Federal Practitioner

COVID-19 hospitalizations continue their steady summer march upward, and now a new variant has perched atop the list of the most prevalent forms of the virus.

Called “Eris” among avid COVID trackers, the strain EG.5 now accounts for 17% of all U.S. COVID infections, according to the latest Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates. That’s up from 12% the week prior. 

EG.5 has been rising worldwide, just weeks after the World Health Organization added the strain to its official monitoring list. In the United Kingdom, it now accounts for 1 in 10 COVID cases, The Independent reported.

EG.5 is a descendant of the XBB strains that have dominated tracking lists in recent months. It has the same makeup as XBB.1.9.2 but carries an extra spike mutation, according to a summary published by the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota. The spike protein is the part of the virus that allows it to enter human cells. But there’s no indication so far that EG.5 is more contagious or severe than other recent variants, according to the CIDRAP summary and a recent podcast from the American Medical Association. The CDC said that current vaccines protect against the variant.

U.S. hospitals saw a 12% increase in COVID admissions during the week ending on July 22, with 8,047 people being admitted because of the virus, up from an all-time low of 6,306 the week of June 24. In 17 states, the past-week increase in hospitalizations was 20% or greater. In Minnesota, the rate jumped by 50%, and in West Virginia, it jumped by 63%. Meanwhile, deaths reached their lowest weekly rate ever for the week of data ending July 29, with just 176 deaths reported by the CDC.

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

COVID-19 hospitalizations continue their steady summer march upward, and now a new variant has perched atop the list of the most prevalent forms of the virus.

Called “Eris” among avid COVID trackers, the strain EG.5 now accounts for 17% of all U.S. COVID infections, according to the latest Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates. That’s up from 12% the week prior. 

EG.5 has been rising worldwide, just weeks after the World Health Organization added the strain to its official monitoring list. In the United Kingdom, it now accounts for 1 in 10 COVID cases, The Independent reported.

EG.5 is a descendant of the XBB strains that have dominated tracking lists in recent months. It has the same makeup as XBB.1.9.2 but carries an extra spike mutation, according to a summary published by the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota. The spike protein is the part of the virus that allows it to enter human cells. But there’s no indication so far that EG.5 is more contagious or severe than other recent variants, according to the CIDRAP summary and a recent podcast from the American Medical Association. The CDC said that current vaccines protect against the variant.

U.S. hospitals saw a 12% increase in COVID admissions during the week ending on July 22, with 8,047 people being admitted because of the virus, up from an all-time low of 6,306 the week of June 24. In 17 states, the past-week increase in hospitalizations was 20% or greater. In Minnesota, the rate jumped by 50%, and in West Virginia, it jumped by 63%. Meanwhile, deaths reached their lowest weekly rate ever for the week of data ending July 29, with just 176 deaths reported by the CDC.

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

COVID-19 hospitalizations continue their steady summer march upward, and now a new variant has perched atop the list of the most prevalent forms of the virus.

Called “Eris” among avid COVID trackers, the strain EG.5 now accounts for 17% of all U.S. COVID infections, according to the latest Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates. That’s up from 12% the week prior. 

EG.5 has been rising worldwide, just weeks after the World Health Organization added the strain to its official monitoring list. In the United Kingdom, it now accounts for 1 in 10 COVID cases, The Independent reported.

EG.5 is a descendant of the XBB strains that have dominated tracking lists in recent months. It has the same makeup as XBB.1.9.2 but carries an extra spike mutation, according to a summary published by the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota. The spike protein is the part of the virus that allows it to enter human cells. But there’s no indication so far that EG.5 is more contagious or severe than other recent variants, according to the CIDRAP summary and a recent podcast from the American Medical Association. The CDC said that current vaccines protect against the variant.

U.S. hospitals saw a 12% increase in COVID admissions during the week ending on July 22, with 8,047 people being admitted because of the virus, up from an all-time low of 6,306 the week of June 24. In 17 states, the past-week increase in hospitalizations was 20% or greater. In Minnesota, the rate jumped by 50%, and in West Virginia, it jumped by 63%. Meanwhile, deaths reached their lowest weekly rate ever for the week of data ending July 29, with just 176 deaths reported by the CDC.

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

Early, intriguing research suggests that preventing acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) in the gut – a potentially life-threatening complication of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) – could be accomplished by the administration of a single antibody that targets the anti-DLL4 Notch signaling pathway, without compromising the stem cell transplant.

“The major surprise was that none of the anti–DLL4-treated animals developed acute gastrointestinal GVHD for the entire duration of the study. This was a remarkable finding, given that intestinal GVHD is otherwise seen in the vast majority of nonhuman primate transplant recipients that receive either no prophylaxis, or prophylaxis with agents other than anti-DLL4 antibodies,” co–senior author Ivan Maillard, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine and vice chief for research in hematology-oncology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview.

“The timing was critical,” the authors noted in the study, recently published in Science Translational Medicine. “Intervening before any symptoms of GvHD appear made the long-term protection possible.”

While GVHD may be mild to moderate in chronic forms, acute cases can be serious, if not fatal, and nearly all severe acute GVHD prominently involves the gastrointestinal tract, which can drive activation of pathogenic T cells and potentially lead to tissue damage following allo-HCT.

Systemic corticosteroids are standard first-line treatment for acute GVHD. However, response rates generally range only from 40% to 60%, and there are concerns of side effects. Meanwhile, second-line treatments are of inconsistent benefit.

With previous studies on mice showing benefits of targeting Notch pathway inhibition, particularly DLL4, Dr. Maillard and colleagues further investigated the effects in nonhuman primates that were allo-HCT recipients, using the anti-DLL4 antibody REGN421, which has pharmacokinetic and toxicity information available from previous studies.

The nonhuman primates were treated with one of two dosing regimens: a single dose of REGN421 3 mg/kg at baseline, post HCT, (n = 7) or three weekly doses at days 0, 7 and 14, post transplant (n = 4). Those primates were compared with 11 primates receiving allo-HCT transplants that received supportive care only.

Primates receiving three weekly doses of REGN421 showed antibody concentrations of greater than 2 mcg/mL for more than 30 days post HCT. A single dose of REGN421 was associated with protection from acute GVHD at day 0, while three weekly doses showed protection at day 0, 7, and 14, consistent with an impact of REGN421 during the early phases of T-cell activation.

Compared with animals receiving only supportive care, prophylaxis with REGN421 was associated with delayed acute GVHD onset and lengthened survival.

Of the 11 primates treated with REGN421, none developed clinical signs of gastrointestinal acute GVHD, whereas the majority of those receiving standard care or other preventive interventions did.

“Detailed analysis of acute GVHD clinical presentations in REGN421-treated animals in comparison to no treatment controls revealed near complete protection from GI-acute GvHD with REGN421,” the authors reported.

Furthermore, pathology scores in the gastrointestinal tract were lower with REGN421 treatment, compared with the no-treatment cohort, and the scores matched those of healthy nontransplanted nonhuman primates.

The primates treated with REGN421 did ultimately develop other clinical and pathologic signs of skin, hepatic or pulmonary acute GVHD, but without gastrointestinal disease.

The treatment was not associated with any adverse effects on the allo-HCT, with primates receiving either a single dose or three weekly doses of REGN421 showing rapid donor engraftment after allo-HCT, including high bone marrow, whole blood, and T-cell donor chimerism.

“Reassuringly, short-term systemic DLL4 blockade with REGN421 did not trigger unexpected side effects in our nonhuman primate model, while preserving rapid engraftment as well hematopoietic and immune reconstitution.”

The mechanism preserving the engraftment, described as a “major surprise,” specifically involved DLL4 inhibition blocking the homing of pathogenic T cells to the gut while preserving homing of regulatory T cells that dampen the immune response, Dr. Maillard explained.

“This effect turned out to be at least in part through a posttranslational effect of DLL4/Notch blockade on integrin pairing at the T-cell surface,” he explained. “This was a novel and quite unexpected mechanism of action conserved from mice to nonhuman primates.”

The results are encouraging in terms of translating to humans because of their closer similarities in various physiological factors, Dr. Maillard said.

“The nonhuman primate model of transplantation [offers] a transplantation model very close to what is being performed in humans, as well as the opportunity to study an immune system very similar to that of humans in nonhuman primates,” he said.

Dr. Maillard noted that, while trials in humans are not underway yet, “we are in active discussions about it,” and the team is indeed interested in testing REGN421 itself, with the effects likely to be as a prophylactic strategy.

There are currently no approved anti-DLL4 antibody drugs for use in humans.

“Our approach is mostly promising as a preventive treatment, rather than as a secondary treatment for GVHD, because DLL4/Notch blockade seems most active when applied early after transplantation during the time of initial seeding of the gut by T cells (in mice, we had observed the critical time window for a successful intervention to be within 48 hours of transplantation),” Dr. Maillard said.“There remain questions about which other prophylactic treatments we should ideally combine anti-DLL4 antibodies with.”

Dr. Maillard has received research funding from Regeneron and Genentech and is a member of Garuda Therapeutics’s scientific advisory board.

Early, intriguing research suggests that preventing acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) in the gut – a potentially life-threatening complication of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) – could be accomplished by the administration of a single antibody that targets the anti-DLL4 Notch signaling pathway, without compromising the stem cell transplant.

“The major surprise was that none of the anti–DLL4-treated animals developed acute gastrointestinal GVHD for the entire duration of the study. This was a remarkable finding, given that intestinal GVHD is otherwise seen in the vast majority of nonhuman primate transplant recipients that receive either no prophylaxis, or prophylaxis with agents other than anti-DLL4 antibodies,” co–senior author Ivan Maillard, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine and vice chief for research in hematology-oncology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview.

“The timing was critical,” the authors noted in the study, recently published in Science Translational Medicine. “Intervening before any symptoms of GvHD appear made the long-term protection possible.”

While GVHD may be mild to moderate in chronic forms, acute cases can be serious, if not fatal, and nearly all severe acute GVHD prominently involves the gastrointestinal tract, which can drive activation of pathogenic T cells and potentially lead to tissue damage following allo-HCT.

