reports, and studies indexed in PubMed from authors in North America, Europe, and Asia.

In this study, the pooled odds ratio for mortality for all patients with any cancer was 2.32 (95% confidence interval, 1.82-2.94; 24 studies). For ICU admission, the odds ratio was 2.39 (95% CI, 1.90-3.02; I2 0.0%; 5 studies). And, for disease severity or hospitalization, it was 2.08 (95% CI, 1.60-2.72; I2 92.1%; 15 studies). The pooled mortality odds ratio for hematologic neoplasms was 2.14 (95% CI, 1.87-2.44; I2 20.8%; 8 studies).

Their findings, which have not yet been peer reviewed, confirmed the results of a similar analysis from China published as a preprint in May 2020. The analysis included 181,323 patients (23,736 cancer patients) from 26 studies reported an odds ratio of 2.54 (95% CI, 1.47-4.42). “Cancer patients with COVID-19 have an increased likelihood of death compared to non-cancer COVID-19 patients,” Venkatesulu et al. wrote. And a systematic review and meta-analysis of five studies of 2,619 patients published in October 2020 in Medicine also found a significantly higher risk of death from COVID-19 among cancer patients (odds ratio, 2.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-6.06; P = .023; I2 = 26.4%).

Fakih et al., writing in the journal Hematology/Oncology and Stem Cell Therapy conducted a meta-analysis early last year finding a threefold increase for admission to the intensive care unit, an almost fourfold increase for a severe SARS-CoV-2 infection, and a fivefold increase for being intubated.

The three studies show that mortality rates were higher early in the pandemic “when diagnosis and treatment for SARS-CoV-2 might have been delayed, resulting in higher death rate,” Boffetta et al. wrote, adding that their analysis showed only a twofold increase most likely because it was a year-long analysis.

“Future studies will be able to better analyze this association for the different subtypes of cancer. Furthermore, they will eventually be able to evaluate whether the difference among vaccinated population is reduced,” Boffetta et al. wrote.

The authors noted several limitations for the study, including the fact that many of the studies included in the analysis did not include sex, age, comorbidities, and therapy. Nor were the authors able to analyze specific cancers other than hematologic neoplasms.

The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

In ongoing efforts to investigate a link between vitamin D and colorectal cancer, new research shows that women who consume higher levels of vitamin D – particularly from dietary sources – have a reduced risk of developing early-onset colorectal cancer, compared with those who have lower levels.

This is according to an observational study published in the journal Gastroenterology. The study included 94,205 women (aged 25-42 years) who were followed between 1991 and 2015 during which 111 incident cases of early-onset colorectal cancer were diagnosed. Among 29,186 women who had at least one lower endoscopy from 1991 to 2011, 1,439 newly diagnosed conventional adenomas and 1,878 serrated polyps were found.

Women who consumed the highest average levels of total vitamin D of 450 IU per day, compared with those consuming less than 300 IU per day, showed a significantly reduced risk of early-onset colorectal cancer. Consuming 400 IU each day was associated with a 54% reduced risk of early-onset colorectal cancer.

“If confirmed, our findings could potentially lead to recommendations for higher vitamin D intake as an inexpensive low-risk complement to colorectal cancer screening as a prevention strategy for adults younger than age 50,” wrote the study authors, led by Edward L. Giovannucci, MD, ScD, of the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston.

Associations between vitamin D levels and colorectal cancer have been documented in review articles over the years. The link is the subject of 10 recently completed or ongoing clinical trials. Few studies have focused on early colorectal cancer and vitamin D intake. Unlike advanced colorectal cancer, the early-onset form of the disease is not as strongly associated with the traditional risk factors of a family history of colorectal cancer and it is therefore believed to be more strongly linked to other factors, such as lifestyle and diet – including vitamin D supplementation.
 

The evidence is in, but it’s incomplete

In addition to the new study in Gastroenterology, other observational studies, as well as laboratory and animal studies, suggest that vitamin D plays a role in inhibiting carcinogenesis. Vitamin D, researchers theorize, contains anti-inflammatory, immunomodulatory, and tumor angiogenesis properties that can slow the growth of tumors, but the evidence is mixed.

A meta-analysis of 137,567 patients published in 2013 in Preventive Medicine found an inverse association between 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) and total cancer mortality in women, but not among men. Three meta-analyses published in 2014 and 2019 found that vitamin D supplementation does not affect cancer incidence but does significantly reduce total cancer mortality rates by 12%-13%.

In 2019, researchers led by Marjorie McCullough, ScD, RD, senior scientific director of epidemiology research for the American Cancer Society, described a causal relationship between circulating vitamin D and colorectal cancer risk among 17 cohorts from a pooled analysis. “Our study suggests that optimal circulating 25(OH)D concentrations for colorectal cancer risk reduction are 75-100 nmol/L, [which is] higher than current Institute of Medicine recommendations for bone health,” she and colleagues wrote. Their findings were published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

The Vitamin D and Omega-3 Trial (VITAL) published in 2019 in the New England Journal of Medicine, showed no significant effect of vitamin D₃ supplementation of 2,000 IU/day in lowering the risk of invasive cancer or cardiovascular events.

Despite the mixed results, studies offer valuable insights into cancer risks, said Scott Kopetz, MD, PhD, codirector of the colorectal cancer moon shot research program at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

The Gastroenterology study is noteworthy because it focuses on early-onset colorectal cancer, he said.

“[The authors] demonstrate for the first time that there is an association of vitamin D intake with early-onset colorectal incidence, especially in the left side of the colon and rectum where the increase in early onset colorectal cancer manifests,” Dr. Kopetz said. “The analysis suggests that it may require long-term vitamin D intake to derive the benefit, which may explain why some shorter-term randomized studies failed to demonstrate.”

In animal models, vitamin D₃ is “estimated to lower the incidence of colorectal cancer by 50%,” according to Lidija Klampfer, PhD, formerly a molecular biologist and senior research scientist with the Southern Research Institute, Birmingham, Ala.

Dr. Klampfer, a founding partner of ProteXase Therapeutics, is the author of an article on vitamin D and colon cancer published in 2014 in the World Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology.

“The levels of vitamin D3 appear to be an essential determinant for the development and progression of colon cancer and supplementation with vitamin D3 is effective in suppressing intestinal tumorigenesis in animal models,” she wrote. “Studies have shown that 1,25 dihydroxyvitamin D₃ can inhibit tumor-promoting inflammation leading to the development and progression of colon cancer.”
 

The hazards of a vitamin D deficiency

A severe vitamin D deficiency is associated with compromised bone and muscle health, calcium absorption, immunity, heart function and it can affect mood. Other studies have linked vitamin D deficiency to colorectal cancer, blood cancers, and bowel cancer.

Serum 25(OH)D is the primary circulating form of vitamin D and is considered the best marker for assessing vitamin D status, says Karin Amrein, MD, MSc, an endocrinologist with the Medical University of Graz (Austria). She was the lead author of a review on vitamin D deficiency published in January 2020 in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

The Global Consensus Recommendations define vitamin D insufficiency as 12-20 ng/mL (30-50 nmol/L) and a deficiency as a serum 25OHD concentration less than 12 ng/mL (30 nmol/L). A deficiency in adults is usually treated with 50,000 IU of vitamin D2 or D3 once weekly for 8 weeks followed by maintenance dosages of cholecalciferol (vitamin D₃) at 800-1,000 IU daily from dietary and supplemental sources.

Screening is recommended for individuals who exhibit symptoms and conditions associated with a vitamin D deficiency, but there is little agreement on recommended serum levels because every individual is different, according to the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force which updated its vitamin D recommendations in April for the first time in 7 years.

In ongoing efforts to investigate a link between vitamin D and colorectal cancer, new research shows that women who consume higher levels of vitamin D – particularly from dietary sources – have a reduced risk of developing early-onset colorectal cancer, compared with those who have lower levels.

This is according to an observational study published in the journal Gastroenterology. The study included 94,205 women (aged 25-42 years) who were followed between 1991 and 2015 during which 111 incident cases of early-onset colorectal cancer were diagnosed. Among 29,186 women who had at least one lower endoscopy from 1991 to 2011, 1,439 newly diagnosed conventional adenomas and 1,878 serrated polyps were found.

Women who consumed the highest average levels of total vitamin D of 450 IU per day, compared with those consuming less than 300 IU per day, showed a significantly reduced risk of early-onset colorectal cancer. Consuming 400 IU each day was associated with a 54% reduced risk of early-onset colorectal cancer.

“If confirmed, our findings could potentially lead to recommendations for higher vitamin D intake as an inexpensive low-risk complement to colorectal cancer screening as a prevention strategy for adults younger than age 50,” wrote the study authors, led by Edward L. Giovannucci, MD, ScD, of the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston.

Associations between vitamin D levels and colorectal cancer have been documented in review articles over the years. The link is the subject of 10 recently completed or ongoing clinical trials. Few studies have focused on early colorectal cancer and vitamin D intake. Unlike advanced colorectal cancer, the early-onset form of the disease is not as strongly associated with the traditional risk factors of a family history of colorectal cancer and it is therefore believed to be more strongly linked to other factors, such as lifestyle and diet – including vitamin D supplementation.
 

The evidence is in, but it’s incomplete

In addition to the new study in Gastroenterology, other observational studies, as well as laboratory and animal studies, suggest that vitamin D plays a role in inhibiting carcinogenesis. Vitamin D, researchers theorize, contains anti-inflammatory, immunomodulatory, and tumor angiogenesis properties that can slow the growth of tumors, but the evidence is mixed.

A meta-analysis of 137,567 patients published in 2013 in Preventive Medicine found an inverse association between 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) and total cancer mortality in women, but not among men. Three meta-analyses published in 2014 and 2019 found that vitamin D supplementation does not affect cancer incidence but does significantly reduce total cancer mortality rates by 12%-13%.

In 2019, researchers led by Marjorie McCullough, ScD, RD, senior scientific director of epidemiology research for the American Cancer Society, described a causal relationship between circulating vitamin D and colorectal cancer risk among 17 cohorts from a pooled analysis. “Our study suggests that optimal circulating 25(OH)D concentrations for colorectal cancer risk reduction are 75-100 nmol/L, [which is] higher than current Institute of Medicine recommendations for bone health,” she and colleagues wrote. Their findings were published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

The Vitamin D and Omega-3 Trial (VITAL) published in 2019 in the New England Journal of Medicine, showed no significant effect of vitamin D₃ supplementation of 2,000 IU/day in lowering the risk of invasive cancer or cardiovascular events.

Despite the mixed results, studies offer valuable insights into cancer risks, said Scott Kopetz, MD, PhD, codirector of the colorectal cancer moon shot research program at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

The Gastroenterology study is noteworthy because it focuses on early-onset colorectal cancer, he said.

“[The authors] demonstrate for the first time that there is an association of vitamin D intake with early-onset colorectal incidence, especially in the left side of the colon and rectum where the increase in early onset colorectal cancer manifests,” Dr. Kopetz said. “The analysis suggests that it may require long-term vitamin D intake to derive the benefit, which may explain why some shorter-term randomized studies failed to demonstrate.”

In animal models, vitamin D₃ is “estimated to lower the incidence of colorectal cancer by 50%,” according to Lidija Klampfer, PhD, formerly a molecular biologist and senior research scientist with the Southern Research Institute, Birmingham, Ala.

Dr. Klampfer, a founding partner of ProteXase Therapeutics, is the author of an article on vitamin D and colon cancer published in 2014 in the World Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology.

“The levels of vitamin D3 appear to be an essential determinant for the development and progression of colon cancer and supplementation with vitamin D3 is effective in suppressing intestinal tumorigenesis in animal models,” she wrote. “Studies have shown that 1,25 dihydroxyvitamin D₃ can inhibit tumor-promoting inflammation leading to the development and progression of colon cancer.”
 

The hazards of a vitamin D deficiency

A severe vitamin D deficiency is associated with compromised bone and muscle health, calcium absorption, immunity, heart function and it can affect mood. Other studies have linked vitamin D deficiency to colorectal cancer, blood cancers, and bowel cancer.

Serum 25(OH)D is the primary circulating form of vitamin D and is considered the best marker for assessing vitamin D status, says Karin Amrein, MD, MSc, an endocrinologist with the Medical University of Graz (Austria). She was the lead author of a review on vitamin D deficiency published in January 2020 in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

The Global Consensus Recommendations define vitamin D insufficiency as 12-20 ng/mL (30-50 nmol/L) and a deficiency as a serum 25OHD concentration less than 12 ng/mL (30 nmol/L). A deficiency in adults is usually treated with 50,000 IU of vitamin D2 or D3 once weekly for 8 weeks followed by maintenance dosages of cholecalciferol (vitamin D₃) at 800-1,000 IU daily from dietary and supplemental sources.

Screening is recommended for individuals who exhibit symptoms and conditions associated with a vitamin D deficiency, but there is little agreement on recommended serum levels because every individual is different, according to the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force which updated its vitamin D recommendations in April for the first time in 7 years.