Systemic corticosteroids are standard first-line treatment for acute GVHD. However, response rates generally range only from 40% to 60%, and there are concerns of side effects. Meanwhile, second-line treatments are of inconsistent benefit.

With previous studies on mice showing benefits of targeting Notch pathway inhibition, particularly DLL4, Dr. Maillard and colleagues further investigated the effects in nonhuman primates that were allo-HCT recipients, using the anti-DLL4 antibody REGN421, which has pharmacokinetic and toxicity information available from previous studies.

The nonhuman primates were treated with one of two dosing regimens: a single dose of REGN421 3 mg/kg at baseline, post HCT, (n = 7) or three weekly doses at days 0, 7 and 14, post transplant (n = 4). Those primates were compared with 11 primates receiving allo-HCT transplants that received supportive care only.

Primates receiving three weekly doses of REGN421 showed antibody concentrations of greater than 2 mcg/mL for more than 30 days post HCT. A single dose of REGN421 was associated with protection from acute GVHD at day 0, while three weekly doses showed protection at day 0, 7, and 14, consistent with an impact of REGN421 during the early phases of T-cell activation.

Compared with animals receiving only supportive care, prophylaxis with REGN421 was associated with delayed acute GVHD onset and lengthened survival.

Of the 11 primates treated with REGN421, none developed clinical signs of gastrointestinal acute GVHD, whereas the majority of those receiving standard care or other preventive interventions did.

“Detailed analysis of acute GVHD clinical presentations in REGN421-treated animals in comparison to no treatment controls revealed near complete protection from GI-acute GvHD with REGN421,” the authors reported.

Furthermore, pathology scores in the gastrointestinal tract were lower with REGN421 treatment, compared with the no-treatment cohort, and the scores matched those of healthy nontransplanted nonhuman primates.

The primates treated with REGN421 did ultimately develop other clinical and pathologic signs of skin, hepatic or pulmonary acute GVHD, but without gastrointestinal disease.

The treatment was not associated with any adverse effects on the allo-HCT, with primates receiving either a single dose or three weekly doses of REGN421 showing rapid donor engraftment after allo-HCT, including high bone marrow, whole blood, and T-cell donor chimerism.

“Reassuringly, short-term systemic DLL4 blockade with REGN421 did not trigger unexpected side effects in our nonhuman primate model, while preserving rapid engraftment as well hematopoietic and immune reconstitution.”

The mechanism preserving the engraftment, described as a “major surprise,” specifically involved DLL4 inhibition blocking the homing of pathogenic T cells to the gut while preserving homing of regulatory T cells that dampen the immune response, Dr. Maillard explained.

“This effect turned out to be at least in part through a posttranslational effect of DLL4/Notch blockade on integrin pairing at the T-cell surface,” he explained. “This was a novel and quite unexpected mechanism of action conserved from mice to nonhuman primates.”

The results are encouraging in terms of translating to humans because of their closer similarities in various physiological factors, Dr. Maillard said.

“The nonhuman primate model of transplantation [offers] a transplantation model very close to what is being performed in humans, as well as the opportunity to study an immune system very similar to that of humans in nonhuman primates,” he said.

Dr. Maillard noted that, while trials in humans are not underway yet, “we are in active discussions about it,” and the team is indeed interested in testing REGN421 itself, with the effects likely to be as a prophylactic strategy.

There are currently no approved anti-DLL4 antibody drugs for use in humans.

“Our approach is mostly promising as a preventive treatment, rather than as a secondary treatment for GVHD, because DLL4/Notch blockade seems most active when applied early after transplantation during the time of initial seeding of the gut by T cells (in mice, we had observed the critical time window for a successful intervention to be within 48 hours of transplantation),” Dr. Maillard said.“There remain questions about which other prophylactic treatments we should ideally combine anti-DLL4 antibodies with.”

Dr. Maillard has received research funding from Regeneron and Genentech and is a member of Garuda Therapeutics’s scientific advisory board.

Early, intriguing research suggests that preventing acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) in the gut – a potentially life-threatening complication of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) – could be accomplished by the administration of a single antibody that targets the anti-DLL4 Notch signaling pathway, without compromising the stem cell transplant.

“The major surprise was that none of the anti–DLL4-treated animals developed acute gastrointestinal GVHD for the entire duration of the study. This was a remarkable finding, given that intestinal GVHD is otherwise seen in the vast majority of nonhuman primate transplant recipients that receive either no prophylaxis, or prophylaxis with agents other than anti-DLL4 antibodies,” co–senior author Ivan Maillard, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine and vice chief for research in hematology-oncology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview.

“The timing was critical,” the authors noted in the study, recently published in Science Translational Medicine. “Intervening before any symptoms of GvHD appear made the long-term protection possible.”

While GVHD may be mild to moderate in chronic forms, acute cases can be serious, if not fatal, and nearly all severe acute GVHD prominently involves the gastrointestinal tract, which can drive activation of pathogenic T cells and potentially lead to tissue damage following allo-HCT.

Systemic corticosteroids are standard first-line treatment for acute GVHD. However, response rates generally range only from 40% to 60%, and there are concerns of side effects. Meanwhile, second-line treatments are of inconsistent benefit.

With previous studies on mice showing benefits of targeting Notch pathway inhibition, particularly DLL4, Dr. Maillard and colleagues further investigated the effects in nonhuman primates that were allo-HCT recipients, using the anti-DLL4 antibody REGN421, which has pharmacokinetic and toxicity information available from previous studies.

The nonhuman primates were treated with one of two dosing regimens: a single dose of REGN421 3 mg/kg at baseline, post HCT, (n = 7) or three weekly doses at days 0, 7 and 14, post transplant (n = 4). Those primates were compared with 11 primates receiving allo-HCT transplants that received supportive care only.

Primates receiving three weekly doses of REGN421 showed antibody concentrations of greater than 2 mcg/mL for more than 30 days post HCT. A single dose of REGN421 was associated with protection from acute GVHD at day 0, while three weekly doses showed protection at day 0, 7, and 14, consistent with an impact of REGN421 during the early phases of T-cell activation.

Compared with animals receiving only supportive care, prophylaxis with REGN421 was associated with delayed acute GVHD onset and lengthened survival.

Of the 11 primates treated with REGN421, none developed clinical signs of gastrointestinal acute GVHD, whereas the majority of those receiving standard care or other preventive interventions did.

“Detailed analysis of acute GVHD clinical presentations in REGN421-treated animals in comparison to no treatment controls revealed near complete protection from GI-acute GvHD with REGN421,” the authors reported.

Furthermore, pathology scores in the gastrointestinal tract were lower with REGN421 treatment, compared with the no-treatment cohort, and the scores matched those of healthy nontransplanted nonhuman primates.

The primates treated with REGN421 did ultimately develop other clinical and pathologic signs of skin, hepatic or pulmonary acute GVHD, but without gastrointestinal disease.

The treatment was not associated with any adverse effects on the allo-HCT, with primates receiving either a single dose or three weekly doses of REGN421 showing rapid donor engraftment after allo-HCT, including high bone marrow, whole blood, and T-cell donor chimerism.

“Reassuringly, short-term systemic DLL4 blockade with REGN421 did not trigger unexpected side effects in our nonhuman primate model, while preserving rapid engraftment as well hematopoietic and immune reconstitution.”

The mechanism preserving the engraftment, described as a “major surprise,” specifically involved DLL4 inhibition blocking the homing of pathogenic T cells to the gut while preserving homing of regulatory T cells that dampen the immune response, Dr. Maillard explained.

“This effect turned out to be at least in part through a posttranslational effect of DLL4/Notch blockade on integrin pairing at the T-cell surface,” he explained. “This was a novel and quite unexpected mechanism of action conserved from mice to nonhuman primates.”

The results are encouraging in terms of translating to humans because of their closer similarities in various physiological factors, Dr. Maillard said.

“The nonhuman primate model of transplantation [offers] a transplantation model very close to what is being performed in humans, as well as the opportunity to study an immune system very similar to that of humans in nonhuman primates,” he said.

Dr. Maillard noted that, while trials in humans are not underway yet, “we are in active discussions about it,” and the team is indeed interested in testing REGN421 itself, with the effects likely to be as a prophylactic strategy.

There are currently no approved anti-DLL4 antibody drugs for use in humans.

“Our approach is mostly promising as a preventive treatment, rather than as a secondary treatment for GVHD, because DLL4/Notch blockade seems most active when applied early after transplantation during the time of initial seeding of the gut by T cells (in mice, we had observed the critical time window for a successful intervention to be within 48 hours of transplantation),” Dr. Maillard said.“There remain questions about which other prophylactic treatments we should ideally combine anti-DLL4 antibodies with.”

Dr. Maillard has received research funding from Regeneron and Genentech and is a member of Garuda Therapeutics’s scientific advisory board.

TOPLINE:
 

Taking a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) with the cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor palbociclib could diminish the full therapeutic benefit of palbociclib in women with breast cancer and lead to worse progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival, new data suggest.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study retrospectively identified 1,310 women with advanced breast cancer receiving palbociclib using South Korean nationwide claims data.
• Overall, 344 women in the concomitant group, those who were coadministered a PPI for more than one-third of their palbociclib treatment duration, were propensity-score matched to 966 women who did not have PPI exposure: the nonconcomitant group.
• Main outcomes were time to progression and death, presented as PFS and overall survival.

TAKEAWAY:

• Median clinical PFS was significantly shorter by about 15 months in the concomitant PPI group vs. the nonconcomitant group (25.3 vs. 39.8 months; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.76).
• Concomitant PPI use was also associated with shorter overall survival (HR, 2.71).
• Overall, 83.1% of patients in the concomitant group were alive at 1 year vs. 94.0% in the nonconcomitant group (P < .001), and 69.5% vs. 89.3%, respectively, were alive at 2 years (P < .001), though the median overall survival was not reached in either group.
• In a subgroup analysis, concomitant PPI use was associated with shorter clinical PFS (HR, 1.75 for those receiving endocrine-sensitive treatment and 1.82 for those receiving endocrine-resistant treatment), and shorter overall survival (HR, 2.68 in the endocrine-sensitive subgroup and 2.98 in the endocrine-resistant subgroup).