In ongoing efforts to investigate a link between vitamin D and colorectal cancer, new research shows that women who consume higher levels of vitamin D – particularly from dietary sources – have a reduced risk of developing early-onset colorectal cancer, compared with those who have lower levels.

This is according to an observational study published in the journal Gastroenterology. The study included 94,205 women (aged 25-42 years) who were followed between 1991 and 2015 during which 111 incident cases of early-onset colorectal cancer were diagnosed. Among 29,186 women who had at least one lower endoscopy from 1991 to 2011, 1,439 newly diagnosed conventional adenomas and 1,878 serrated polyps were found.

Women who consumed the highest average levels of total vitamin D of 450 IU per day, compared with those consuming less than 300 IU per day, showed a significantly reduced risk of early-onset colorectal cancer. Consuming 400 IU each day was associated with a 54% reduced risk of early-onset colorectal cancer.

“If confirmed, our findings could potentially lead to recommendations for higher vitamin D intake as an inexpensive low-risk complement to colorectal cancer screening as a prevention strategy for adults younger than age 50,” wrote the study authors, led by Edward L. Giovannucci, MD, ScD, of the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston.

Associations between vitamin D levels and colorectal cancer have been documented in review articles over the years. The link is the subject of 10 recently completed or ongoing clinical trials. Few studies have focused on early colorectal cancer and vitamin D intake. Unlike advanced colorectal cancer, the early-onset form of the disease is not as strongly associated with the traditional risk factors of a family history of colorectal cancer and it is therefore believed to be more strongly linked to other factors, such as lifestyle and diet – including vitamin D supplementation.
 

The evidence is in, but it’s incomplete

In addition to the new study in Gastroenterology, other observational studies, as well as laboratory and animal studies, suggest that vitamin D plays a role in inhibiting carcinogenesis. Vitamin D, researchers theorize, contains anti-inflammatory, immunomodulatory, and tumor angiogenesis properties that can slow the growth of tumors, but the evidence is mixed.

A meta-analysis of 137,567 patients published in 2013 in Preventive Medicine found an inverse association between 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) and total cancer mortality in women, but not among men. Three meta-analyses published in 2014 and 2019 found that vitamin D supplementation does not affect cancer incidence but does significantly reduce total cancer mortality rates by 12%-13%.

In 2019, researchers led by Marjorie McCullough, ScD, RD, senior scientific director of epidemiology research for the American Cancer Society, described a causal relationship between circulating vitamin D and colorectal cancer risk among 17 cohorts from a pooled analysis. “Our study suggests that optimal circulating 25(OH)D concentrations for colorectal cancer risk reduction are 75-100 nmol/L, [which is] higher than current Institute of Medicine recommendations for bone health,” she and colleagues wrote. Their findings were published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

The Vitamin D and Omega-3 Trial (VITAL) published in 2019 in the New England Journal of Medicine, showed no significant effect of vitamin D₃ supplementation of 2,000 IU/day in lowering the risk of invasive cancer or cardiovascular events.

Despite the mixed results, studies offer valuable insights into cancer risks, said Scott Kopetz, MD, PhD, codirector of the colorectal cancer moon shot research program at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

The Gastroenterology study is noteworthy because it focuses on early-onset colorectal cancer, he said.

“[The authors] demonstrate for the first time that there is an association of vitamin D intake with early-onset colorectal incidence, especially in the left side of the colon and rectum where the increase in early onset colorectal cancer manifests,” Dr. Kopetz said. “The analysis suggests that it may require long-term vitamin D intake to derive the benefit, which may explain why some shorter-term randomized studies failed to demonstrate.”

In animal models, vitamin D₃ is “estimated to lower the incidence of colorectal cancer by 50%,” according to Lidija Klampfer, PhD, formerly a molecular biologist and senior research scientist with the Southern Research Institute, Birmingham, Ala.

Dr. Klampfer, a founding partner of ProteXase Therapeutics, is the author of an article on vitamin D and colon cancer published in 2014 in the World Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology.

“The levels of vitamin D3 appear to be an essential determinant for the development and progression of colon cancer and supplementation with vitamin D3 is effective in suppressing intestinal tumorigenesis in animal models,” she wrote. “Studies have shown that 1,25 dihydroxyvitamin D₃ can inhibit tumor-promoting inflammation leading to the development and progression of colon cancer.”
 

The hazards of a vitamin D deficiency

A severe vitamin D deficiency is associated with compromised bone and muscle health, calcium absorption, immunity, heart function and it can affect mood. Other studies have linked vitamin D deficiency to colorectal cancer, blood cancers, and bowel cancer.

Serum 25(OH)D is the primary circulating form of vitamin D and is considered the best marker for assessing vitamin D status, says Karin Amrein, MD, MSc, an endocrinologist with the Medical University of Graz (Austria). She was the lead author of a review on vitamin D deficiency published in January 2020 in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

The Global Consensus Recommendations define vitamin D insufficiency as 12-20 ng/mL (30-50 nmol/L) and a deficiency as a serum 25OHD concentration less than 12 ng/mL (30 nmol/L). A deficiency in adults is usually treated with 50,000 IU of vitamin D2 or D3 once weekly for 8 weeks followed by maintenance dosages of cholecalciferol (vitamin D₃) at 800-1,000 IU daily from dietary and supplemental sources.

Screening is recommended for individuals who exhibit symptoms and conditions associated with a vitamin D deficiency, but there is little agreement on recommended serum levels because every individual is different, according to the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force which updated its vitamin D recommendations in April for the first time in 7 years.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of 10 clinical trials of patients with resectable head and neck cancer finds that immunotherapy with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors administered before or with chemotherapy or radiotherapy was generally well tolerated and efficacious among patients.

The findings, published Sept. 2 in JAMA Otolaryngology Head & Neck Surgery, are noteworthy because the need for effective treatments in head and neck cancers is critical. It is the sixth most common malignancy in the world largely because of tobacco use and alcohol consumption and long-term outcomes are generally poor.

Currently, the standard care for patients with locoregionally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) includes the surgical removal of the tumor followed by chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Despite new treatments, including pembrolizumab and nivolumab for platinum-refractory advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC), there are high rates of recurrence.

“The emerging approach of neoadjuvant immunotherapy for solid cancers has set the ground for the integration of programmed cell death 1 (PD-1)/PD-1 ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors into the neoadjuvant setting of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma treatment,” wrote the authors of the review which was led by Nidal Muhanna, MD, PhD, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv University. “The results [of this analysis] demonstrated favorable outcomes and acceptable tolerance of the administration of neoadjuvant PD-1\PD-L1 inhibitors.”

The analysis included 10 studies

The review included 10 cohort studies and randomized clinical trials of 344 patients who were undergoing treatment for HNSCC between 2015 and 2021. In eight studies, patients received neoadjuvant immunotherapy, and in two studies, patients received combined immunotherapy with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy.

The overall pathological response rate was 9.7% (95% confidence interval, 3.1%-18.9%) for primary tumors treated with neoadjuvant immunotherapy or, 2.9% (95% CI, 0%-9.5%) for the pathological complete response rate (with a range of 0%-16.7%).

Treatment with neoadjuvant immunotherapy was ultimately found to be statistically significant (odds ratio, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.03-0.18). Plus, favorable associations for treatment with neoadjuvant immunotherapy were found with nodal pathological complete response. In two studies cited in the analysis, combination treatment with neoadjuvant immunotherapy and chemotherapy and/or radiation before surgery had an overall pathological complete response rate of 53%.

The major pathologic response in which less than 10% of the tumor remained after treatment varied greatly between 2.9% and 31.0% in five studies. The mean major pathologic response in these cases was 9.7%, which suggested a statistically significant association. A major pathologic response for lymph nodes was described in three studies as statistically significant for neoadjuvant immunotherapy.

In terms of adverse events, 8.4% (95% CI, 0.2%-23.2%) of patients were treated for autoimmune colitis, duodenal hemorrhage, mucositis, nausea, vomiting, and syncope.

Combination treatment with neoadjuvant immunotherapy with chemotherapy or radiotherapy continues to be evaluated in clinical trials (NCT03721757, NCT03635164, and NCT03618134). “Whether these combinations have synergistic effects or provide any therapeutic benefit, compared with single-agent therapy is still under investigation. It has been hypothesized that chemotherapy preceding the administration of neoadjuvant immunotherapy may increase antigen presentation by dendritic cells and enhance immune activation against the tumor, which can potentially increase therapeutic efficacy,” the authors wrote.

Other ongoing clinical trials will report survival data in the upcoming years. One of these trials is the IMSTAR-HN, a phase 3 clinical trial assessing neoadjuvant nivolumab with and without ipilimumab as first-line treatment with curative intent for HNSCC. It will report disease-free survival, overall survival, and progression-free survival outcomes.

The authors reported no disclosures.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of 10 clinical trials of patients with resectable head and neck cancer finds that immunotherapy with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors administered before or with chemotherapy or radiotherapy was generally well tolerated and efficacious among patients.

The findings, published Sept. 2 in JAMA Otolaryngology Head & Neck Surgery, are noteworthy because the need for effective treatments in head and neck cancers is critical. It is the sixth most common malignancy in the world largely because of tobacco use and alcohol consumption and long-term outcomes are generally poor.

Currently, the standard care for patients with locoregionally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) includes the surgical removal of the tumor followed by chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Despite new treatments, including pembrolizumab and nivolumab for platinum-refractory advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC), there are high rates of recurrence.

“The emerging approach of neoadjuvant immunotherapy for solid cancers has set the ground for the integration of programmed cell death 1 (PD-1)/PD-1 ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors into the neoadjuvant setting of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma treatment,” wrote the authors of the review which was led by Nidal Muhanna, MD, PhD, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv University. “The results [of this analysis] demonstrated favorable outcomes and acceptable tolerance of the administration of neoadjuvant PD-1\PD-L1 inhibitors.”

The analysis included 10 studies

The review included 10 cohort studies and randomized clinical trials of 344 patients who were undergoing treatment for HNSCC between 2015 and 2021. In eight studies, patients received neoadjuvant immunotherapy, and in two studies, patients received combined immunotherapy with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy.

The overall pathological response rate was 9.7% (95% confidence interval, 3.1%-18.9%) for primary tumors treated with neoadjuvant immunotherapy or, 2.9% (95% CI, 0%-9.5%) for the pathological complete response rate (with a range of 0%-16.7%).

Treatment with neoadjuvant immunotherapy was ultimately found to be statistically significant (odds ratio, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.03-0.18). Plus, favorable associations for treatment with neoadjuvant immunotherapy were found with nodal pathological complete response. In two studies cited in the analysis, combination treatment with neoadjuvant immunotherapy and chemotherapy and/or radiation before surgery had an overall pathological complete response rate of 53%.

The major pathologic response in which less than 10% of the tumor remained after treatment varied greatly between 2.9% and 31.0% in five studies. The mean major pathologic response in these cases was 9.7%, which suggested a statistically significant association. A major pathologic response for lymph nodes was described in three studies as statistically significant for neoadjuvant immunotherapy.

In terms of adverse events, 8.4% (95% CI, 0.2%-23.2%) of patients were treated for autoimmune colitis, duodenal hemorrhage, mucositis, nausea, vomiting, and syncope.

Combination treatment with neoadjuvant immunotherapy with chemotherapy or radiotherapy continues to be evaluated in clinical trials (NCT03721757, NCT03635164, and NCT03618134). “Whether these combinations have synergistic effects or provide any therapeutic benefit, compared with single-agent therapy is still under investigation. It has been hypothesized that chemotherapy preceding the administration of neoadjuvant immunotherapy may increase antigen presentation by dendritic cells and enhance immune activation against the tumor, which can potentially increase therapeutic efficacy,” the authors wrote.

Other ongoing clinical trials will report survival data in the upcoming years. One of these trials is the IMSTAR-HN, a phase 3 clinical trial assessing neoadjuvant nivolumab with and without ipilimumab as first-line treatment with curative intent for HNSCC. It will report disease-free survival, overall survival, and progression-free survival outcomes.

The authors reported no disclosures.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of 10 clinical trials of patients with resectable head and neck cancer finds that immunotherapy with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors administered before or with chemotherapy or radiotherapy was generally well tolerated and efficacious among patients.

The findings, published Sept. 2 in JAMA Otolaryngology Head & Neck Surgery, are noteworthy because the need for effective treatments in head and neck cancers is critical. It is the sixth most common malignancy in the world largely because of tobacco use and alcohol consumption and long-term outcomes are generally poor.

Currently, the standard care for patients with locoregionally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) includes the surgical removal of the tumor followed by chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Despite new treatments, including pembrolizumab and nivolumab for platinum-refractory advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC), there are high rates of recurrence.

“The emerging approach of neoadjuvant immunotherapy for solid cancers has set the ground for the integration of programmed cell death 1 (PD-1)/PD-1 ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors into the neoadjuvant setting of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma treatment,” wrote the authors of the review which was led by Nidal Muhanna, MD, PhD, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv University. “The results [of this analysis] demonstrated favorable outcomes and acceptable tolerance of the administration of neoadjuvant PD-1\PD-L1 inhibitors.”

The analysis included 10 studies

The review included 10 cohort studies and randomized clinical trials of 344 patients who were undergoing treatment for HNSCC between 2015 and 2021. In eight studies, patients received neoadjuvant immunotherapy, and in two studies, patients received combined immunotherapy with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy.

The overall pathological response rate was 9.7% (95% confidence interval, 3.1%-18.9%) for primary tumors treated with neoadjuvant immunotherapy or, 2.9% (95% CI, 0%-9.5%) for the pathological complete response rate (with a range of 0%-16.7%).

Treatment with neoadjuvant immunotherapy was ultimately found to be statistically significant (odds ratio, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.03-0.18). Plus, favorable associations for treatment with neoadjuvant immunotherapy were found with nodal pathological complete response. In two studies cited in the analysis, combination treatment with neoadjuvant immunotherapy and chemotherapy and/or radiation before surgery had an overall pathological complete response rate of 53%.

The major pathologic response in which less than 10% of the tumor remained after treatment varied greatly between 2.9% and 31.0% in five studies. The mean major pathologic response in these cases was 9.7%, which suggested a statistically significant association. A major pathologic response for lymph nodes was described in three studies as statistically significant for neoadjuvant immunotherapy.

In terms of adverse events, 8.4% (95% CI, 0.2%-23.2%) of patients were treated for autoimmune colitis, duodenal hemorrhage, mucositis, nausea, vomiting, and syncope.

Combination treatment with neoadjuvant immunotherapy with chemotherapy or radiotherapy continues to be evaluated in clinical trials (NCT03721757, NCT03635164, and NCT03618134). “Whether these combinations have synergistic effects or provide any therapeutic benefit, compared with single-agent therapy is still under investigation. It has been hypothesized that chemotherapy preceding the administration of neoadjuvant immunotherapy may increase antigen presentation by dendritic cells and enhance immune activation against the tumor, which can potentially increase therapeutic efficacy,” the authors wrote.

Other ongoing clinical trials will report survival data in the upcoming years. One of these trials is the IMSTAR-HN, a phase 3 clinical trial assessing neoadjuvant nivolumab with and without ipilimumab as first-line treatment with curative intent for HNSCC. It will report disease-free survival, overall survival, and progression-free survival outcomes.

The authors reported no disclosures.

Tumor necrosis factor inhibitors have long been the go-to treatment of choice for patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA). They’ve served patients well since etanercept was first approved for PsA in 2002, but today, with the availability of more attractive interleukin-17 and IL-23 inhibitors, dermatologists and rheumatologists are asking whether it’s time to reconsider the use of TNF inhibitors as first-line therapy in psoriasis and PsA.

“TNF inhibitors have served psoriasis patients well for many years. The question is, ‘Is it time to move on from them as first-line agents for psoriasis?’ ” said April W. Armstrong, MD, MPH, a dermatologist and associate dean for clinical research at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Dr. Armstrong participated in a point/counterpoint debate about the merits of IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors over TNF inhibitors at the annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis. “For the majority of our patients, IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors are probably rationally better than TNF inhibitors as first-line agents for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis,” she said.

In this debate, dermatologists and rheumatologists cited studies showing the safety and efficacy of IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors over TNF inhibitors. TNF inhibitors include etanercept (Enbrel and biosimilars), infliximab (Remicade and biosimilars), adalimumab (Humira and biosimilars), certolizumab pegol (Cimzia), and golimumab (Simponi). IL-12/23 inhibitors are limited to ustekinumab (Stelara). IL-17 inhibitors include secukinumab (Cosentyx), ixekizumab (Taltz), and brodalumab (Siliq). IL-23 inhibitors include guselkumab (Tremfya), tildrakizumab (Ilumya), and risankizumab (Skyrizi).

TNF inhibitors are recommended by the American College of Rheumatology as first-line therapy for treatment-naive patients with active PsA, and they, along with IL-12/23, IL-17, and IL-23 inhibitors are all recommended by the American Academy of Dermatology as monotherapy treatment options in adult patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. However, some studies have shown that non–TNF-inhibitor biologics have a higher efficacy than TNF inhibitors in some cases for some patients, such as those with moderate to severe psoriasis alone or for musculoskeletal efficacy in patients with PsA who have peripheral arthritis, enthesitis, dactylitis, or axial manifestations.

Favorable characteristics of non–TNF-inhibitor biologics

Dr. Armstrong cited a number of head-to-head trials to support her view that IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors are better than TNF inhibitors as first-line agents for patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. In the first head-to-head study of its kind in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis, ustekinumab proved superior to etanercept. Guselkumab was shown to be superior to adalimumab for patients with moderate to severe psoriasis. Tildrakizumab also proved superior to etanercept for patients with psoriasis. Risankizumab bested adalimumab in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis. Ixekizumab proved superior to etanercept in two pivotal studies of patients with widespread moderate-to-severe psoriasis.

IL-23 and IL-17 inhibitors tend to have less frequent maintenance dosing, with IL-17 inhibitors being once every 2 or 4 weeks and IL-23 inhibitors once every 8 or 12 weeks, compared with frequencies ranging from every week to every 8 weeks with TNF inhibitors, Dr. Armstrong said.

IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors also appear to have fewer safety concerns than TNF inhibitors, although there is less long-term data for them overall and there are some notable exceptions in certain patient populations. TNF inhibitors should be avoided in patients with a history of demyelinating disease or hepatitis B virus infection, and they are not preferred in patients who have a history of latent tuberculosis or advanced heart failure. IL-17 inhibitors should not be used in patients with a history of inflammatory bowel disease, and their use is associated with a higher rate of oral candidiasis. IL-23 inhibitors have a good safety profile overall, she said.

“The IL-17/23 axis is very important to psoriatic arthritis and should be the focus of our treatments” for PsA, said Deepak Jadon, MBBCh, MRCP, PhD, a rheumatologist and director of the rheumatology research unit at Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge (England) University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. In his presentation, he proposed that IL-17 inhibitors and IL-23 inhibitors be used as first-line therapies in PsA ahead of TNF inhibitors.

One reason to go with IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors may be to ”get it right immunologically the first time,” Dr. Jadon said. He cited evidence showing substantially better response to guselkumab when given to biologic-naive patients with PsA versus those who had a inadequate response to TNF inhibitors, as well as data indicating better response with secukinumab regardless of previous TNF inhibitor use.

IL-17 inhibitors target more domains of psoriatic disease than do TNF inhibitors, he said, noting that “they have excellent musculoskeletal efficacy in patients with moderate skin psoriasis, not just those with severe psoriasis.” Ixekizumab proved superior to adalimumab in biologic-naive patients with PsA. The results of this study also indicated that IL-17 inhibitors should not be reserved only for patients with severe psoriasis since a higher percentage of patients with moderate psoriasis who were taking ixekizumab achieved very low PsA activity. Secukinumab also beat adalimumab in a head-to-head comparison and showed a greater impact on some measures of health-related quality of life.

IL-17 inhibitors also do not require concomitant methotrexate, he said, “which is a major bonus for our patients. All of my patients wish to stop methotrexate even if tolerated. Not having to cope with prescribed methotrexate improves risk of adverse events and frequency of blood test monitoring.”

IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors appear to have good efficacy against axial disease in patients with PsA. Randomized trial results for secukinumab versus placebo show high percentages of patients improving either 20% or 40% in Assessment in Spondyloarthritis International Society response criteria and reduced inflammatory MRI lesions in the spine and sacroiliac joints. Analyses of trial results in guselkumab-treated patients with axial manifestations of PsA have shown the IL-23 inhibitor’s efficacy versus placebo across different measures of disease activity.

Dr. Jadon also cited real-world data showing that patients stay longer on IL-17 and IL-12/23 inhibitors versus TNF inhibitors. A 2016 study of patients with psoriasis in the PSOLAR registry showed that patients persisted on treatment longer with ustekinumab than with adalimumab, etanercept, or infliximab. Similarly, a 2020 study of patients with psoriasis from the British Association of Dermatologists Biologics and Immunomodulators Register found that both ustekinumab and secukinumab had better sustained drug survival than did adalimumab.


Accessibility weighs heavily in using TNF inhibitor first

Clinical trials data show that IL-17 inhibitors outperform TNF inhibitors for psoriasis, but in clinical practice, TNF inhibitors still perform very well in individual patients and are well tolerated, said Amit Garg, MD, founding chair of the department of dermatology at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y.

He argued in favor of TNF inhibitors as first-line therapy over IL-17 inhibitors for psoriasis. In this case, treatment decisions often come down to accessibility, Dr. Garg said. Not all insurance companies cover the cost of the newer IL-23 inhibitors. Plus, access to TNF inhibitors is widespread and costs are generally lower.

“As a physician, I don’t have complete autonomy in prescribing what I want. The reality is whether it be because of cross indication or discount pricing, [TNF inhibitors] – in particular adalimumab – is widely available on all plans and is usually the preferred treatment plan, at least in our area,” he said. “I’m not a big fan of plans that allow drugs at low or no cost for a year or 2, and then abandon the patients at that point thereafter. I like to use something that insurance will cover sustainably, and, quite frankly, TNFs have served well in that regard.”

However, TNF inhibitors are associated with more safety signals, plus they carry a greater risk of infection, leading to tolerability and persistence issues with patients.

“Psoriasis is a lifelong disease. I wish I could tell you that every drug is going to work well forever for individual patients, but I don’t think we know that yet. From my perspective, for efficacy, general well tolerance, convenience, and access, TNFs are still an important part of our ability to treat psoriasis effectively. I have no problem starting there and transitioning as needed for individual patients.

“In my experience, I think patients on TNFs generally do well. We don’t always get the patients clear and certainly there’s drop off of efficacy over time, but I’m not sure that’s a rationale for [changing treatment],” Dr. Garg said.

Ying Ying (Katy) Leung, MD, a rheumatologist with Singapore General Hospital, and a member of the GRAPPA peripheral arthritis working group, argued against the use of IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors as first-line treatment for PsA over TNF inhibitors. She reasoned that TNF blockers are more accessible, have more long-term safety data (including data indicating safety during pregnancy), and have better cardiovascular protection. She also noted that GRAPPA treatment recommendations strongly advise using TNF blockers (or IL-17 inhibitors) for treatment-naive patients with PsA.

“Accessibility is very important as I learned along the way of leading the peripheral arthritis [GRAPPA] working group. Accessibility [issues] can be coming from a lot of sources, but if you don’t take good care of accessibility, you might be developing a guideline that is way out of reality and nobody is going to use it,” she said.

In her native Singapore, Dr. Leung said that patients pay for biologics out of pocket, so cost is a key factor for her patients. She stated that adalimumab is available as a biosimilar at about $200 monthly for patients with PsA in Singapore, while the average monthly costs are $1,400 for originator infliximab and $1,500 for originator etanercept. By comparison, secukinumab sells for about $750 monthly, ixekizumab $540 monthly, and guselkumab $2,000 monthly.

Treatment choices should be aligned with the disease manifestations of PsA, Dr. Leung said, keeping in mind that accessibility and individual patient needs and preferences should be considered as well. She conducted an informal comparison that found TNF inhibitors are most effective for patients with uveitis or inflammatory bowel disease. Evidence from head-to-head studies indicates that TNF inhibitors and IL-17 inhibitors have similar efficacy for peripheral arthritis, enthesitis, and dactylitis. But caution is warranted, she suggested, for determining the best biologics for axial disease because no head-to-head comparison trials have been conducted for IL-17 or IL-23 inhibitors versus TNF inhibitors.

Dr. Armstrong has been a consultant to AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Dermira, Genzyme, Incyte, Janssen, Leo Pharma, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. Dr. Jadon has been a consultant to, has been on speakers bureaus for, and has received grant/research support from AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Celltrion, Gilead, Janssen, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, and UCB. Dr. Garg has consulted for AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, and UCB. Dr. Leung has been a consultant to AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Pfizer. She has been on speakers bureaus for AbbVie, Janssen Eli Lilly, and Novartis. She has received grant/research support from Pfizer and conference support from AbbVie,

Tumor necrosis factor inhibitors have long been the go-to treatment of choice for patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA). They’ve served patients well since etanercept was first approved for PsA in 2002, but today, with the availability of more attractive interleukin-17 and IL-23 inhibitors, dermatologists and rheumatologists are asking whether it’s time to reconsider the use of TNF inhibitors as first-line therapy in psoriasis and PsA.

“TNF inhibitors have served psoriasis patients well for many years. The question is, ‘Is it time to move on from them as first-line agents for psoriasis?’ ” said April W. Armstrong, MD, MPH, a dermatologist and associate dean for clinical research at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Dr. Armstrong participated in a point/counterpoint debate about the merits of IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors over TNF inhibitors at the annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis. “For the majority of our patients, IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors are probably rationally better than TNF inhibitors as first-line agents for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis,” she said.