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings suggest that taking PPIs with palbociclib may interrupt the full therapeutic benefits of palbociclib,” the authors conclude. “Physicians should be cautious when prescribing PPIs to patients who are receiving palbociclib.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Ju-Eun Lee, MS, PharmD, School of Pharmacy, Sungkyunkwan University, South Korea, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited by its retrospective design and use of claims data as well as the inability to confirm whether patients actually took the PPI medication.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors report no relevant financial relationships. The study reported no commercial funding.

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

TOPLINE:
 

Taking a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) with the cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor palbociclib could diminish the full therapeutic benefit of palbociclib in women with breast cancer and lead to worse progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival, new data suggest.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study retrospectively identified 1,310 women with advanced breast cancer receiving palbociclib using South Korean nationwide claims data.
• Overall, 344 women in the concomitant group, those who were coadministered a PPI for more than one-third of their palbociclib treatment duration, were propensity-score matched to 966 women who did not have PPI exposure: the nonconcomitant group.
• Main outcomes were time to progression and death, presented as PFS and overall survival.

TAKEAWAY:

• Median clinical PFS was significantly shorter by about 15 months in the concomitant PPI group vs. the nonconcomitant group (25.3 vs. 39.8 months; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.76).
• Concomitant PPI use was also associated with shorter overall survival (HR, 2.71).
• Overall, 83.1% of patients in the concomitant group were alive at 1 year vs. 94.0% in the nonconcomitant group (P < .001), and 69.5% vs. 89.3%, respectively, were alive at 2 years (P < .001), though the median overall survival was not reached in either group.
• In a subgroup analysis, concomitant PPI use was associated with shorter clinical PFS (HR, 1.75 for those receiving endocrine-sensitive treatment and 1.82 for those receiving endocrine-resistant treatment), and shorter overall survival (HR, 2.68 in the endocrine-sensitive subgroup and 2.98 in the endocrine-resistant subgroup).

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings suggest that taking PPIs with palbociclib may interrupt the full therapeutic benefits of palbociclib,” the authors conclude. “Physicians should be cautious when prescribing PPIs to patients who are receiving palbociclib.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Ju-Eun Lee, MS, PharmD, School of Pharmacy, Sungkyunkwan University, South Korea, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited by its retrospective design and use of claims data as well as the inability to confirm whether patients actually took the PPI medication.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors report no relevant financial relationships. The study reported no commercial funding.

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

TOPLINE:
 

Taking a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) with the cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor palbociclib could diminish the full therapeutic benefit of palbociclib in women with breast cancer and lead to worse progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival, new data suggest.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study retrospectively identified 1,310 women with advanced breast cancer receiving palbociclib using South Korean nationwide claims data.
• Overall, 344 women in the concomitant group, those who were coadministered a PPI for more than one-third of their palbociclib treatment duration, were propensity-score matched to 966 women who did not have PPI exposure: the nonconcomitant group.
• Main outcomes were time to progression and death, presented as PFS and overall survival.

TAKEAWAY:

• Median clinical PFS was significantly shorter by about 15 months in the concomitant PPI group vs. the nonconcomitant group (25.3 vs. 39.8 months; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.76).
• Concomitant PPI use was also associated with shorter overall survival (HR, 2.71).
• Overall, 83.1% of patients in the concomitant group were alive at 1 year vs. 94.0% in the nonconcomitant group (P < .001), and 69.5% vs. 89.3%, respectively, were alive at 2 years (P < .001), though the median overall survival was not reached in either group.
• In a subgroup analysis, concomitant PPI use was associated with shorter clinical PFS (HR, 1.75 for those receiving endocrine-sensitive treatment and 1.82 for those receiving endocrine-resistant treatment), and shorter overall survival (HR, 2.68 in the endocrine-sensitive subgroup and 2.98 in the endocrine-resistant subgroup).

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings suggest that taking PPIs with palbociclib may interrupt the full therapeutic benefits of palbociclib,” the authors conclude. “Physicians should be cautious when prescribing PPIs to patients who are receiving palbociclib.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Ju-Eun Lee, MS, PharmD, School of Pharmacy, Sungkyunkwan University, South Korea, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited by its retrospective design and use of claims data as well as the inability to confirm whether patients actually took the PPI medication.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors report no relevant financial relationships. The study reported no commercial funding.

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

A daily prednisolone dose of 5 mg or higher is associated with increased risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), data suggest. Patients taking daily doses below this threshold did not appear to have an increased risk of MACE, compared with those not taking glucocorticoids (GCs).

Chinese University of Hong Kong

Is there a ‘safe’ dose for glucocorticoids?

To analyze this relationship, Dr. Lam and colleagues used the Hospital Authority Data Collaboration Laboratory, a citywide health care database. The investigators recruited patients with RA who had no history of MACE from 2006 to 2015 and followed them until the end of 2018. The primary outcome was the first occurrence of a MACE, defined as a composite of myocardial infarction (MI), unstable angina, ischemic or hemorrhagic cerebrovascular accident, transient ischemic attack, and CV death.

The study was published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

The analysis included 12,233 patients with RA and had over 105,826 person-years of follow-up. The average follow-up time was 8.7 years. During the study period, 860 patients had their first MACE. After controlling for confounding factors, a daily prednisolone dose of 5 mg or higher doubled the risk for MACE, compared with GC nonusers. MACE risk increased by 7% per month.

University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health

Long-term glucocorticoid use discouraged

Daily doses of less than 5 mg were not associated with higher MACE risk, but more research is necessary to understand whether these low doses are clinically efficacious, Dr. Tam said. “The study results suggest that a very-low-dose GC (less than 5 mg prednisolone daily) may be cardiovascular risk–neutral. However, further evaluation is needed to determine whether this dose is therapeutic. Other potential side effects, such as bone loss, increased infection risk, dyslipidemia, and hyperglycemia, should also be considered.”

Both the American College of Rheumatology and the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology acknowledge that short-term GCs may be necessary for some RA patients, but they emphasize using the smallest necessary dose for the shortest period possible because of the known toxicity of GCs.

“We recommend stopping GCs as soon as it is clinically feasible, in line with previous recommendations, until these issues are investigated further,” Dr. Tam added.

Dr. Bartels agreed that long-term use of GCs should be avoided if possible, even at lower doses, because although CV risk may be less of an issue, studies have shown an increased risk for infection even at GC doses of less than 5 mg a day.
 

How might risk increase with dose?

While the study showed a distinct difference in risk with doses of prednisolone higher and lower than 5 mg, more information on how risk increases with dose could be useful, said Beth Wallace, MD, an assistant professor in internal medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and a staff rheumatologist at the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare Center. She was also unaffiliated with the research. “If someone is on 5-10 mg ... how much better is that than being on 10-20 mg or being on 20-30 mg?” she asked. While these study findings are “very important,” she said, it would be useful to know the risk associated with 7.5 mg vs. a higher dose.

University of Michigan

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

A daily prednisolone dose of 5 mg or higher is associated with increased risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), data suggest. Patients taking daily doses below this threshold did not appear to have an increased risk of MACE, compared with those not taking glucocorticoids (GCs).

Chinese University of Hong Kong

Is there a ‘safe’ dose for glucocorticoids?

To analyze this relationship, Dr. Lam and colleagues used the Hospital Authority Data Collaboration Laboratory, a citywide health care database. The investigators recruited patients with RA who had no history of MACE from 2006 to 2015 and followed them until the end of 2018. The primary outcome was the first occurrence of a MACE, defined as a composite of myocardial infarction (MI), unstable angina, ischemic or hemorrhagic cerebrovascular accident, transient ischemic attack, and CV death.

The study was published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

The analysis included 12,233 patients with RA and had over 105,826 person-years of follow-up. The average follow-up time was 8.7 years. During the study period, 860 patients had their first MACE. After controlling for confounding factors, a daily prednisolone dose of 5 mg or higher doubled the risk for MACE, compared with GC nonusers. MACE risk increased by 7% per month.

University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health

Long-term glucocorticoid use discouraged

Daily doses of less than 5 mg were not associated with higher MACE risk, but more research is necessary to understand whether these low doses are clinically efficacious, Dr. Tam said. “The study results suggest that a very-low-dose GC (less than 5 mg prednisolone daily) may be cardiovascular risk–neutral. However, further evaluation is needed to determine whether this dose is therapeutic. Other potential side effects, such as bone loss, increased infection risk, dyslipidemia, and hyperglycemia, should also be considered.”

Both the American College of Rheumatology and the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology acknowledge that short-term GCs may be necessary for some RA patients, but they emphasize using the smallest necessary dose for the shortest period possible because of the known toxicity of GCs.

“We recommend stopping GCs as soon as it is clinically feasible, in line with previous recommendations, until these issues are investigated further,” Dr. Tam added.

Dr. Bartels agreed that long-term use of GCs should be avoided if possible, even at lower doses, because although CV risk may be less of an issue, studies have shown an increased risk for infection even at GC doses of less than 5 mg a day.
 

How might risk increase with dose?

While the study showed a distinct difference in risk with doses of prednisolone higher and lower than 5 mg, more information on how risk increases with dose could be useful, said Beth Wallace, MD, an assistant professor in internal medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and a staff rheumatologist at the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare Center. She was also unaffiliated with the research. “If someone is on 5-10 mg ... how much better is that than being on 10-20 mg or being on 20-30 mg?” she asked. While these study findings are “very important,” she said, it would be useful to know the risk associated with 7.5 mg vs. a higher dose.

University of Michigan

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

A daily prednisolone dose of 5 mg or higher is associated with increased risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), data suggest. Patients taking daily doses below this threshold did not appear to have an increased risk of MACE, compared with those not taking glucocorticoids (GCs).

Chinese University of Hong Kong

Is there a ‘safe’ dose for glucocorticoids?

To analyze this relationship, Dr. Lam and colleagues used the Hospital Authority Data Collaboration Laboratory, a citywide health care database. The investigators recruited patients with RA who had no history of MACE from 2006 to 2015 and followed them until the end of 2018. The primary outcome was the first occurrence of a MACE, defined as a composite of myocardial infarction (MI), unstable angina, ischemic or hemorrhagic cerebrovascular accident, transient ischemic attack, and CV death.

The study was published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

The analysis included 12,233 patients with RA and had over 105,826 person-years of follow-up. The average follow-up time was 8.7 years. During the study period, 860 patients had their first MACE. After controlling for confounding factors, a daily prednisolone dose of 5 mg or higher doubled the risk for MACE, compared with GC nonusers. MACE risk increased by 7% per month.

University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health

Long-term glucocorticoid use discouraged

Daily doses of less than 5 mg were not associated with higher MACE risk, but more research is necessary to understand whether these low doses are clinically efficacious, Dr. Tam said. “The study results suggest that a very-low-dose GC (less than 5 mg prednisolone daily) may be cardiovascular risk–neutral. However, further evaluation is needed to determine whether this dose is therapeutic. Other potential side effects, such as bone loss, increased infection risk, dyslipidemia, and hyperglycemia, should also be considered.”

Both the American College of Rheumatology and the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology acknowledge that short-term GCs may be necessary for some RA patients, but they emphasize using the smallest necessary dose for the shortest period possible because of the known toxicity of GCs.

“We recommend stopping GCs as soon as it is clinically feasible, in line with previous recommendations, until these issues are investigated further,” Dr. Tam added.

Dr. Bartels agreed that long-term use of GCs should be avoided if possible, even at lower doses, because although CV risk may be less of an issue, studies have shown an increased risk for infection even at GC doses of less than 5 mg a day.
 

How might risk increase with dose?

While the study showed a distinct difference in risk with doses of prednisolone higher and lower than 5 mg, more information on how risk increases with dose could be useful, said Beth Wallace, MD, an assistant professor in internal medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and a staff rheumatologist at the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare Center. She was also unaffiliated with the research. “If someone is on 5-10 mg ... how much better is that than being on 10-20 mg or being on 20-30 mg?” she asked. While these study findings are “very important,” she said, it would be useful to know the risk associated with 7.5 mg vs. a higher dose.

University of Michigan

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

Public perception of disease is everything. “Diabetics” are now referred to as “people living with diabetes,” and an “obese person” is now an “individual living with obesity.”

But what is the definition of obesity? Does it refer to a disease or a risk factor? And is the term so tainted in negativity, blame, and bias that the only solution is to scrap it and completely rename it? Society (and medicine) have changed significantly since the Latin word obesitas was adopted back in the 1600s.

Despite so much hinging on the word “obesity,” it’s remarkable that the label persists while the concepts underpinning it have evolved significantly. So perhaps it is more about finding the least-worst option rather than pursuing the impossibility of a solution that suits all?

This is precisely the challenge faced by a Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology Commission on the Definition and Diagnosis of Clinical Obesity, which is due to publish its initial findings this coming fall. The global task force has 60 leaders in the clinical management of obesity, including representatives with lived experiences of obesity. Leading the project is Francesco Rubino, MD, chair of metabolic and bariatric surgery at King’s College London.

“Renaming ‘obesity’ is very important,” states Dr. Rubino. “The word is so stigmatized, with so much misunderstanding and misperception, some might say the only solution is to change the name.”

One possibility for a new name, introduced by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (now –Endocrinology) and the American College of Endocrinology back in 2016, was based on framing the disease on the central characteristic of adiposity and was termed ABCD, for adiposity-based chronic disease.

Dr. Rubino welcomes “ABCD” but has some reservations. “It is good from a physiological point of view, but the problem is it speaks to scientists and medical professionals. I don’t know how much it would appeal to the general public. ‘ABCD’ still falls short of telling us what the illness is.”

He adds that the Lancet Commission’s approach is rather to call it “clinical obesity.” “ ‘Obesity’ itself doesn’t necessarily convey the message that you have a disease or an illness,” he observes. “It is similar to the difference in meaning between depression and clinical depression, which communicate two different things.”

But underpinning any renaming is greater clarification of the definition and diagnosis of obesity. In 1997, the World Health Organization recognized obesity as a chronic disease; in 2013, the American Medical Association did likewise, adding that it warranted medical attention; while it took until 2021 for the European Commission to define obesity as a “chronic relapsing disease, which in turn acts as a gateway to a range of other non-communicable diseases.”

Yet, 25 years after the initial recognition of obesity as a disease, the concept is still riddled with negativity, whether openly or unconsciously. Such stigma denigrates overweight people and those with obesity as “lazy, sloppy, unintelligent, and unattractive.”

Dr. Rubino explains that first, it’s important to establish and define the essential components and characteristics of the disease of obesity. This is key to improving access to clinical care, reducing personal blame, and nurturing a more supportive research environment to help inform both clinical and policy decision-making.

“This is the question that is at the core of our commission. We have a problem with the current definition of obesity, and the way we measure it does not allow us to accurately define a state of illness with obesity,” he explains.
 

Labels shape public perceptions of disease; ‘obesity’ epitomizes this

Another expert championing the need for a name that better reflects the definition – whatever that turns out to be – is Margaret Steele, PhD, School of Public Health, University College Cork (Ireland), who, according to her university webpage, has a special interest in “ ‘fatness’ as a cultural, social and political phenomenon.”

She believes that labels, including “obesity,” have a pivotal role in shaping public perceptions. In our digital, information-rich age, the boundaries of medicine and society overlap, with public perception shaping decisions of a medical nature as never before. But with this comes controversy and division – obesity management being a case in point.

Specifically, the word “obesity” is too widely associated with negative connotations, she says, and therefore she welcomes the dialogue around redefining and renaming it. Despite wide general support for a name and definition that reflects adiposity, due to its central physiologic role in the complications of obesity, Dr. Steele believes that the “effects on adipose tissue are downstream of brain issues and the food environment,” and she wants to see more attention brought to this.

Referring to most Westernized societies, she describes how people who grew up in times of food scarcity, before processed foods became widely available, have a different taste profile from those who grew up afterwards. “Growing up in 1940s and ‘50s Ireland, people recall how they remember getting an orange as a treat at Christmas, because the idea that you could have food all year-round – any fruit and veg that you want, when you want it – just wasn’t there.”

By comparison, societal changes leading to more financial and time pressure in later decades meant that fast, high-fat, high-sugar, and processed foods became more desirable, she points out. “Most young children now recognize the company name, and even the specific fast-food brand [they like], before they know their alphabet.”

The current environment has cultivated “a very different physical reaction to foods, maybe a different kind of emotional response,” she believes, highlighting the tightly woven relationship between obesity, society, mental health, and food options.

Dr. Steele wants to stimulate a conversation about the term used to describe individuals, conventionally described as ‘”obese” or using the word “obesity.” “We’re thinking in terms of maybe chronic appetite, chronic food intake, or dietary intake dysregulation.”

Changing medical terminology when it has become useless or harmful is not new, she argues, with co-author, Francis Finucane, MD, consultant endocrinologist at Galway University Hospitals, Ireland, in a recent paper on the subject.

“In the 20th century, the terms ‘feeble-minded’ and ‘moron’ had become used in a pejorative way in the wider culture and were dropped from medical usage,” Dr. Steele points out. She adds that changing the term “obesity” can facilitate pursuit of the strategic goals of clinical medicine “without causing needless controversy with those who, given their own goals and contexts, understand body mass index or body weight in a radically different way.”
 

Obesity: Disease, risk factor, or both?

Dr. Rubino stresses that prior to any renaming, there is a need to establish and define the essential components and characteristics of the disease of obesity. “This question is at the core of our Commission, and it is not an easy conversation to have.” He further explains that the struggle with the current definition of obesity, and the way it is conceived, is largely centered on it still being considered a risk factor for something else.

Disease is characterized by three things, says Dr. Rubino. These comprise the phenomenon of having a pathogenic cause, leading to pathophysiologic alterations (of the organs), causing clinical manifestations.

He adds that obesity is currently described by what it can cause – for example, type 2 diabetes, cancer, or hypertension. “Each of these things have their own clinical manifestations but obesity doesn’t. [As a disease], we don’t have a definition of the clinical manifestations of obesity other than excess adiposity.”

“If we use BMI, this does not predict excess adiposity, nor does it determine a disease here and now. There is no disease without an illness, which is the clinical manifestation, and the perception by the patient of it being an illness,” explains Dr. Rubino, pointing out that the Lancet Commission is filling this gap in knowledge by asking, “If obesity is an illness, then what does it look like?”

He adds that waist circumference probably provides a better measure than BMI in directly indicating the abnormal distribution of adiposity, known to be associated with poor cardiometabolic outcomes, “but it doesn’t tell you if you have an illness here and now – only that someone is at risk of developing cardiovascular disease in the future. Most people with some excess fat around the waist are perfectly functional and don’t feel ill.”

He also explains that confusion persists around whether obesity – or excess adiposity – is a risk factor for or a symptom of another disease. “The picture is blurred, and we do not know how to discriminate between these. We only have one name, and it applies to all those things, and we have one criterion – BMI – to diagnose it!”

Dr. Rubino adds, “So, what defines it? Is it diabetes? No, because that is another disease. You don’t define a disease by another. It has to stand on its own.”

Recently, the American Medical Association advised that BMI now be used in conjunction with other valid measures of risk such as, but not limited to, measurements of visceral fat, body adiposity index, body composition, relative fat mass, waist circumference, and genetic/metabolic factors.

Aayush Visaria, MD, an internal medicine resident at Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, agrees that a new name might help change public perception of obesity for the better. A study he presented at the 2023 Endocrine Society Meeting found that BMI “vastly underestimates” obesity.

He agrees with Dr. Rubino that the challenge lies in the lack of precise understanding of the mechanisms driving obesity: “It’s multifactorial, so not just appetite or food intake. Putting this into one phrase is difficult.”

However, if a new term can incorporate the many facets of the disease, “overall, it’ll reduce stigma because we’ll start to think about obesity as a disease process, not a personal thing with blame attached,” says Dr. Visaria.