In this debate, dermatologists and rheumatologists cited studies showing the safety and efficacy of IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors over TNF inhibitors. TNF inhibitors include etanercept (Enbrel and biosimilars), infliximab (Remicade and biosimilars), adalimumab (Humira and biosimilars), certolizumab pegol (Cimzia), and golimumab (Simponi). IL-12/23 inhibitors are limited to ustekinumab (Stelara). IL-17 inhibitors include secukinumab (Cosentyx), ixekizumab (Taltz), and brodalumab (Siliq). IL-23 inhibitors include guselkumab (Tremfya), tildrakizumab (Ilumya), and risankizumab (Skyrizi).

TNF inhibitors are recommended by the American College of Rheumatology as first-line therapy for treatment-naive patients with active PsA, and they, along with IL-12/23, IL-17, and IL-23 inhibitors are all recommended by the American Academy of Dermatology as monotherapy treatment options in adult patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. However, some studies have shown that non–TNF-inhibitor biologics have a higher efficacy than TNF inhibitors in some cases for some patients, such as those with moderate to severe psoriasis alone or for musculoskeletal efficacy in patients with PsA who have peripheral arthritis, enthesitis, dactylitis, or axial manifestations.

Favorable characteristics of non–TNF-inhibitor biologics

Dr. Armstrong cited a number of head-to-head trials to support her view that IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors are better than TNF inhibitors as first-line agents for patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. In the first head-to-head study of its kind in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis, ustekinumab proved superior to etanercept. Guselkumab was shown to be superior to adalimumab for patients with moderate to severe psoriasis. Tildrakizumab also proved superior to etanercept for patients with psoriasis. Risankizumab bested adalimumab in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis. Ixekizumab proved superior to etanercept in two pivotal studies of patients with widespread moderate-to-severe psoriasis.

IL-23 and IL-17 inhibitors tend to have less frequent maintenance dosing, with IL-17 inhibitors being once every 2 or 4 weeks and IL-23 inhibitors once every 8 or 12 weeks, compared with frequencies ranging from every week to every 8 weeks with TNF inhibitors, Dr. Armstrong said.

IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors also appear to have fewer safety concerns than TNF inhibitors, although there is less long-term data for them overall and there are some notable exceptions in certain patient populations. TNF inhibitors should be avoided in patients with a history of demyelinating disease or hepatitis B virus infection, and they are not preferred in patients who have a history of latent tuberculosis or advanced heart failure. IL-17 inhibitors should not be used in patients with a history of inflammatory bowel disease, and their use is associated with a higher rate of oral candidiasis. IL-23 inhibitors have a good safety profile overall, she said.

“The IL-17/23 axis is very important to psoriatic arthritis and should be the focus of our treatments” for PsA, said Deepak Jadon, MBBCh, MRCP, PhD, a rheumatologist and director of the rheumatology research unit at Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge (England) University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. In his presentation, he proposed that IL-17 inhibitors and IL-23 inhibitors be used as first-line therapies in PsA ahead of TNF inhibitors.

One reason to go with IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors may be to ”get it right immunologically the first time,” Dr. Jadon said. He cited evidence showing substantially better response to guselkumab when given to biologic-naive patients with PsA versus those who had a inadequate response to TNF inhibitors, as well as data indicating better response with secukinumab regardless of previous TNF inhibitor use.

IL-17 inhibitors target more domains of psoriatic disease than do TNF inhibitors, he said, noting that “they have excellent musculoskeletal efficacy in patients with moderate skin psoriasis, not just those with severe psoriasis.” Ixekizumab proved superior to adalimumab in biologic-naive patients with PsA. The results of this study also indicated that IL-17 inhibitors should not be reserved only for patients with severe psoriasis since a higher percentage of patients with moderate psoriasis who were taking ixekizumab achieved very low PsA activity. Secukinumab also beat adalimumab in a head-to-head comparison and showed a greater impact on some measures of health-related quality of life.

IL-17 inhibitors also do not require concomitant methotrexate, he said, “which is a major bonus for our patients. All of my patients wish to stop methotrexate even if tolerated. Not having to cope with prescribed methotrexate improves risk of adverse events and frequency of blood test monitoring.”

IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors appear to have good efficacy against axial disease in patients with PsA. Randomized trial results for secukinumab versus placebo show high percentages of patients improving either 20% or 40% in Assessment in Spondyloarthritis International Society response criteria and reduced inflammatory MRI lesions in the spine and sacroiliac joints. Analyses of trial results in guselkumab-treated patients with axial manifestations of PsA have shown the IL-23 inhibitor’s efficacy versus placebo across different measures of disease activity.

Dr. Jadon also cited real-world data showing that patients stay longer on IL-17 and IL-12/23 inhibitors versus TNF inhibitors. A 2016 study of patients with psoriasis in the PSOLAR registry showed that patients persisted on treatment longer with ustekinumab than with adalimumab, etanercept, or infliximab. Similarly, a 2020 study of patients with psoriasis from the British Association of Dermatologists Biologics and Immunomodulators Register found that both ustekinumab and secukinumab had better sustained drug survival than did adalimumab.


Accessibility weighs heavily in using TNF inhibitor first

Clinical trials data show that IL-17 inhibitors outperform TNF inhibitors for psoriasis, but in clinical practice, TNF inhibitors still perform very well in individual patients and are well tolerated, said Amit Garg, MD, founding chair of the department of dermatology at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y.

He argued in favor of TNF inhibitors as first-line therapy over IL-17 inhibitors for psoriasis. In this case, treatment decisions often come down to accessibility, Dr. Garg said. Not all insurance companies cover the cost of the newer IL-23 inhibitors. Plus, access to TNF inhibitors is widespread and costs are generally lower.

“As a physician, I don’t have complete autonomy in prescribing what I want. The reality is whether it be because of cross indication or discount pricing, [TNF inhibitors] – in particular adalimumab – is widely available on all plans and is usually the preferred treatment plan, at least in our area,” he said. “I’m not a big fan of plans that allow drugs at low or no cost for a year or 2, and then abandon the patients at that point thereafter. I like to use something that insurance will cover sustainably, and, quite frankly, TNFs have served well in that regard.”

However, TNF inhibitors are associated with more safety signals, plus they carry a greater risk of infection, leading to tolerability and persistence issues with patients.

“Psoriasis is a lifelong disease. I wish I could tell you that every drug is going to work well forever for individual patients, but I don’t think we know that yet. From my perspective, for efficacy, general well tolerance, convenience, and access, TNFs are still an important part of our ability to treat psoriasis effectively. I have no problem starting there and transitioning as needed for individual patients.

“In my experience, I think patients on TNFs generally do well. We don’t always get the patients clear and certainly there’s drop off of efficacy over time, but I’m not sure that’s a rationale for [changing treatment],” Dr. Garg said.

Ying Ying (Katy) Leung, MD, a rheumatologist with Singapore General Hospital, and a member of the GRAPPA peripheral arthritis working group, argued against the use of IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors as first-line treatment for PsA over TNF inhibitors. She reasoned that TNF blockers are more accessible, have more long-term safety data (including data indicating safety during pregnancy), and have better cardiovascular protection. She also noted that GRAPPA treatment recommendations strongly advise using TNF blockers (or IL-17 inhibitors) for treatment-naive patients with PsA.

“Accessibility is very important as I learned along the way of leading the peripheral arthritis [GRAPPA] working group. Accessibility [issues] can be coming from a lot of sources, but if you don’t take good care of accessibility, you might be developing a guideline that is way out of reality and nobody is going to use it,” she said.

In her native Singapore, Dr. Leung said that patients pay for biologics out of pocket, so cost is a key factor for her patients. She stated that adalimumab is available as a biosimilar at about $200 monthly for patients with PsA in Singapore, while the average monthly costs are $1,400 for originator infliximab and $1,500 for originator etanercept. By comparison, secukinumab sells for about $750 monthly, ixekizumab $540 monthly, and guselkumab $2,000 monthly.

Treatment choices should be aligned with the disease manifestations of PsA, Dr. Leung said, keeping in mind that accessibility and individual patient needs and preferences should be considered as well. She conducted an informal comparison that found TNF inhibitors are most effective for patients with uveitis or inflammatory bowel disease. Evidence from head-to-head studies indicates that TNF inhibitors and IL-17 inhibitors have similar efficacy for peripheral arthritis, enthesitis, and dactylitis. But caution is warranted, she suggested, for determining the best biologics for axial disease because no head-to-head comparison trials have been conducted for IL-17 or IL-23 inhibitors versus TNF inhibitors.

Dr. Armstrong has been a consultant to AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Dermira, Genzyme, Incyte, Janssen, Leo Pharma, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. Dr. Jadon has been a consultant to, has been on speakers bureaus for, and has received grant/research support from AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Celltrion, Gilead, Janssen, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, and UCB. Dr. Garg has consulted for AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, and UCB. Dr. Leung has been a consultant to AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Pfizer. She has been on speakers bureaus for AbbVie, Janssen Eli Lilly, and Novartis. She has received grant/research support from Pfizer and conference support from AbbVie,

Tumor necrosis factor inhibitors have long been the go-to treatment of choice for patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA). They’ve served patients well since etanercept was first approved for PsA in 2002, but today, with the availability of more attractive interleukin-17 and IL-23 inhibitors, dermatologists and rheumatologists are asking whether it’s time to reconsider the use of TNF inhibitors as first-line therapy in psoriasis and PsA.

“TNF inhibitors have served psoriasis patients well for many years. The question is, ‘Is it time to move on from them as first-line agents for psoriasis?’ ” said April W. Armstrong, MD, MPH, a dermatologist and associate dean for clinical research at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Dr. Armstrong participated in a point/counterpoint debate about the merits of IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors over TNF inhibitors at the annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis. “For the majority of our patients, IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors are probably rationally better than TNF inhibitors as first-line agents for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis,” she said.

In this debate, dermatologists and rheumatologists cited studies showing the safety and efficacy of IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors over TNF inhibitors. TNF inhibitors include etanercept (Enbrel and biosimilars), infliximab (Remicade and biosimilars), adalimumab (Humira and biosimilars), certolizumab pegol (Cimzia), and golimumab (Simponi). IL-12/23 inhibitors are limited to ustekinumab (Stelara). IL-17 inhibitors include secukinumab (Cosentyx), ixekizumab (Taltz), and brodalumab (Siliq). IL-23 inhibitors include guselkumab (Tremfya), tildrakizumab (Ilumya), and risankizumab (Skyrizi).

TNF inhibitors are recommended by the American College of Rheumatology as first-line therapy for treatment-naive patients with active PsA, and they, along with IL-12/23, IL-17, and IL-23 inhibitors are all recommended by the American Academy of Dermatology as monotherapy treatment options in adult patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. However, some studies have shown that non–TNF-inhibitor biologics have a higher efficacy than TNF inhibitors in some cases for some patients, such as those with moderate to severe psoriasis alone or for musculoskeletal efficacy in patients with PsA who have peripheral arthritis, enthesitis, dactylitis, or axial manifestations.

Favorable characteristics of non–TNF-inhibitor biologics

Dr. Armstrong cited a number of head-to-head trials to support her view that IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors are better than TNF inhibitors as first-line agents for patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. In the first head-to-head study of its kind in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis, ustekinumab proved superior to etanercept. Guselkumab was shown to be superior to adalimumab for patients with moderate to severe psoriasis. Tildrakizumab also proved superior to etanercept for patients with psoriasis. Risankizumab bested adalimumab in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis. Ixekizumab proved superior to etanercept in two pivotal studies of patients with widespread moderate-to-severe psoriasis.

IL-23 and IL-17 inhibitors tend to have less frequent maintenance dosing, with IL-17 inhibitors being once every 2 or 4 weeks and IL-23 inhibitors once every 8 or 12 weeks, compared with frequencies ranging from every week to every 8 weeks with TNF inhibitors, Dr. Armstrong said.

IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors also appear to have fewer safety concerns than TNF inhibitors, although there is less long-term data for them overall and there are some notable exceptions in certain patient populations. TNF inhibitors should be avoided in patients with a history of demyelinating disease or hepatitis B virus infection, and they are not preferred in patients who have a history of latent tuberculosis or advanced heart failure. IL-17 inhibitors should not be used in patients with a history of inflammatory bowel disease, and their use is associated with a higher rate of oral candidiasis. IL-23 inhibitors have a good safety profile overall, she said.

“The IL-17/23 axis is very important to psoriatic arthritis and should be the focus of our treatments” for PsA, said Deepak Jadon, MBBCh, MRCP, PhD, a rheumatologist and director of the rheumatology research unit at Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge (England) University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. In his presentation, he proposed that IL-17 inhibitors and IL-23 inhibitors be used as first-line therapies in PsA ahead of TNF inhibitors.

One reason to go with IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors may be to ”get it right immunologically the first time,” Dr. Jadon said. He cited evidence showing substantially better response to guselkumab when given to biologic-naive patients with PsA versus those who had a inadequate response to TNF inhibitors, as well as data indicating better response with secukinumab regardless of previous TNF inhibitor use.

IL-17 inhibitors target more domains of psoriatic disease than do TNF inhibitors, he said, noting that “they have excellent musculoskeletal efficacy in patients with moderate skin psoriasis, not just those with severe psoriasis.” Ixekizumab proved superior to adalimumab in biologic-naive patients with PsA. The results of this study also indicated that IL-17 inhibitors should not be reserved only for patients with severe psoriasis since a higher percentage of patients with moderate psoriasis who were taking ixekizumab achieved very low PsA activity. Secukinumab also beat adalimumab in a head-to-head comparison and showed a greater impact on some measures of health-related quality of life.

IL-17 inhibitors also do not require concomitant methotrexate, he said, “which is a major bonus for our patients. All of my patients wish to stop methotrexate even if tolerated. Not having to cope with prescribed methotrexate improves risk of adverse events and frequency of blood test monitoring.”

IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors appear to have good efficacy against axial disease in patients with PsA. Randomized trial results for secukinumab versus placebo show high percentages of patients improving either 20% or 40% in Assessment in Spondyloarthritis International Society response criteria and reduced inflammatory MRI lesions in the spine and sacroiliac joints. Analyses of trial results in guselkumab-treated patients with axial manifestations of PsA have shown the IL-23 inhibitor’s efficacy versus placebo across different measures of disease activity.

Dr. Jadon also cited real-world data showing that patients stay longer on IL-17 and IL-12/23 inhibitors versus TNF inhibitors. A 2016 study of patients with psoriasis in the PSOLAR registry showed that patients persisted on treatment longer with ustekinumab than with adalimumab, etanercept, or infliximab. Similarly, a 2020 study of patients with psoriasis from the British Association of Dermatologists Biologics and Immunomodulators Register found that both ustekinumab and secukinumab had better sustained drug survival than did adalimumab.


Accessibility weighs heavily in using TNF inhibitor first

Clinical trials data show that IL-17 inhibitors outperform TNF inhibitors for psoriasis, but in clinical practice, TNF inhibitors still perform very well in individual patients and are well tolerated, said Amit Garg, MD, founding chair of the department of dermatology at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y.

He argued in favor of TNF inhibitors as first-line therapy over IL-17 inhibitors for psoriasis. In this case, treatment decisions often come down to accessibility, Dr. Garg said. Not all insurance companies cover the cost of the newer IL-23 inhibitors. Plus, access to TNF inhibitors is widespread and costs are generally lower.

“As a physician, I don’t have complete autonomy in prescribing what I want. The reality is whether it be because of cross indication or discount pricing, [TNF inhibitors] – in particular adalimumab – is widely available on all plans and is usually the preferred treatment plan, at least in our area,” he said. “I’m not a big fan of plans that allow drugs at low or no cost for a year or 2, and then abandon the patients at that point thereafter. I like to use something that insurance will cover sustainably, and, quite frankly, TNFs have served well in that regard.”

However, TNF inhibitors are associated with more safety signals, plus they carry a greater risk of infection, leading to tolerability and persistence issues with patients.

“Psoriasis is a lifelong disease. I wish I could tell you that every drug is going to work well forever for individual patients, but I don’t think we know that yet. From my perspective, for efficacy, general well tolerance, convenience, and access, TNFs are still an important part of our ability to treat psoriasis effectively. I have no problem starting there and transitioning as needed for individual patients.

“In my experience, I think patients on TNFs generally do well. We don’t always get the patients clear and certainly there’s drop off of efficacy over time, but I’m not sure that’s a rationale for [changing treatment],” Dr. Garg said.

Ying Ying (Katy) Leung, MD, a rheumatologist with Singapore General Hospital, and a member of the GRAPPA peripheral arthritis working group, argued against the use of IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors as first-line treatment for PsA over TNF inhibitors. She reasoned that TNF blockers are more accessible, have more long-term safety data (including data indicating safety during pregnancy), and have better cardiovascular protection. She also noted that GRAPPA treatment recommendations strongly advise using TNF blockers (or IL-17 inhibitors) for treatment-naive patients with PsA.

“Accessibility is very important as I learned along the way of leading the peripheral arthritis [GRAPPA] working group. Accessibility [issues] can be coming from a lot of sources, but if you don’t take good care of accessibility, you might be developing a guideline that is way out of reality and nobody is going to use it,” she said.

In her native Singapore, Dr. Leung said that patients pay for biologics out of pocket, so cost is a key factor for her patients. She stated that adalimumab is available as a biosimilar at about $200 monthly for patients with PsA in Singapore, while the average monthly costs are $1,400 for originator infliximab and $1,500 for originator etanercept. By comparison, secukinumab sells for about $750 monthly, ixekizumab $540 monthly, and guselkumab $2,000 monthly.

Treatment choices should be aligned with the disease manifestations of PsA, Dr. Leung said, keeping in mind that accessibility and individual patient needs and preferences should be considered as well. She conducted an informal comparison that found TNF inhibitors are most effective for patients with uveitis or inflammatory bowel disease. Evidence from head-to-head studies indicates that TNF inhibitors and IL-17 inhibitors have similar efficacy for peripheral arthritis, enthesitis, and dactylitis. But caution is warranted, she suggested, for determining the best biologics for axial disease because no head-to-head comparison trials have been conducted for IL-17 or IL-23 inhibitors versus TNF inhibitors.

Dr. Armstrong has been a consultant to AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Dermira, Genzyme, Incyte, Janssen, Leo Pharma, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. Dr. Jadon has been a consultant to, has been on speakers bureaus for, and has received grant/research support from AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Celltrion, Gilead, Janssen, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, and UCB. Dr. Garg has consulted for AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, and UCB. Dr. Leung has been a consultant to AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Pfizer. She has been on speakers bureaus for AbbVie, Janssen Eli Lilly, and Novartis. She has received grant/research support from Pfizer and conference support from AbbVie,

With 49% of the U.S. population fully vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2, a new study highlights the degree of vaccine hesitancy among patients with rheumatic disease to get the vaccine.

Halfpoint Images/Moment/Getty Images

The international study, published in May 2021 in Rheumatology, suggests that, of 1,258 patients surveyed worldwide, approximately 40% of patients said they would decline the vaccine.

“Sometimes it’s helpful to talk through their concerns,” said Jeffrey Curtis, MD, MPH, a University of Alabama at Birmingham rheumatologist who leads the American College of Rheumatology COVID-19 vaccine task force. Dr. Curtis recently reviewed the current literature on COVID-19 vaccination in patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) at the annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis.

COVID-19 vaccinations for patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic disease (AIIRD) is not straightforward. The immune response can be blunted by existing treatments and disease flares can occur.

Courtesy UAB Photo

The latest version of COVID-19 vaccination guidance for patients with RMDs from the ACR addresses vaccine use and implementation strategies. The guidance was issued as conditional or provisional because of the lack of evidence. Its principals are largely based on accepted practice for other vaccines. The guidance is routinely updated as new evidence becomes available. In his presentation at GRAPPA, Dr. Curtis reviewed the latest version of the guidance, which he emphasized is a guidance only and not meant to replace clinical judgment or shared decision-making with patients.

“This is a platform for you to start from as you are thinking about and discussing with your patient what might be best for him or her,” he said.
 

Concerns about impact of disease activity, treatments on effectiveness

Dr. Curtis highlighted some controversial aspects of COVID-19 vaccines, including heterogeneity of rheumatic diseases and treatment. Patients with AIIRD, including psoriatic arthritis, spondyloarthritis, RA, and lupus, are at higher risk for hospitalized COVID-19 and worse outcomes, and as such, they are prioritized for vaccination by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

However, for AIIRD patients, the immune response to COVID-19 vaccination can be “blunted,” according to one study. This may be because of glucocorticoid use or high disease activity. Immunomodulatory therapies, such as methotrexate, rituximab, and abatacept, are known to diminish vaccine response in general. The evidence is less clear for tumor necrosis factor and Janus kinase inhibitors, but they are thought to have the same impact on vaccine effectiveness, Dr. Curtis said. But in these cases, if the effect of a COVID-19 vaccine drops from 90% to 70%, the benefits of vaccination still far outweighs the risk of contracting COVID-19.

“Although we don’t have strong data with clinical outcomes for autoimmune disease or inflammatory disease patients, I’ll run a hypothetical and say: ‘Look, if this vaccine starts 90%-95% effective, even if it’s only 70% effective in somebody with lupus or vasculitis or someone who is taking a higher dose of steroids, I’ll take 70% over nothing if you chose to be vaccinated,’ ” he said.

The benefit of vaccination also outweighs the potential risk of disease flare, he said. The risk is real, but to date, no studies have pointed to a significant risk of disease flare or worsening. However, there have been reported cases of myocardial infarction.

Autoimmune manifestations after vaccination vs. after infection

Researchers writing in the June 29, 2021, issue of JAMA Cardiology described case reports of acute myocarditis in 23 people who received the BNT162b2-mRNA (Pfizer-BioNTech) or mRNA-1273 (Moderna) messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccines. Plus, there been subsequent reports of myocarditis in other patients, wrote David K. Shay, MD, MPH, in an accompanying editorial. Dr. Shay is a member of the CDC COVID-19 Response Team.

“What do we know about this possible association between myocarditis and immunization with mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines, and what remains unclear? Acute onset of chest pain 3-5 days after vaccine administration, usually after a second dose, is a typical feature of reported cases and suggests an immune-mediated mechanism,” he said.

The cases of myocarditis are concerning, Dr. Curtis said, but the risk is very low with relatively few cases reported among 161 million fully vaccinated people in the United States.

“Certainly, we’re not seeking to minimize that, but the risk of getting COVID and some of the downstream sequelae (autoimmune manifestations) almost certainly outweigh the risks for some of the autoimmune manifestations or worsening [condition],” he said.

A nationwide cohort study from Denmark of 58,052 patients with inflammatory rheumatic disease published in December 2020 in Rheumatology, found that patients with COVID-19 who had an inflammatory rheumatic disease were more likely to be admitted to the hospital, compared with COVID-19 patients without rheumatic disease. Patients with rheumatic disease had a higher risk of a severe COVID-19 outcome, but it was not a statistically significant difference, said Dr. Curtis, adding that the individual factors such as age and treatment currently received largely determines the risk. The strongest associations between hospitalization for COVID-19 and rheumatic disease were found among patients with RA, vasculitis, and connective tissue disease. Dr. Curtis noted that his own new study results show that risk of death from a COVID-19 infection is higher for patients who have RA or psoriatic arthritis.

There have been published case reports of patients who have developed new-onset lupus, vasculitis, Kawasaki disease, multiple sclerosis, autoimmune cytopenias, and other manifestations after a COVID-19 infection. “These authors suggest that perhaps there is a transient influence on the immune system that leads to a loss of self-tolerance to antigens,” Dr. Curtis said. “Some patients may have an underlying predisposition to autoimmunity in which infections just unmask as we sometimes see with other infections – chronic hepatitis for example.”
 

Antibody tests not recommended

In its COVID-19 guidance, the ACR, like the Food and Drug Administration, recommends health care providers not to routinely order antibody tests for IgM or IgG to assess immunity after a person has been vaccinated or to assess the need for vaccination in an unvaccinated person. More research is needed to determine if antibodies provide protection, and if so, for how long and how much. Plus, the antibody testing process is not clear cut, so ordering the wrong test is possible, Dr. Curtis said. The tests should clearly differentiate between spike proteins or nucleocapsid proteins.

“The bottom line is that you might be ordering the wrong lab test. Even if you’re ordering the right lab test, I would assert that you probably don’t know what to do with the result. I would then ask you, ‘Does it mean they are protected? Does it mean they are not protected? What are you going to do with the results?’ ” he asked.

Kevin Winthrop, MD, MPH, a specialist in infectious diseases at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said that, at this point, it’s too early to know what antibody tests mean. “I think it is tempting to test some people, especially patients on B-cell depletion therapy and those on mycophenolate mofetil (MMF). Outside of those two types of [disease-modifying antirheumatic drug] users, I wouldn’t be tempted to test. We don’t know how well protected they are, but we assume they are protected to some extent,” he said. “They’re probably partially protected and as such, they should take the same precautions they were taking a year ago: masking and avoidance. I think that’s just how it’s going to be for those folks for another year until we get this thing sorted out.”
 