But simultaneously, he expresses caution around possible negative connotations associated with the classification of obesity as a disease. Dr. Steele also reflects on this risk, highlighting that medicalizing body size can be counterproductive in feeding into weight stigma and fatphobia.

“Medicalizing obesity can be discouraging rather than empowering, but by specifying more clearly that we’re talking about a specific set of interrelated metabolic conditions, it would make it much clearer, and that ... this isn’t about making people skinny, it isn’t about an aesthetic thing,” Dr. Steele observes.
 

The word ‘obesity’ hinders disease explanations

Dr. Steele explains that her goal is to overcome the ambiguity around the word “obesity” that hinders explanations of the disease of obesity to the wider public.

“Much confusion and controversy might be avoided if we were to clarify that when doctors say that obesity is a disease, they do not mean that being ‘fat’ is a disease.”

Nevertheless, adipose tissue is an active endocrine organ, producing hormones that function less well in people with obesity, she notes. “This new knowledge has led to better treatments, including drugs like semaglutide and tirzepatide. These drugs, like bariatric surgery, typically lead to significant weight loss and to improvements in overall metabolic health.”

Dr. Rubino also expresses concerns around medicalization, as determined by definition and diagnosis and the availability of drug treatment that could potentially lead to overtreatment. “Currently, when everyone with a BMI of greater than 30 gets access to every obesity treatment out there, we see drugs are running out of stock. We should prioritize that treatment.”

Ultimately, the diagnosis of obesity as a disease needs an anthropometric biomarker that provides, on an individual level, the confidence that a person has a disease today, or at least close to a 100% likelihood of developing this disease and illness, asserts Dr. Rubino.

“If we use BMI, or even waist circumference, these might diagnose the disease; but if the person lives to 90 years, what’s the point of labeling somebody as having an illness?” he points out.

“As doctors, we have to be cautious. We say this is a disease, but you must think about the implications for the person on the receiving end of that diagnosis of a chronic disease that is substantially incurable. When we say it, we need to be certain.”

Dr. Steele and Dr. Visaria have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Rubino disclosed that he has received research grants from Novo Nordisk, Medtronic, and Johnson & Johnson. He has undertaken paid consultancy work for GI Dynamics and received honoraria for lectures from Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, and Johnson & Johnson. He is a member of the data safety monitoring board for GT Metabolic Solutions and has provided scientific advice to Keyron, Metadeq, GHP Scientific, and ViBo Health for no remuneration.

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

Public perception of disease is everything. “Diabetics” are now referred to as “people living with diabetes,” and an “obese person” is now an “individual living with obesity.”

But what is the definition of obesity? Does it refer to a disease or a risk factor? And is the term so tainted in negativity, blame, and bias that the only solution is to scrap it and completely rename it? Society (and medicine) have changed significantly since the Latin word obesitas was adopted back in the 1600s.

Despite so much hinging on the word “obesity,” it’s remarkable that the label persists while the concepts underpinning it have evolved significantly. So perhaps it is more about finding the least-worst option rather than pursuing the impossibility of a solution that suits all?

This is precisely the challenge faced by a Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology Commission on the Definition and Diagnosis of Clinical Obesity, which is due to publish its initial findings this coming fall. The global task force has 60 leaders in the clinical management of obesity, including representatives with lived experiences of obesity. Leading the project is Francesco Rubino, MD, chair of metabolic and bariatric surgery at King’s College London.

“Renaming ‘obesity’ is very important,” states Dr. Rubino. “The word is so stigmatized, with so much misunderstanding and misperception, some might say the only solution is to change the name.”

One possibility for a new name, introduced by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (now –Endocrinology) and the American College of Endocrinology back in 2016, was based on framing the disease on the central characteristic of adiposity and was termed ABCD, for adiposity-based chronic disease.

Dr. Rubino welcomes “ABCD” but has some reservations. “It is good from a physiological point of view, but the problem is it speaks to scientists and medical professionals. I don’t know how much it would appeal to the general public. ‘ABCD’ still falls short of telling us what the illness is.”

He adds that the Lancet Commission’s approach is rather to call it “clinical obesity.” “ ‘Obesity’ itself doesn’t necessarily convey the message that you have a disease or an illness,” he observes. “It is similar to the difference in meaning between depression and clinical depression, which communicate two different things.”

But underpinning any renaming is greater clarification of the definition and diagnosis of obesity. In 1997, the World Health Organization recognized obesity as a chronic disease; in 2013, the American Medical Association did likewise, adding that it warranted medical attention; while it took until 2021 for the European Commission to define obesity as a “chronic relapsing disease, which in turn acts as a gateway to a range of other non-communicable diseases.”

Yet, 25 years after the initial recognition of obesity as a disease, the concept is still riddled with negativity, whether openly or unconsciously. Such stigma denigrates overweight people and those with obesity as “lazy, sloppy, unintelligent, and unattractive.”

Dr. Rubino explains that first, it’s important to establish and define the essential components and characteristics of the disease of obesity. This is key to improving access to clinical care, reducing personal blame, and nurturing a more supportive research environment to help inform both clinical and policy decision-making.

“This is the question that is at the core of our commission. We have a problem with the current definition of obesity, and the way we measure it does not allow us to accurately define a state of illness with obesity,” he explains.
 

Labels shape public perceptions of disease; ‘obesity’ epitomizes this

Another expert championing the need for a name that better reflects the definition – whatever that turns out to be – is Margaret Steele, PhD, School of Public Health, University College Cork (Ireland), who, according to her university webpage, has a special interest in “ ‘fatness’ as a cultural, social and political phenomenon.”

She believes that labels, including “obesity,” have a pivotal role in shaping public perceptions. In our digital, information-rich age, the boundaries of medicine and society overlap, with public perception shaping decisions of a medical nature as never before. But with this comes controversy and division – obesity management being a case in point.

Specifically, the word “obesity” is too widely associated with negative connotations, she says, and therefore she welcomes the dialogue around redefining and renaming it. Despite wide general support for a name and definition that reflects adiposity, due to its central physiologic role in the complications of obesity, Dr. Steele believes that the “effects on adipose tissue are downstream of brain issues and the food environment,” and she wants to see more attention brought to this.

Referring to most Westernized societies, she describes how people who grew up in times of food scarcity, before processed foods became widely available, have a different taste profile from those who grew up afterwards. “Growing up in 1940s and ‘50s Ireland, people recall how they remember getting an orange as a treat at Christmas, because the idea that you could have food all year-round – any fruit and veg that you want, when you want it – just wasn’t there.”

By comparison, societal changes leading to more financial and time pressure in later decades meant that fast, high-fat, high-sugar, and processed foods became more desirable, she points out. “Most young children now recognize the company name, and even the specific fast-food brand [they like], before they know their alphabet.”

The current environment has cultivated “a very different physical reaction to foods, maybe a different kind of emotional response,” she believes, highlighting the tightly woven relationship between obesity, society, mental health, and food options.

Dr. Steele wants to stimulate a conversation about the term used to describe individuals, conventionally described as ‘”obese” or using the word “obesity.” “We’re thinking in terms of maybe chronic appetite, chronic food intake, or dietary intake dysregulation.”

Changing medical terminology when it has become useless or harmful is not new, she argues, with co-author, Francis Finucane, MD, consultant endocrinologist at Galway University Hospitals, Ireland, in a recent paper on the subject.

“In the 20th century, the terms ‘feeble-minded’ and ‘moron’ had become used in a pejorative way in the wider culture and were dropped from medical usage,” Dr. Steele points out. She adds that changing the term “obesity” can facilitate pursuit of the strategic goals of clinical medicine “without causing needless controversy with those who, given their own goals and contexts, understand body mass index or body weight in a radically different way.”
 

Obesity: Disease, risk factor, or both?

Dr. Rubino stresses that prior to any renaming, there is a need to establish and define the essential components and characteristics of the disease of obesity. “This question is at the core of our Commission, and it is not an easy conversation to have.” He further explains that the struggle with the current definition of obesity, and the way it is conceived, is largely centered on it still being considered a risk factor for something else.

Disease is characterized by three things, says Dr. Rubino. These comprise the phenomenon of having a pathogenic cause, leading to pathophysiologic alterations (of the organs), causing clinical manifestations.

He adds that obesity is currently described by what it can cause – for example, type 2 diabetes, cancer, or hypertension. “Each of these things have their own clinical manifestations but obesity doesn’t. [As a disease], we don’t have a definition of the clinical manifestations of obesity other than excess adiposity.”

“If we use BMI, this does not predict excess adiposity, nor does it determine a disease here and now. There is no disease without an illness, which is the clinical manifestation, and the perception by the patient of it being an illness,” explains Dr. Rubino, pointing out that the Lancet Commission is filling this gap in knowledge by asking, “If obesity is an illness, then what does it look like?”

He adds that waist circumference probably provides a better measure than BMI in directly indicating the abnormal distribution of adiposity, known to be associated with poor cardiometabolic outcomes, “but it doesn’t tell you if you have an illness here and now – only that someone is at risk of developing cardiovascular disease in the future. Most people with some excess fat around the waist are perfectly functional and don’t feel ill.”

He also explains that confusion persists around whether obesity – or excess adiposity – is a risk factor for or a symptom of another disease. “The picture is blurred, and we do not know how to discriminate between these. We only have one name, and it applies to all those things, and we have one criterion – BMI – to diagnose it!”

Dr. Rubino adds, “So, what defines it? Is it diabetes? No, because that is another disease. You don’t define a disease by another. It has to stand on its own.”

Recently, the American Medical Association advised that BMI now be used in conjunction with other valid measures of risk such as, but not limited to, measurements of visceral fat, body adiposity index, body composition, relative fat mass, waist circumference, and genetic/metabolic factors.

Aayush Visaria, MD, an internal medicine resident at Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, agrees that a new name might help change public perception of obesity for the better. A study he presented at the 2023 Endocrine Society Meeting found that BMI “vastly underestimates” obesity.

He agrees with Dr. Rubino that the challenge lies in the lack of precise understanding of the mechanisms driving obesity: “It’s multifactorial, so not just appetite or food intake. Putting this into one phrase is difficult.”