Modifications to existing rheumatic disease therapies

In its COVID-19 vaccine guidance, the ACR issued recommendations for some common rheumatic disease therapeutics before and/or after the COVID-19 vaccine is administered. The modifications are limited to MMF, methotrexate, JAK inhibitors, subcutaneous abatacept, acetaminophen, and NSAIDs. The recommendations include: hold mycophenolate for 1 week after vaccination if disease is stable; for patients with well-controlled disease, hold methotrexate for 1 week after each of the two mRNA vaccine doses; for patients with well-controlled disease receiving the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, hold methotrexate for 2 weeks after receiving the vaccine; hold JAK inhibitors for 1 week after each dose; for abatacept subcutaneous, hold treatment for 1 week before and after the first dose; and in patients with stable disease, hold acetaminophen and NSAIDs for 24 hours before vaccination, because taking either before vaccination could blunt the vaccine response, Dr. Curtis said.

Holding medication, such as methotrexate, could risk having a flare-up of disease. One study showed the rate of disease flare-up because of withholding standard treatment may be up to 11%, compared with 5.1% in patients who did not hold treatment, he said.

“The point is, if you hold some of these therapies, whether methotrexate or tofacitinib, arthritis will get a little bit worse,” Dr. Curtis said.

A study published on the preprint server medRxiv found that immunosuppressive therapies blunted the response of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in patients with chronic inflammatory diseases, most significantly with glucocorticoids and B-cell therapies.

“That’s what’s led to a lot of the guidance statements about holding treatments for a week or 2 for rituximab. If you’re giving it at 6-month intervals, you want to schedule the vaccine dose or series at about month 5, or a month before the next cycle,” he said.

Talking with patients about COVID-19 vaccination

In talking with patients about vaccine safety, Dr. Curtis recommends addressing a few common misperceptions. First, COVID-19 viruses were not created with a live-attenuated virus (which would be contraindicated for immunosuppressed patients). “You can put patients’ mind at ease that none of the vaccine candidates or platforms – even those that say viral vector – put patients at risk for contracting the infection. These are nonreplicating. So, it’s like you extracted the engine that would allow this virus to replicate,” he said.

Of three COVID-19 vaccinations available in the United States, is one better than the other? The ACR COVID-19 vaccine task force did not reach a consensus on safety profiles of the vaccines because, without head-to-head comparisons, it’s impossible to know, he said.

In talking with patients, review the protocol for continuing with prescribed treatment modalities before the patient receives a COVID-19 vaccine. Safety concerns and concerns about the possibility of having a disease flare-up should be addressed, he said.

With 49% of the U.S. population fully vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2, a new study highlights the degree of vaccine hesitancy among patients with rheumatic disease to get the vaccine.

Halfpoint Images/Moment/Getty Images

The international study, published in May 2021 in Rheumatology, suggests that, of 1,258 patients surveyed worldwide, approximately 40% of patients said they would decline the vaccine.

“Sometimes it’s helpful to talk through their concerns,” said Jeffrey Curtis, MD, MPH, a University of Alabama at Birmingham rheumatologist who leads the American College of Rheumatology COVID-19 vaccine task force. Dr. Curtis recently reviewed the current literature on COVID-19 vaccination in patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) at the annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis.

COVID-19 vaccinations for patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic disease (AIIRD) is not straightforward. The immune response can be blunted by existing treatments and disease flares can occur.

Courtesy UAB Photo

The latest version of COVID-19 vaccination guidance for patients with RMDs from the ACR addresses vaccine use and implementation strategies. The guidance was issued as conditional or provisional because of the lack of evidence. Its principals are largely based on accepted practice for other vaccines. The guidance is routinely updated as new evidence becomes available. In his presentation at GRAPPA, Dr. Curtis reviewed the latest version of the guidance, which he emphasized is a guidance only and not meant to replace clinical judgment or shared decision-making with patients.

“This is a platform for you to start from as you are thinking about and discussing with your patient what might be best for him or her,” he said.
 

Concerns about impact of disease activity, treatments on effectiveness

Dr. Curtis highlighted some controversial aspects of COVID-19 vaccines, including heterogeneity of rheumatic diseases and treatment. Patients with AIIRD, including psoriatic arthritis, spondyloarthritis, RA, and lupus, are at higher risk for hospitalized COVID-19 and worse outcomes, and as such, they are prioritized for vaccination by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

However, for AIIRD patients, the immune response to COVID-19 vaccination can be “blunted,” according to one study. This may be because of glucocorticoid use or high disease activity. Immunomodulatory therapies, such as methotrexate, rituximab, and abatacept, are known to diminish vaccine response in general. The evidence is less clear for tumor necrosis factor and Janus kinase inhibitors, but they are thought to have the same impact on vaccine effectiveness, Dr. Curtis said. But in these cases, if the effect of a COVID-19 vaccine drops from 90% to 70%, the benefits of vaccination still far outweighs the risk of contracting COVID-19.

“Although we don’t have strong data with clinical outcomes for autoimmune disease or inflammatory disease patients, I’ll run a hypothetical and say: ‘Look, if this vaccine starts 90%-95% effective, even if it’s only 70% effective in somebody with lupus or vasculitis or someone who is taking a higher dose of steroids, I’ll take 70% over nothing if you chose to be vaccinated,’ ” he said.

The benefit of vaccination also outweighs the potential risk of disease flare, he said. The risk is real, but to date, no studies have pointed to a significant risk of disease flare or worsening. However, there have been reported cases of myocardial infarction.

Autoimmune manifestations after vaccination vs. after infection

Researchers writing in the June 29, 2021, issue of JAMA Cardiology described case reports of acute myocarditis in 23 people who received the BNT162b2-mRNA (Pfizer-BioNTech) or mRNA-1273 (Moderna) messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccines. Plus, there been subsequent reports of myocarditis in other patients, wrote David K. Shay, MD, MPH, in an accompanying editorial. Dr. Shay is a member of the CDC COVID-19 Response Team.

“What do we know about this possible association between myocarditis and immunization with mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines, and what remains unclear? Acute onset of chest pain 3-5 days after vaccine administration, usually after a second dose, is a typical feature of reported cases and suggests an immune-mediated mechanism,” he said.

The cases of myocarditis are concerning, Dr. Curtis said, but the risk is very low with relatively few cases reported among 161 million fully vaccinated people in the United States.

“Certainly, we’re not seeking to minimize that, but the risk of getting COVID and some of the downstream sequelae (autoimmune manifestations) almost certainly outweigh the risks for some of the autoimmune manifestations or worsening [condition],” he said.

A nationwide cohort study from Denmark of 58,052 patients with inflammatory rheumatic disease published in December 2020 in Rheumatology, found that patients with COVID-19 who had an inflammatory rheumatic disease were more likely to be admitted to the hospital, compared with COVID-19 patients without rheumatic disease. Patients with rheumatic disease had a higher risk of a severe COVID-19 outcome, but it was not a statistically significant difference, said Dr. Curtis, adding that the individual factors such as age and treatment currently received largely determines the risk. The strongest associations between hospitalization for COVID-19 and rheumatic disease were found among patients with RA, vasculitis, and connective tissue disease. Dr. Curtis noted that his own new study results show that risk of death from a COVID-19 infection is higher for patients who have RA or psoriatic arthritis.

There have been published case reports of patients who have developed new-onset lupus, vasculitis, Kawasaki disease, multiple sclerosis, autoimmune cytopenias, and other manifestations after a COVID-19 infection. “These authors suggest that perhaps there is a transient influence on the immune system that leads to a loss of self-tolerance to antigens,” Dr. Curtis said. “Some patients may have an underlying predisposition to autoimmunity in which infections just unmask as we sometimes see with other infections – chronic hepatitis for example.”
 

Antibody tests not recommended

In its COVID-19 guidance, the ACR, like the Food and Drug Administration, recommends health care providers not to routinely order antibody tests for IgM or IgG to assess immunity after a person has been vaccinated or to assess the need for vaccination in an unvaccinated person. More research is needed to determine if antibodies provide protection, and if so, for how long and how much. Plus, the antibody testing process is not clear cut, so ordering the wrong test is possible, Dr. Curtis said. The tests should clearly differentiate between spike proteins or nucleocapsid proteins.

“The bottom line is that you might be ordering the wrong lab test. Even if you’re ordering the right lab test, I would assert that you probably don’t know what to do with the result. I would then ask you, ‘Does it mean they are protected? Does it mean they are not protected? What are you going to do with the results?’ ” he asked.

Kevin Winthrop, MD, MPH, a specialist in infectious diseases at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said that, at this point, it’s too early to know what antibody tests mean. “I think it is tempting to test some people, especially patients on B-cell depletion therapy and those on mycophenolate mofetil (MMF). Outside of those two types of [disease-modifying antirheumatic drug] users, I wouldn’t be tempted to test. We don’t know how well protected they are, but we assume they are protected to some extent,” he said. “They’re probably partially protected and as such, they should take the same precautions they were taking a year ago: masking and avoidance. I think that’s just how it’s going to be for those folks for another year until we get this thing sorted out.”
 

Modifications to existing rheumatic disease therapies

In its COVID-19 vaccine guidance, the ACR issued recommendations for some common rheumatic disease therapeutics before and/or after the COVID-19 vaccine is administered. The modifications are limited to MMF, methotrexate, JAK inhibitors, subcutaneous abatacept, acetaminophen, and NSAIDs. The recommendations include: hold mycophenolate for 1 week after vaccination if disease is stable; for patients with well-controlled disease, hold methotrexate for 1 week after each of the two mRNA vaccine doses; for patients with well-controlled disease receiving the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, hold methotrexate for 2 weeks after receiving the vaccine; hold JAK inhibitors for 1 week after each dose; for abatacept subcutaneous, hold treatment for 1 week before and after the first dose; and in patients with stable disease, hold acetaminophen and NSAIDs for 24 hours before vaccination, because taking either before vaccination could blunt the vaccine response, Dr. Curtis said.

Holding medication, such as methotrexate, could risk having a flare-up of disease. One study showed the rate of disease flare-up because of withholding standard treatment may be up to 11%, compared with 5.1% in patients who did not hold treatment, he said.

“The point is, if you hold some of these therapies, whether methotrexate or tofacitinib, arthritis will get a little bit worse,” Dr. Curtis said.

A study published on the preprint server medRxiv found that immunosuppressive therapies blunted the response of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in patients with chronic inflammatory diseases, most significantly with glucocorticoids and B-cell therapies.

“That’s what’s led to a lot of the guidance statements about holding treatments for a week or 2 for rituximab. If you’re giving it at 6-month intervals, you want to schedule the vaccine dose or series at about month 5, or a month before the next cycle,” he said.

Talking with patients about COVID-19 vaccination

In talking with patients about vaccine safety, Dr. Curtis recommends addressing a few common misperceptions. First, COVID-19 viruses were not created with a live-attenuated virus (which would be contraindicated for immunosuppressed patients). “You can put patients’ mind at ease that none of the vaccine candidates or platforms – even those that say viral vector – put patients at risk for contracting the infection. These are nonreplicating. So, it’s like you extracted the engine that would allow this virus to replicate,” he said.

Of three COVID-19 vaccinations available in the United States, is one better than the other? The ACR COVID-19 vaccine task force did not reach a consensus on safety profiles of the vaccines because, without head-to-head comparisons, it’s impossible to know, he said.

In talking with patients, review the protocol for continuing with prescribed treatment modalities before the patient receives a COVID-19 vaccine. Safety concerns and concerns about the possibility of having a disease flare-up should be addressed, he said.

With 49% of the U.S. population fully vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2, a new study highlights the degree of vaccine hesitancy among patients with rheumatic disease to get the vaccine.

Halfpoint Images/Moment/Getty Images

The international study, published in May 2021 in Rheumatology, suggests that, of 1,258 patients surveyed worldwide, approximately 40% of patients said they would decline the vaccine.

“Sometimes it’s helpful to talk through their concerns,” said Jeffrey Curtis, MD, MPH, a University of Alabama at Birmingham rheumatologist who leads the American College of Rheumatology COVID-19 vaccine task force. Dr. Curtis recently reviewed the current literature on COVID-19 vaccination in patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) at the annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis.

COVID-19 vaccinations for patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic disease (AIIRD) is not straightforward. The immune response can be blunted by existing treatments and disease flares can occur.

Courtesy UAB Photo

The latest version of COVID-19 vaccination guidance for patients with RMDs from the ACR addresses vaccine use and implementation strategies. The guidance was issued as conditional or provisional because of the lack of evidence. Its principals are largely based on accepted practice for other vaccines. The guidance is routinely updated as new evidence becomes available. In his presentation at GRAPPA, Dr. Curtis reviewed the latest version of the guidance, which he emphasized is a guidance only and not meant to replace clinical judgment or shared decision-making with patients.

“This is a platform for you to start from as you are thinking about and discussing with your patient what might be best for him or her,” he said.
 

Concerns about impact of disease activity, treatments on effectiveness

Dr. Curtis highlighted some controversial aspects of COVID-19 vaccines, including heterogeneity of rheumatic diseases and treatment. Patients with AIIRD, including psoriatic arthritis, spondyloarthritis, RA, and lupus, are at higher risk for hospitalized COVID-19 and worse outcomes, and as such, they are prioritized for vaccination by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

However, for AIIRD patients, the immune response to COVID-19 vaccination can be “blunted,” according to one study. This may be because of glucocorticoid use or high disease activity. Immunomodulatory therapies, such as methotrexate, rituximab, and abatacept, are known to diminish vaccine response in general. The evidence is less clear for tumor necrosis factor and Janus kinase inhibitors, but they are thought to have the same impact on vaccine effectiveness, Dr. Curtis said. But in these cases, if the effect of a COVID-19 vaccine drops from 90% to 70%, the benefits of vaccination still far outweighs the risk of contracting COVID-19.

“Although we don’t have strong data with clinical outcomes for autoimmune disease or inflammatory disease patients, I’ll run a hypothetical and say: ‘Look, if this vaccine starts 90%-95% effective, even if it’s only 70% effective in somebody with lupus or vasculitis or someone who is taking a higher dose of steroids, I’ll take 70% over nothing if you chose to be vaccinated,’ ” he said.

The benefit of vaccination also outweighs the potential risk of disease flare, he said. The risk is real, but to date, no studies have pointed to a significant risk of disease flare or worsening. However, there have been reported cases of myocardial infarction.

Autoimmune manifestations after vaccination vs. after infection

Researchers writing in the June 29, 2021, issue of JAMA Cardiology described case reports of acute myocarditis in 23 people who received the BNT162b2-mRNA (Pfizer-BioNTech) or mRNA-1273 (Moderna) messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccines. Plus, there been subsequent reports of myocarditis in other patients, wrote David K. Shay, MD, MPH, in an accompanying editorial. Dr. Shay is a member of the CDC COVID-19 Response Team.

“What do we know about this possible association between myocarditis and immunization with mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines, and what remains unclear? Acute onset of chest pain 3-5 days after vaccine administration, usually after a second dose, is a typical feature of reported cases and suggests an immune-mediated mechanism,” he said.

The cases of myocarditis are concerning, Dr. Curtis said, but the risk is very low with relatively few cases reported among 161 million fully vaccinated people in the United States.

“Certainly, we’re not seeking to minimize that, but the risk of getting COVID and some of the downstream sequelae (autoimmune manifestations) almost certainly outweigh the risks for some of the autoimmune manifestations or worsening [condition],” he said.

A nationwide cohort study from Denmark of 58,052 patients with inflammatory rheumatic disease published in December 2020 in Rheumatology, found that patients with COVID-19 who had an inflammatory rheumatic disease were more likely to be admitted to the hospital, compared with COVID-19 patients without rheumatic disease. Patients with rheumatic disease had a higher risk of a severe COVID-19 outcome, but it was not a statistically significant difference, said Dr. Curtis, adding that the individual factors such as age and treatment currently received largely determines the risk. The strongest associations between hospitalization for COVID-19 and rheumatic disease were found among patients with RA, vasculitis, and connective tissue disease. Dr. Curtis noted that his own new study results show that risk of death from a COVID-19 infection is higher for patients who have RA or psoriatic arthritis.

There have been published case reports of patients who have developed new-onset lupus, vasculitis, Kawasaki disease, multiple sclerosis, autoimmune cytopenias, and other manifestations after a COVID-19 infection. “These authors suggest that perhaps there is a transient influence on the immune system that leads to a loss of self-tolerance to antigens,” Dr. Curtis said. “Some patients may have an underlying predisposition to autoimmunity in which infections just unmask as we sometimes see with other infections – chronic hepatitis for example.”
 

Antibody tests not recommended

In its COVID-19 guidance, the ACR, like the Food and Drug Administration, recommends health care providers not to routinely order antibody tests for IgM or IgG to assess immunity after a person has been vaccinated or to assess the need for vaccination in an unvaccinated person. More research is needed to determine if antibodies provide protection, and if so, for how long and how much. Plus, the antibody testing process is not clear cut, so ordering the wrong test is possible, Dr. Curtis said. The tests should clearly differentiate between spike proteins or nucleocapsid proteins.

“The bottom line is that you might be ordering the wrong lab test. Even if you’re ordering the right lab test, I would assert that you probably don’t know what to do with the result. I would then ask you, ‘Does it mean they are protected? Does it mean they are not protected? What are you going to do with the results?’ ” he asked.

Kevin Winthrop, MD, MPH, a specialist in infectious diseases at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said that, at this point, it’s too early to know what antibody tests mean. “I think it is tempting to test some people, especially patients on B-cell depletion therapy and those on mycophenolate mofetil (MMF). Outside of those two types of [disease-modifying antirheumatic drug] users, I wouldn’t be tempted to test. We don’t know how well protected they are, but we assume they are protected to some extent,” he said. “They’re probably partially protected and as such, they should take the same precautions they were taking a year ago: masking and avoidance. I think that’s just how it’s going to be for those folks for another year until we get this thing sorted out.”
 

Modifications to existing rheumatic disease therapies

In its COVID-19 vaccine guidance, the ACR issued recommendations for some common rheumatic disease therapeutics before and/or after the COVID-19 vaccine is administered. The modifications are limited to MMF, methotrexate, JAK inhibitors, subcutaneous abatacept, acetaminophen, and NSAIDs. The recommendations include: hold mycophenolate for 1 week after vaccination if disease is stable; for patients with well-controlled disease, hold methotrexate for 1 week after each of the two mRNA vaccine doses; for patients with well-controlled disease receiving the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, hold methotrexate for 2 weeks after receiving the vaccine; hold JAK inhibitors for 1 week after each dose; for abatacept subcutaneous, hold treatment for 1 week before and after the first dose; and in patients with stable disease, hold acetaminophen and NSAIDs for 24 hours before vaccination, because taking either before vaccination could blunt the vaccine response, Dr. Curtis said.

Holding medication, such as methotrexate, could risk having a flare-up of disease. One study showed the rate of disease flare-up because of withholding standard treatment may be up to 11%, compared with 5.1% in patients who did not hold treatment, he said.

“The point is, if you hold some of these therapies, whether methotrexate or tofacitinib, arthritis will get a little bit worse,” Dr. Curtis said.

A study published on the preprint server medRxiv found that immunosuppressive therapies blunted the response of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in patients with chronic inflammatory diseases, most significantly with glucocorticoids and B-cell therapies.

“That’s what’s led to a lot of the guidance statements about holding treatments for a week or 2 for rituximab. If you’re giving it at 6-month intervals, you want to schedule the vaccine dose or series at about month 5, or a month before the next cycle,” he said.

Talking with patients about COVID-19 vaccination

In talking with patients about vaccine safety, Dr. Curtis recommends addressing a few common misperceptions. First, COVID-19 viruses were not created with a live-attenuated virus (which would be contraindicated for immunosuppressed patients). “You can put patients’ mind at ease that none of the vaccine candidates or platforms – even those that say viral vector – put patients at risk for contracting the infection. These are nonreplicating. So, it’s like you extracted the engine that would allow this virus to replicate,” he said.

Of three COVID-19 vaccinations available in the United States, is one better than the other? The ACR COVID-19 vaccine task force did not reach a consensus on safety profiles of the vaccines because, without head-to-head comparisons, it’s impossible to know, he said.

In talking with patients, review the protocol for continuing with prescribed treatment modalities before the patient receives a COVID-19 vaccine. Safety concerns and concerns about the possibility of having a disease flare-up should be addressed, he said.

A large retrospective U.S. study published June 23 in JAMA Dermatology finds that chilblains, an inflammatory skin condition marked by erythema and also known as ‘COVID toes,’ is likely not associated with a COVID-19 diagnosis, despite an unprecedented number of new chilblain cases reported in 2020.

This study follows a report published almost 2 weeks earlier, of 17 adolescents in Italy with chilblain lesions of the toes. That report indicated that the lesions were not related to current or past infections, and that lifestyle changes may have been a contributing factor .

Early last year, clinicians in Europe and the United States began reporting an unusually high number of chilblain cases, but few of the patients described in the cases were positive for SARS-CoV-2 or its antibodies. The possible connection was explored in studies and featured extensively in the lay press. After all, viral infections, including SARS-CoV-2, are known to be associated with skin rashes. Plus, SARS-CoV-2 infections are known to exhibit a number of dermatological manifestations, such as urticarial and morbilliform eruptions, and vesicular eruptions. More than 150 papers have been published on the spectrum of cutaneous reactions to this virus.

In the new study, led by Patrick E. McCleskey, MD, a dermatologist with Kaiser Permanente Oakland (Calif.) Medical Center, a review of chilblain cases from six Bay Area counties in Northern California found a weak correlation confirming 2% of chilblain cases as potentially secondary to COVID-19.

“While chilblains do seem to follow COVID-19 infection in some cases, most cases of chilblains in our study were not shown to be related to SARS-CoV-2 infection,” Dr. McCleskey said in an interview.

“We think the increase in cases probably had more to do with changes in behavior as children and adults were at home instead of work and school. The highest incidence in chilblains were seen in children ages 13-19, who were staying home from school. Only 6% in our study said they wear shoes at home, and half of our patients don’t have home heating in northern California,” he said.

The condition of chilblains primarily affects the dorsal feet or hands and is almost uniquely associated with spending an inordinate amount of time in damp and cold conditions. There are some medical conditions associated with chilblains, such as Raynaud’s disease, systemic lupus erythematosus, antiphospholipid syndrome, rheumatoid arthritis, hyperhidrosis, and lymphomas and leukemias. And, as with COVID-19, chilblains affect more women than men.

Northern California study

The retrospective cohort study evaluated 780 patients (464 female; mean age 36.8 years) from six Bay Area counties in Northern California, who were treated for chilblains between April and December 2020 when stay-at-home orders were in effect in California. Of the 780 patients, 456 were tested for SARS-CoV-2, and 17 patients (3.7%) tested positive for the virus. In nine patients (2%), a COVID-19 infection was preceded by 6 weeks of chilblains. By September, testing for the COVID-19 virus was more reliable. Testing showed that of 97 chilblains cases, 1% were positive for the virus.

“The finding that some patients with COVID-19 developed chilblains at the same time, or subsequent to the infection, is suggestive of secondary chilblains due to COVID-19,” Dr. McCleskey said.

The 2020 cases were compared with 539 patients (mean age 44.7 years) with chilblains who were treated during the same period in 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019. During these years, the annual incidence of chilblains was 5.2 (95% confidence interval, 4.8-5.6) per 100,000 person years, compared with 28.6 (95% CI, 26.8-30.4) in 2020, during the pandemic.
 

Possible explanations

The authors suggest there are several explanations for the increased reports of chilblains in 2020. First, the lack of shoes: During the pandemic, children between the ages of 13 and 19 years had more cases of chilblains than any other age group despite the fact that teenagers have a low-risk of contracting SARS-CoV-2. Six percent of teenagers with newly diagnosed chilblains wore shoes at home during the study period in 2020.

Chilblains was almost three times more common in Asian American (42.5; 95% CI, 37.7-47.8) and White individuals (35.7; 95% CI, 32.6-39.1), compared with Black (11.6; 95% CI, 7.8-17.3) and Latinx (12.5; 95% CI, 10.1-15.4) individuals. But the authors noted that the Latinx community had the highest number of COVID-19 cases (62.5; 95% CI, 61.9-63.1), three times more than Asian Americans (19.0; 95% CI, 18.6-19.3) and White individuals (17.9; 95% CI, 17.7-18.2) and two times more than in Black individuals (29.2; 95% CI, 28.4-29.9).

“Latinx patients had the highest rates of COVID-19 infections in our population, but the lowest rates of chilblains. Groups in Northern California who were more likely to stay home during the pandemic because they could work from home – White and Asian American and White patients – had much higher rates of chilblains than groups who were more likely to have to work outside the home – Latinx and African American patients,” Dr. McCleskey said.

A report by the Bay Area Council in December 2020 found that Asian Americans and Whites were more likely to work from home during the pandemic (52% and 50% respectively) compared with Black and Latinx workers (33% and 30% respectively). While Latinx individuals made up 46% of all COVID-19 cases, they accounted for 9% of chilblain cases in 2020 (but cases may have been underreported), the authors wrote.

And while there may have been more cases of chilblains during the pandemic in 2020, they did not occur in cities with higher rates of COVID-19. “If chilblains were occurring in the same communities where COVID-19 cases were occurring, the Spearman coefficient would be closer to 1,” wrote the authors, referring to the measure used to rank correlation in the study. In this case, the Spearman coefficient was 0.18.

Another explanation for the increase in chilblain cases could be that more patients sought care in response to news reports about ‘COVID toes.’

“The exact cause of chilblains is still elusive. Some publications coming out of the pandemic suggest an interferon response is part of the pathophysiology of chilblains, but this was not the focus of our research,” Dr. McCleskey said.

The authors hypothesized that in affected individuals, particularly younger patients, the immune response to SARS-CoV-2 contributed to chilblains in asymptomatic individuals. “It is possible that some patients with chilblains were exposed to SARS-CoV-2 but produced such a robust innate immune response that it was later difficult to find any evidence of infection,” they wrote.