However, if a new term can incorporate the many facets of the disease, “overall, it’ll reduce stigma because we’ll start to think about obesity as a disease process, not a personal thing with blame attached,” says Dr. Visaria.

But simultaneously, he expresses caution around possible negative connotations associated with the classification of obesity as a disease. Dr. Steele also reflects on this risk, highlighting that medicalizing body size can be counterproductive in feeding into weight stigma and fatphobia.

“Medicalizing obesity can be discouraging rather than empowering, but by specifying more clearly that we’re talking about a specific set of interrelated metabolic conditions, it would make it much clearer, and that ... this isn’t about making people skinny, it isn’t about an aesthetic thing,” Dr. Steele observes.
 

The word ‘obesity’ hinders disease explanations

Dr. Steele explains that her goal is to overcome the ambiguity around the word “obesity” that hinders explanations of the disease of obesity to the wider public.

“Much confusion and controversy might be avoided if we were to clarify that when doctors say that obesity is a disease, they do not mean that being ‘fat’ is a disease.”

Nevertheless, adipose tissue is an active endocrine organ, producing hormones that function less well in people with obesity, she notes. “This new knowledge has led to better treatments, including drugs like semaglutide and tirzepatide. These drugs, like bariatric surgery, typically lead to significant weight loss and to improvements in overall metabolic health.”

Dr. Rubino also expresses concerns around medicalization, as determined by definition and diagnosis and the availability of drug treatment that could potentially lead to overtreatment. “Currently, when everyone with a BMI of greater than 30 gets access to every obesity treatment out there, we see drugs are running out of stock. We should prioritize that treatment.”

Ultimately, the diagnosis of obesity as a disease needs an anthropometric biomarker that provides, on an individual level, the confidence that a person has a disease today, or at least close to a 100% likelihood of developing this disease and illness, asserts Dr. Rubino.

“If we use BMI, or even waist circumference, these might diagnose the disease; but if the person lives to 90 years, what’s the point of labeling somebody as having an illness?” he points out.

“As doctors, we have to be cautious. We say this is a disease, but you must think about the implications for the person on the receiving end of that diagnosis of a chronic disease that is substantially incurable. When we say it, we need to be certain.”

Dr. Steele and Dr. Visaria have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Rubino disclosed that he has received research grants from Novo Nordisk, Medtronic, and Johnson & Johnson. He has undertaken paid consultancy work for GI Dynamics and received honoraria for lectures from Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, and Johnson & Johnson. He is a member of the data safety monitoring board for GT Metabolic Solutions and has provided scientific advice to Keyron, Metadeq, GHP Scientific, and ViBo Health for no remuneration.

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

Public perception of disease is everything. “Diabetics” are now referred to as “people living with diabetes,” and an “obese person” is now an “individual living with obesity.”

But what is the definition of obesity? Does it refer to a disease or a risk factor? And is the term so tainted in negativity, blame, and bias that the only solution is to scrap it and completely rename it? Society (and medicine) have changed significantly since the Latin word obesitas was adopted back in the 1600s.

Despite so much hinging on the word “obesity,” it’s remarkable that the label persists while the concepts underpinning it have evolved significantly. So perhaps it is more about finding the least-worst option rather than pursuing the impossibility of a solution that suits all?

This is precisely the challenge faced by a Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology Commission on the Definition and Diagnosis of Clinical Obesity, which is due to publish its initial findings this coming fall. The global task force has 60 leaders in the clinical management of obesity, including representatives with lived experiences of obesity. Leading the project is Francesco Rubino, MD, chair of metabolic and bariatric surgery at King’s College London.

“Renaming ‘obesity’ is very important,” states Dr. Rubino. “The word is so stigmatized, with so much misunderstanding and misperception, some might say the only solution is to change the name.”

One possibility for a new name, introduced by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (now –Endocrinology) and the American College of Endocrinology back in 2016, was based on framing the disease on the central characteristic of adiposity and was termed ABCD, for adiposity-based chronic disease.

Dr. Rubino welcomes “ABCD” but has some reservations. “It is good from a physiological point of view, but the problem is it speaks to scientists and medical professionals. I don’t know how much it would appeal to the general public. ‘ABCD’ still falls short of telling us what the illness is.”

He adds that the Lancet Commission’s approach is rather to call it “clinical obesity.” “ ‘Obesity’ itself doesn’t necessarily convey the message that you have a disease or an illness,” he observes. “It is similar to the difference in meaning between depression and clinical depression, which communicate two different things.”

But underpinning any renaming is greater clarification of the definition and diagnosis of obesity. In 1997, the World Health Organization recognized obesity as a chronic disease; in 2013, the American Medical Association did likewise, adding that it warranted medical attention; while it took until 2021 for the European Commission to define obesity as a “chronic relapsing disease, which in turn acts as a gateway to a range of other non-communicable diseases.”

Yet, 25 years after the initial recognition of obesity as a disease, the concept is still riddled with negativity, whether openly or unconsciously. Such stigma denigrates overweight people and those with obesity as “lazy, sloppy, unintelligent, and unattractive.”

Dr. Rubino explains that first, it’s important to establish and define the essential components and characteristics of the disease of obesity. This is key to improving access to clinical care, reducing personal blame, and nurturing a more supportive research environment to help inform both clinical and policy decision-making.

“This is the question that is at the core of our commission. We have a problem with the current definition of obesity, and the way we measure it does not allow us to accurately define a state of illness with obesity,” he explains.
 

Labels shape public perceptions of disease; ‘obesity’ epitomizes this

Another expert championing the need for a name that better reflects the definition – whatever that turns out to be – is Margaret Steele, PhD, School of Public Health, University College Cork (Ireland), who, according to her university webpage, has a special interest in “ ‘fatness’ as a cultural, social and political phenomenon.”

She believes that labels, including “obesity,” have a pivotal role in shaping public perceptions. In our digital, information-rich age, the boundaries of medicine and society overlap, with public perception shaping decisions of a medical nature as never before. But with this comes controversy and division – obesity management being a case in point.

Specifically, the word “obesity” is too widely associated with negative connotations, she says, and therefore she welcomes the dialogue around redefining and renaming it. Despite wide general support for a name and definition that reflects adiposity, due to its central physiologic role in the complications of obesity, Dr. Steele believes that the “effects on adipose tissue are downstream of brain issues and the food environment,” and she wants to see more attention brought to this.

Referring to most Westernized societies, she describes how people who grew up in times of food scarcity, before processed foods became widely available, have a different taste profile from those who grew up afterwards. “Growing up in 1940s and ‘50s Ireland, people recall how they remember getting an orange as a treat at Christmas, because the idea that you could have food all year-round – any fruit and veg that you want, when you want it – just wasn’t there.”

By comparison, societal changes leading to more financial and time pressure in later decades meant that fast, high-fat, high-sugar, and processed foods became more desirable, she points out. “Most young children now recognize the company name, and even the specific fast-food brand [they like], before they know their alphabet.”

The current environment has cultivated “a very different physical reaction to foods, maybe a different kind of emotional response,” she believes, highlighting the tightly woven relationship between obesity, society, mental health, and food options.

Dr. Steele wants to stimulate a conversation about the term used to describe individuals, conventionally described as ‘”obese” or using the word “obesity.” “We’re thinking in terms of maybe chronic appetite, chronic food intake, or dietary intake dysregulation.”

Changing medical terminology when it has become useless or harmful is not new, she argues, with co-author, Francis Finucane, MD, consultant endocrinologist at Galway University Hospitals, Ireland, in a recent paper on the subject.

“In the 20th century, the terms ‘feeble-minded’ and ‘moron’ had become used in a pejorative way in the wider culture and were dropped from medical usage,” Dr. Steele points out. She adds that changing the term “obesity” can facilitate pursuit of the strategic goals of clinical medicine “without causing needless controversy with those who, given their own goals and contexts, understand body mass index or body weight in a radically different way.”
 

Obesity: Disease, risk factor, or both?

Dr. Rubino stresses that prior to any renaming, there is a need to establish and define the essential components and characteristics of the disease of obesity. “This question is at the core of our Commission, and it is not an easy conversation to have.” He further explains that the struggle with the current definition of obesity, and the way it is conceived, is largely centered on it still being considered a risk factor for something else.

Disease is characterized by three things, says Dr. Rubino. These comprise the phenomenon of having a pathogenic cause, leading to pathophysiologic alterations (of the organs), causing clinical manifestations.

He adds that obesity is currently described by what it can cause – for example, type 2 diabetes, cancer, or hypertension. “Each of these things have their own clinical manifestations but obesity doesn’t. [As a disease], we don’t have a definition of the clinical manifestations of obesity other than excess adiposity.”

“If we use BMI, this does not predict excess adiposity, nor does it determine a disease here and now. There is no disease without an illness, which is the clinical manifestation, and the perception by the patient of it being an illness,” explains Dr. Rubino, pointing out that the Lancet Commission is filling this gap in knowledge by asking, “If obesity is an illness, then what does it look like?”

He adds that waist circumference probably provides a better measure than BMI in directly indicating the abnormal distribution of adiposity, known to be associated with poor cardiometabolic outcomes, “but it doesn’t tell you if you have an illness here and now – only that someone is at risk of developing cardiovascular disease in the future. Most people with some excess fat around the waist are perfectly functional and don’t feel ill.”

He also explains that confusion persists around whether obesity – or excess adiposity – is a risk factor for or a symptom of another disease. “The picture is blurred, and we do not know how to discriminate between these. We only have one name, and it applies to all those things, and we have one criterion – BMI – to diagnose it!”

Dr. Rubino adds, “So, what defines it? Is it diabetes? No, because that is another disease. You don’t define a disease by another. It has to stand on its own.”

Recently, the American Medical Association advised that BMI now be used in conjunction with other valid measures of risk such as, but not limited to, measurements of visceral fat, body adiposity index, body composition, relative fat mass, waist circumference, and genetic/metabolic factors.

Aayush Visaria, MD, an internal medicine resident at Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, agrees that a new name might help change public perception of obesity for the better. A study he presented at the 2023 Endocrine Society Meeting found that BMI “vastly underestimates” obesity.