They suggested that better testing may help identify past exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and secondary chilblains.

The strengths of this study included its size, community base, a control group dating back to 2016, validation by medical records review, and the ability to control for geographic variation allowing investigators to track weather, which can be a factor in chilblain cases. The authors noted several limitations to the study, including the lack of reliable antibody testing early in the year and the lack of IgA antibody testing.

The authors had no disclosures. The study was funded by The Permanente Medical Group Delivery Science and Applied Research initiative.

A large retrospective U.S. study published June 23 in JAMA Dermatology finds that chilblains, an inflammatory skin condition marked by erythema and also known as ‘COVID toes,’ is likely not associated with a COVID-19 diagnosis, despite an unprecedented number of new chilblain cases reported in 2020.

This study follows a report published almost 2 weeks earlier, of 17 adolescents in Italy with chilblain lesions of the toes. That report indicated that the lesions were not related to current or past infections, and that lifestyle changes may have been a contributing factor .

Early last year, clinicians in Europe and the United States began reporting an unusually high number of chilblain cases, but few of the patients described in the cases were positive for SARS-CoV-2 or its antibodies. The possible connection was explored in studies and featured extensively in the lay press. After all, viral infections, including SARS-CoV-2, are known to be associated with skin rashes. Plus, SARS-CoV-2 infections are known to exhibit a number of dermatological manifestations, such as urticarial and morbilliform eruptions, and vesicular eruptions. More than 150 papers have been published on the spectrum of cutaneous reactions to this virus.

In the new study, led by Patrick E. McCleskey, MD, a dermatologist with Kaiser Permanente Oakland (Calif.) Medical Center, a review of chilblain cases from six Bay Area counties in Northern California found a weak correlation confirming 2% of chilblain cases as potentially secondary to COVID-19.

“While chilblains do seem to follow COVID-19 infection in some cases, most cases of chilblains in our study were not shown to be related to SARS-CoV-2 infection,” Dr. McCleskey said in an interview.

“We think the increase in cases probably had more to do with changes in behavior as children and adults were at home instead of work and school. The highest incidence in chilblains were seen in children ages 13-19, who were staying home from school. Only 6% in our study said they wear shoes at home, and half of our patients don’t have home heating in northern California,” he said.

The condition of chilblains primarily affects the dorsal feet or hands and is almost uniquely associated with spending an inordinate amount of time in damp and cold conditions. There are some medical conditions associated with chilblains, such as Raynaud’s disease, systemic lupus erythematosus, antiphospholipid syndrome, rheumatoid arthritis, hyperhidrosis, and lymphomas and leukemias. And, as with COVID-19, chilblains affect more women than men.

Northern California study

The retrospective cohort study evaluated 780 patients (464 female; mean age 36.8 years) from six Bay Area counties in Northern California, who were treated for chilblains between April and December 2020 when stay-at-home orders were in effect in California. Of the 780 patients, 456 were tested for SARS-CoV-2, and 17 patients (3.7%) tested positive for the virus. In nine patients (2%), a COVID-19 infection was preceded by 6 weeks of chilblains. By September, testing for the COVID-19 virus was more reliable. Testing showed that of 97 chilblains cases, 1% were positive for the virus.

“The finding that some patients with COVID-19 developed chilblains at the same time, or subsequent to the infection, is suggestive of secondary chilblains due to COVID-19,” Dr. McCleskey said.

The 2020 cases were compared with 539 patients (mean age 44.7 years) with chilblains who were treated during the same period in 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019. During these years, the annual incidence of chilblains was 5.2 (95% confidence interval, 4.8-5.6) per 100,000 person years, compared with 28.6 (95% CI, 26.8-30.4) in 2020, during the pandemic.
 

Possible explanations

The authors suggest there are several explanations for the increased reports of chilblains in 2020. First, the lack of shoes: During the pandemic, children between the ages of 13 and 19 years had more cases of chilblains than any other age group despite the fact that teenagers have a low-risk of contracting SARS-CoV-2. Six percent of teenagers with newly diagnosed chilblains wore shoes at home during the study period in 2020.

Chilblains was almost three times more common in Asian American (42.5; 95% CI, 37.7-47.8) and White individuals (35.7; 95% CI, 32.6-39.1), compared with Black (11.6; 95% CI, 7.8-17.3) and Latinx (12.5; 95% CI, 10.1-15.4) individuals. But the authors noted that the Latinx community had the highest number of COVID-19 cases (62.5; 95% CI, 61.9-63.1), three times more than Asian Americans (19.0; 95% CI, 18.6-19.3) and White individuals (17.9; 95% CI, 17.7-18.2) and two times more than in Black individuals (29.2; 95% CI, 28.4-29.9).

“Latinx patients had the highest rates of COVID-19 infections in our population, but the lowest rates of chilblains. Groups in Northern California who were more likely to stay home during the pandemic because they could work from home – White and Asian American and White patients – had much higher rates of chilblains than groups who were more likely to have to work outside the home – Latinx and African American patients,” Dr. McCleskey said.

A report by the Bay Area Council in December 2020 found that Asian Americans and Whites were more likely to work from home during the pandemic (52% and 50% respectively) compared with Black and Latinx workers (33% and 30% respectively). While Latinx individuals made up 46% of all COVID-19 cases, they accounted for 9% of chilblain cases in 2020 (but cases may have been underreported), the authors wrote.

And while there may have been more cases of chilblains during the pandemic in 2020, they did not occur in cities with higher rates of COVID-19. “If chilblains were occurring in the same communities where COVID-19 cases were occurring, the Spearman coefficient would be closer to 1,” wrote the authors, referring to the measure used to rank correlation in the study. In this case, the Spearman coefficient was 0.18.

Another explanation for the increase in chilblain cases could be that more patients sought care in response to news reports about ‘COVID toes.’

“The exact cause of chilblains is still elusive. Some publications coming out of the pandemic suggest an interferon response is part of the pathophysiology of chilblains, but this was not the focus of our research,” Dr. McCleskey said.

The authors hypothesized that in affected individuals, particularly younger patients, the immune response to SARS-CoV-2 contributed to chilblains in asymptomatic individuals. “It is possible that some patients with chilblains were exposed to SARS-CoV-2 but produced such a robust innate immune response that it was later difficult to find any evidence of infection,” they wrote.

They suggested that better testing may help identify past exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and secondary chilblains.

The strengths of this study included its size, community base, a control group dating back to 2016, validation by medical records review, and the ability to control for geographic variation allowing investigators to track weather, which can be a factor in chilblain cases. The authors noted several limitations to the study, including the lack of reliable antibody testing early in the year and the lack of IgA antibody testing.

The authors had no disclosures. The study was funded by The Permanente Medical Group Delivery Science and Applied Research initiative.

A large retrospective U.S. study published June 23 in JAMA Dermatology finds that chilblains, an inflammatory skin condition marked by erythema and also known as ‘COVID toes,’ is likely not associated with a COVID-19 diagnosis, despite an unprecedented number of new chilblain cases reported in 2020.

This study follows a report published almost 2 weeks earlier, of 17 adolescents in Italy with chilblain lesions of the toes. That report indicated that the lesions were not related to current or past infections, and that lifestyle changes may have been a contributing factor .

Early last year, clinicians in Europe and the United States began reporting an unusually high number of chilblain cases, but few of the patients described in the cases were positive for SARS-CoV-2 or its antibodies. The possible connection was explored in studies and featured extensively in the lay press. After all, viral infections, including SARS-CoV-2, are known to be associated with skin rashes. Plus, SARS-CoV-2 infections are known to exhibit a number of dermatological manifestations, such as urticarial and morbilliform eruptions, and vesicular eruptions. More than 150 papers have been published on the spectrum of cutaneous reactions to this virus.

In the new study, led by Patrick E. McCleskey, MD, a dermatologist with Kaiser Permanente Oakland (Calif.) Medical Center, a review of chilblain cases from six Bay Area counties in Northern California found a weak correlation confirming 2% of chilblain cases as potentially secondary to COVID-19.

“While chilblains do seem to follow COVID-19 infection in some cases, most cases of chilblains in our study were not shown to be related to SARS-CoV-2 infection,” Dr. McCleskey said in an interview.

“We think the increase in cases probably had more to do with changes in behavior as children and adults were at home instead of work and school. The highest incidence in chilblains were seen in children ages 13-19, who were staying home from school. Only 6% in our study said they wear shoes at home, and half of our patients don’t have home heating in northern California,” he said.

The condition of chilblains primarily affects the dorsal feet or hands and is almost uniquely associated with spending an inordinate amount of time in damp and cold conditions. There are some medical conditions associated with chilblains, such as Raynaud’s disease, systemic lupus erythematosus, antiphospholipid syndrome, rheumatoid arthritis, hyperhidrosis, and lymphomas and leukemias. And, as with COVID-19, chilblains affect more women than men.

Northern California study

The retrospective cohort study evaluated 780 patients (464 female; mean age 36.8 years) from six Bay Area counties in Northern California, who were treated for chilblains between April and December 2020 when stay-at-home orders were in effect in California. Of the 780 patients, 456 were tested for SARS-CoV-2, and 17 patients (3.7%) tested positive for the virus. In nine patients (2%), a COVID-19 infection was preceded by 6 weeks of chilblains. By September, testing for the COVID-19 virus was more reliable. Testing showed that of 97 chilblains cases, 1% were positive for the virus.

“The finding that some patients with COVID-19 developed chilblains at the same time, or subsequent to the infection, is suggestive of secondary chilblains due to COVID-19,” Dr. McCleskey said.

The 2020 cases were compared with 539 patients (mean age 44.7 years) with chilblains who were treated during the same period in 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019. During these years, the annual incidence of chilblains was 5.2 (95% confidence interval, 4.8-5.6) per 100,000 person years, compared with 28.6 (95% CI, 26.8-30.4) in 2020, during the pandemic.
 

Possible explanations

The authors suggest there are several explanations for the increased reports of chilblains in 2020. First, the lack of shoes: During the pandemic, children between the ages of 13 and 19 years had more cases of chilblains than any other age group despite the fact that teenagers have a low-risk of contracting SARS-CoV-2. Six percent of teenagers with newly diagnosed chilblains wore shoes at home during the study period in 2020.

Chilblains was almost three times more common in Asian American (42.5; 95% CI, 37.7-47.8) and White individuals (35.7; 95% CI, 32.6-39.1), compared with Black (11.6; 95% CI, 7.8-17.3) and Latinx (12.5; 95% CI, 10.1-15.4) individuals. But the authors noted that the Latinx community had the highest number of COVID-19 cases (62.5; 95% CI, 61.9-63.1), three times more than Asian Americans (19.0; 95% CI, 18.6-19.3) and White individuals (17.9; 95% CI, 17.7-18.2) and two times more than in Black individuals (29.2; 95% CI, 28.4-29.9).

“Latinx patients had the highest rates of COVID-19 infections in our population, but the lowest rates of chilblains. Groups in Northern California who were more likely to stay home during the pandemic because they could work from home – White and Asian American and White patients – had much higher rates of chilblains than groups who were more likely to have to work outside the home – Latinx and African American patients,” Dr. McCleskey said.

A report by the Bay Area Council in December 2020 found that Asian Americans and Whites were more likely to work from home during the pandemic (52% and 50% respectively) compared with Black and Latinx workers (33% and 30% respectively). While Latinx individuals made up 46% of all COVID-19 cases, they accounted for 9% of chilblain cases in 2020 (but cases may have been underreported), the authors wrote.

And while there may have been more cases of chilblains during the pandemic in 2020, they did not occur in cities with higher rates of COVID-19. “If chilblains were occurring in the same communities where COVID-19 cases were occurring, the Spearman coefficient would be closer to 1,” wrote the authors, referring to the measure used to rank correlation in the study. In this case, the Spearman coefficient was 0.18.

Another explanation for the increase in chilblain cases could be that more patients sought care in response to news reports about ‘COVID toes.’

“The exact cause of chilblains is still elusive. Some publications coming out of the pandemic suggest an interferon response is part of the pathophysiology of chilblains, but this was not the focus of our research,” Dr. McCleskey said.

The authors hypothesized that in affected individuals, particularly younger patients, the immune response to SARS-CoV-2 contributed to chilblains in asymptomatic individuals. “It is possible that some patients with chilblains were exposed to SARS-CoV-2 but produced such a robust innate immune response that it was later difficult to find any evidence of infection,” they wrote.

They suggested that better testing may help identify past exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and secondary chilblains.

The strengths of this study included its size, community base, a control group dating back to 2016, validation by medical records review, and the ability to control for geographic variation allowing investigators to track weather, which can be a factor in chilblain cases. The authors noted several limitations to the study, including the lack of reliable antibody testing early in the year and the lack of IgA antibody testing.

The authors had no disclosures. The study was funded by The Permanente Medical Group Delivery Science and Applied Research initiative.