He agrees with Dr. Rubino that the challenge lies in the lack of precise understanding of the mechanisms driving obesity: “It’s multifactorial, so not just appetite or food intake. Putting this into one phrase is difficult.”

However, if a new term can incorporate the many facets of the disease, “overall, it’ll reduce stigma because we’ll start to think about obesity as a disease process, not a personal thing with blame attached,” says Dr. Visaria.

But simultaneously, he expresses caution around possible negative connotations associated with the classification of obesity as a disease. Dr. Steele also reflects on this risk, highlighting that medicalizing body size can be counterproductive in feeding into weight stigma and fatphobia.

“Medicalizing obesity can be discouraging rather than empowering, but by specifying more clearly that we’re talking about a specific set of interrelated metabolic conditions, it would make it much clearer, and that ... this isn’t about making people skinny, it isn’t about an aesthetic thing,” Dr. Steele observes.
 

The word ‘obesity’ hinders disease explanations

Dr. Steele explains that her goal is to overcome the ambiguity around the word “obesity” that hinders explanations of the disease of obesity to the wider public.

“Much confusion and controversy might be avoided if we were to clarify that when doctors say that obesity is a disease, they do not mean that being ‘fat’ is a disease.”

Nevertheless, adipose tissue is an active endocrine organ, producing hormones that function less well in people with obesity, she notes. “This new knowledge has led to better treatments, including drugs like semaglutide and tirzepatide. These drugs, like bariatric surgery, typically lead to significant weight loss and to improvements in overall metabolic health.”

Dr. Rubino also expresses concerns around medicalization, as determined by definition and diagnosis and the availability of drug treatment that could potentially lead to overtreatment. “Currently, when everyone with a BMI of greater than 30 gets access to every obesity treatment out there, we see drugs are running out of stock. We should prioritize that treatment.”

Ultimately, the diagnosis of obesity as a disease needs an anthropometric biomarker that provides, on an individual level, the confidence that a person has a disease today, or at least close to a 100% likelihood of developing this disease and illness, asserts Dr. Rubino.

“If we use BMI, or even waist circumference, these might diagnose the disease; but if the person lives to 90 years, what’s the point of labeling somebody as having an illness?” he points out.

“As doctors, we have to be cautious. We say this is a disease, but you must think about the implications for the person on the receiving end of that diagnosis of a chronic disease that is substantially incurable. When we say it, we need to be certain.”

Dr. Steele and Dr. Visaria have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Rubino disclosed that he has received research grants from Novo Nordisk, Medtronic, and Johnson & Johnson. He has undertaken paid consultancy work for GI Dynamics and received honoraria for lectures from Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, and Johnson & Johnson. He is a member of the data safety monitoring board for GT Metabolic Solutions and has provided scientific advice to Keyron, Metadeq, GHP Scientific, and ViBo Health for no remuneration.

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

Use of dural-puncture epidural (DPE) shortened the onset time to surgical anesthesia by approximately 3 minutes, compared with standard epidural in patients undergoing cesarean delivery, based on data from 140 individuals.

DPE, while not new, has become more popular as an option for initiating labor analgesia, but data comparing DPE with standard epidural in conversion to surgical anesthesia for cesarean deliveries are limited, Nadir Sharawi, MD, of the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, and colleagues wrote.

courtesy University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences

DPE involves no injection of intrathecal drugs, and the potential advantages include easier translocation of epidural medications into the intrathecal space for improved analgesia, but the effects of DPE on the onset and reliability of surgical anesthesia remain unknown, they said.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers randomized 70 women scheduled for cesarean delivery of singleton pregnancies to DPE and 70 to a standard epidural. The participants were aged 18 years and older, with a mean age of the 30.1 years; the study was conducted between April 2019 and October 2022 at a single center.

The primary outcome was the time to the loss of sharp sensation at T6, defined as “the start of epidural extension anesthesia (time zero on the stopwatch) to when the patient could no longer feel sharp sensation at T6 (assessed bilaterally at the midclavicular line),” the researchers wrote.

The onset time to surgical anesthesia was faster in the DPE group, compared with the standard group, with a median of 422 seconds versus 655 seconds.

A key secondary outcome was a composite measure of the quality of epidural anesthesia that included failure to achieve a T10 bilateral block preoperatively in the delivery room, failure to achieve a surgical block at T6 within 15 minutes of chloroprocaine administration, requirement for intraoperative analgesia, repeat neuraxial procedure, and conversion to general anesthesia. The composite rates of lower quality anesthesia were significantly less in the DPE group, compared with the standard group (15.7% vs. 36.3%; P = .007).

Additional secondary outcomes included maternal satisfaction and pain score during surgery, adverse events, opioid use in the first 24 hours, maternal vasopressor requirements, epidural block assessments, and neonatal outcomes. No significant differences in these outcomes were noted between the groups, and no instances of local anesthetic systemic toxicity or neurological complications were reported.

The findings were limited by several factors including the study population of women scheduled for cesarean delivery and not in labor, and the inability to detect less frequent complications such as post–dural-puncture headache and accidental dural puncture, the researchers noted.

In addition, the results may vary with the use of other combinations of local anesthetics and opioids. “Chloroprocaine was chosen in this study because of its ease of administration without the need for opioids and other additives along with the low risk of systemic toxic effects, which favors rapid administration for emergent cesarean delivery,” they wrote.

However, the results show an association between DPE within an hour of epidural extension for elective cesarean delivery and a faster onset of anesthesia, improved block quality, and a more favorable ratio of risks versus benefits, compared with the use of standard epidural, the researchers concluded.
 

No need for general anesthesia?

“There is controversy over whether the dural puncture epidural technique improves labor analgesia when compared to a standard epidural,” Dr. Shawari said in an interview. “However, there are limited data on whether the dural puncture epidural technique decreases the onset time to surgical anesthesia when compared to a standard epidural for cesarean delivery. This is important as a pre-existing epidural is commonly used to convert labor analgesia to surgical anesthesia in the setting of urgent cesarean delivery. A faster onset of epidural anesthesia could potentially avoid the need for general anesthesia in an emergency.”

The researchers were not surprised by the findings given their experience with performing dural puncture epidurals for labor analgesia, Dr. Shawari said. In those cases, DPE provided a faster onset when converting cesarean anesthesia, compared with a standard epidural.

The takeaway from the current study is that DPE also provided “a faster onset and improved quality of anesthesia when compared to standard epidural for elective cesarean delivery,” Dr. Shawari said. However, additional research is needed to confirm the findings for intrapartum cesarean delivery.
 

Progress in improving pain control

“Adequate pain control during cesarean delivery is incredibly important,” Catherine Albright, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview. “Inadequate pain control leads to the need to provide additional intravenous medications or the need to be put under general anesthesia, which changes the birth experience and is more dangerous for the birthing person and the neonate.

courtesy University of Washington

“In my clinical experience, there are many times when patients do not have adequate pain control during a cesarean delivery,” said Dr. Albright, who was not involved in the current study. “I am pleased to see that there is research underway about how to best manage pain on labor and delivery, especially in the setting of conversion from labor anesthesia to cesarean anesthesia.”

The findings may have implications for clinical practice, said Dr. Albright. If the dural puncture epidural can improve cesarean anesthesia following an epidural during labor, rather than anesthesia provided for an elective cesarean), “then I believe it would reduce the number of patients who require additional pain medication, have a poor cesarean experience, and/or need to be put under general anesthesia.”

However, “as noted by the authors, additional research is needed to further determine possible risks and side effects from this technique, and also to ensure that it also works in the setting of labor, rather than for an elective cesarean,” Dr. Albright added.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Albright had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Use of dural-puncture epidural (DPE) shortened the onset time to surgical anesthesia by approximately 3 minutes, compared with standard epidural in patients undergoing cesarean delivery, based on data from 140 individuals.

DPE, while not new, has become more popular as an option for initiating labor analgesia, but data comparing DPE with standard epidural in conversion to surgical anesthesia for cesarean deliveries are limited, Nadir Sharawi, MD, of the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, and colleagues wrote.

courtesy University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences

DPE involves no injection of intrathecal drugs, and the potential advantages include easier translocation of epidural medications into the intrathecal space for improved analgesia, but the effects of DPE on the onset and reliability of surgical anesthesia remain unknown, they said.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers randomized 70 women scheduled for cesarean delivery of singleton pregnancies to DPE and 70 to a standard epidural. The participants were aged 18 years and older, with a mean age of the 30.1 years; the study was conducted between April 2019 and October 2022 at a single center.

The primary outcome was the time to the loss of sharp sensation at T6, defined as “the start of epidural extension anesthesia (time zero on the stopwatch) to when the patient could no longer feel sharp sensation at T6 (assessed bilaterally at the midclavicular line),” the researchers wrote.

The onset time to surgical anesthesia was faster in the DPE group, compared with the standard group, with a median of 422 seconds versus 655 seconds.

A key secondary outcome was a composite measure of the quality of epidural anesthesia that included failure to achieve a T10 bilateral block preoperatively in the delivery room, failure to achieve a surgical block at T6 within 15 minutes of chloroprocaine administration, requirement for intraoperative analgesia, repeat neuraxial procedure, and conversion to general anesthesia. The composite rates of lower quality anesthesia were significantly less in the DPE group, compared with the standard group (15.7% vs. 36.3%; P = .007).

Additional secondary outcomes included maternal satisfaction and pain score during surgery, adverse events, opioid use in the first 24 hours, maternal vasopressor requirements, epidural block assessments, and neonatal outcomes. No significant differences in these outcomes were noted between the groups, and no instances of local anesthetic systemic toxicity or neurological complications were reported.

The findings were limited by several factors including the study population of women scheduled for cesarean delivery and not in labor, and the inability to detect less frequent complications such as post–dural-puncture headache and accidental dural puncture, the researchers noted.

In addition, the results may vary with the use of other combinations of local anesthetics and opioids. “Chloroprocaine was chosen in this study because of its ease of administration without the need for opioids and other additives along with the low risk of systemic toxic effects, which favors rapid administration for emergent cesarean delivery,” they wrote.

However, the results show an association between DPE within an hour of epidural extension for elective cesarean delivery and a faster onset of anesthesia, improved block quality, and a more favorable ratio of risks versus benefits, compared with the use of standard epidural, the researchers concluded.
 

No need for general anesthesia?

“There is controversy over whether the dural puncture epidural technique improves labor analgesia when compared to a standard epidural,” Dr. Shawari said in an interview. “However, there are limited data on whether the dural puncture epidural technique decreases the onset time to surgical anesthesia when compared to a standard epidural for cesarean delivery. This is important as a pre-existing epidural is commonly used to convert labor analgesia to surgical anesthesia in the setting of urgent cesarean delivery. A faster onset of epidural anesthesia could potentially avoid the need for general anesthesia in an emergency.”

The researchers were not surprised by the findings given their experience with performing dural puncture epidurals for labor analgesia, Dr. Shawari said. In those cases, DPE provided a faster onset when converting cesarean anesthesia, compared with a standard epidural.

The takeaway from the current study is that DPE also provided “a faster onset and improved quality of anesthesia when compared to standard epidural for elective cesarean delivery,” Dr. Shawari said. However, additional research is needed to confirm the findings for intrapartum cesarean delivery.
 

Progress in improving pain control

“Adequate pain control during cesarean delivery is incredibly important,” Catherine Albright, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview. “Inadequate pain control leads to the need to provide additional intravenous medications or the need to be put under general anesthesia, which changes the birth experience and is more dangerous for the birthing person and the neonate.

courtesy University of Washington

“In my clinical experience, there are many times when patients do not have adequate pain control during a cesarean delivery,” said Dr. Albright, who was not involved in the current study. “I am pleased to see that there is research underway about how to best manage pain on labor and delivery, especially in the setting of conversion from labor anesthesia to cesarean anesthesia.”

The findings may have implications for clinical practice, said Dr. Albright. If the dural puncture epidural can improve cesarean anesthesia following an epidural during labor, rather than anesthesia provided for an elective cesarean), “then I believe it would reduce the number of patients who require additional pain medication, have a poor cesarean experience, and/or need to be put under general anesthesia.”

However, “as noted by the authors, additional research is needed to further determine possible risks and side effects from this technique, and also to ensure that it also works in the setting of labor, rather than for an elective cesarean,” Dr. Albright added.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Albright had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Use of dural-puncture epidural (DPE) shortened the onset time to surgical anesthesia by approximately 3 minutes, compared with standard epidural in patients undergoing cesarean delivery, based on data from 140 individuals.

DPE, while not new, has become more popular as an option for initiating labor analgesia, but data comparing DPE with standard epidural in conversion to surgical anesthesia for cesarean deliveries are limited, Nadir Sharawi, MD, of the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, and colleagues wrote.

courtesy University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences

DPE involves no injection of intrathecal drugs, and the potential advantages include easier translocation of epidural medications into the intrathecal space for improved analgesia, but the effects of DPE on the onset and reliability of surgical anesthesia remain unknown, they said.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers randomized 70 women scheduled for cesarean delivery of singleton pregnancies to DPE and 70 to a standard epidural. The participants were aged 18 years and older, with a mean age of the 30.1 years; the study was conducted between April 2019 and October 2022 at a single center.

The primary outcome was the time to the loss of sharp sensation at T6, defined as “the start of epidural extension anesthesia (time zero on the stopwatch) to when the patient could no longer feel sharp sensation at T6 (assessed bilaterally at the midclavicular line),” the researchers wrote.

The onset time to surgical anesthesia was faster in the DPE group, compared with the standard group, with a median of 422 seconds versus 655 seconds.

A key secondary outcome was a composite measure of the quality of epidural anesthesia that included failure to achieve a T10 bilateral block preoperatively in the delivery room, failure to achieve a surgical block at T6 within 15 minutes of chloroprocaine administration, requirement for intraoperative analgesia, repeat neuraxial procedure, and conversion to general anesthesia. The composite rates of lower quality anesthesia were significantly less in the DPE group, compared with the standard group (15.7% vs. 36.3%; P = .007).

Additional secondary outcomes included maternal satisfaction and pain score during surgery, adverse events, opioid use in the first 24 hours, maternal vasopressor requirements, epidural block assessments, and neonatal outcomes. No significant differences in these outcomes were noted between the groups, and no instances of local anesthetic systemic toxicity or neurological complications were reported.

The findings were limited by several factors including the study population of women scheduled for cesarean delivery and not in labor, and the inability to detect less frequent complications such as post–dural-puncture headache and accidental dural puncture, the researchers noted.

In addition, the results may vary with the use of other combinations of local anesthetics and opioids. “Chloroprocaine was chosen in this study because of its ease of administration without the need for opioids and other additives along with the low risk of systemic toxic effects, which favors rapid administration for emergent cesarean delivery,” they wrote.

However, the results show an association between DPE within an hour of epidural extension for elective cesarean delivery and a faster onset of anesthesia, improved block quality, and a more favorable ratio of risks versus benefits, compared with the use of standard epidural, the researchers concluded.
 

No need for general anesthesia?

“There is controversy over whether the dural puncture epidural technique improves labor analgesia when compared to a standard epidural,” Dr. Shawari said in an interview. “However, there are limited data on whether the dural puncture epidural technique decreases the onset time to surgical anesthesia when compared to a standard epidural for cesarean delivery. This is important as a pre-existing epidural is commonly used to convert labor analgesia to surgical anesthesia in the setting of urgent cesarean delivery. A faster onset of epidural anesthesia could potentially avoid the need for general anesthesia in an emergency.”

The researchers were not surprised by the findings given their experience with performing dural puncture epidurals for labor analgesia, Dr. Shawari said. In those cases, DPE provided a faster onset when converting cesarean anesthesia, compared with a standard epidural.

The takeaway from the current study is that DPE also provided “a faster onset and improved quality of anesthesia when compared to standard epidural for elective cesarean delivery,” Dr. Shawari said. However, additional research is needed to confirm the findings for intrapartum cesarean delivery.
 

Progress in improving pain control

“Adequate pain control during cesarean delivery is incredibly important,” Catherine Albright, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview. “Inadequate pain control leads to the need to provide additional intravenous medications or the need to be put under general anesthesia, which changes the birth experience and is more dangerous for the birthing person and the neonate.

courtesy University of Washington

“In my clinical experience, there are many times when patients do not have adequate pain control during a cesarean delivery,” said Dr. Albright, who was not involved in the current study. “I am pleased to see that there is research underway about how to best manage pain on labor and delivery, especially in the setting of conversion from labor anesthesia to cesarean anesthesia.”

The findings may have implications for clinical practice, said Dr. Albright. If the dural puncture epidural can improve cesarean anesthesia following an epidural during labor, rather than anesthesia provided for an elective cesarean), “then I believe it would reduce the number of patients who require additional pain medication, have a poor cesarean experience, and/or need to be put under general anesthesia.”

However, “as noted by the authors, additional research is needed to further determine possible risks and side effects from this technique, and also to ensure that it also works in the setting of labor, rather than for an elective cesarean,” Dr. Albright added.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Albright had no financial conflicts to disclose.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Dr. West: Here at ASCO 2023 [American Society of Clinical Oncology] in Chicago, we’ve seen some blockbuster presentations in thoracic oncology. Many of these have brought up some important questions about the clinical implications that we need to discuss further.

At ASCO, as well as in the couple or 3 months preceding ASCO, we’ve gotten more and more data on perioperative approaches. Of course, over the past couple of years, we’ve had some new options of postoperative immunotherapy for a year, say, after chemotherapy or possibly after chemotherapy.

We have also had very influential data, such as the CheckMate 816 trial that gave three cycles of chemotherapy with nivolumab vs. chemotherapy alone to patients with stage IB to IIIA disease, but largely, nearly two thirds, with IIIA disease. That showed a very clear improvement in the pathologic complete response (pCR) rate with nivolumab added to chemotherapy and also a highly significant improvement in event-free survival and a strong trend toward improved overall survival. This is FDA approved and has been increasingly adopted, I would say, maybe with some variability by geography and center, but really a good amount of enthusiasm.

Now, we have a bunch of trials that give chemotherapy with immunotherapy. We’ve got the AEGEAN trial with durvalumab. We have Neotorch with chemotherapy and toripalimab. At ASCO 2023, we had a highly prominent presentation of KEYNOTE-671, giving four cycles of chemotherapy with pembrolizumab vs. chemotherapy and placebo.

Then there’s the built-in postoperative component of a year of immunotherapy as well, in all these trials. The data for KEYNOTE-671 look quite good. Of course, the other trials also were significant. I would say the comparator now is not nothing or chemotherapy alone anymore; it’s really against what is the best current standard of care.

The real question is, if we were happy to do chemoimmunotherapy neoadjuvant with chemotherapy/nivolumab, do we want or need to add the year of immunotherapy? It certainly adds some cost, it adds some risk for toxicity, and it adds a year of a patient coming into the clinic and getting IV infusions all this time to get a treatment that the patient has already had for four cycles in most of these trials.

If your cancer is resistant, is there going to be an incremental benefit to giving more of it? What are your thoughts about the risk and benefit? Going to a patient in your own clinic, how are you going to counsel your patients? Will anything change after the presentation of all these data and how you approach preoperatively?

Dr. Rotow: I agree. In some sense, it’s an embarrassment of riches, right?

Dr. West: Yes.

Dr. Rotow: We have so many positive studies looking at perioperative immunotherapy for our patients. They all show improved outcomes, but of course, they all compare with the old control arm of chemotherapy alone in some form, and this is no longer a useful control in this space. The open question is, do you use neoadjuvant, do you use adjuvant, or do you use both?

My high-level takeaway from these data is that the neoadjuvant component appears to be important. I think the overall trend, comparing across studies, of course, is that outcomes seem to be better with the neoadjuvant component. You also get the advantage of potential downstaging and potential greater ease of surgical resection. We know they have lower morbidity resection and shorter surgeries. You can comment on that. You also get your pathologic response data.

Dr. West: You get the feedback.

Dr. Rotow: Exactly.

Dr. West: The deliverability is also a big issue. You know you can much more reliably deliver your intended treatment by doing neoadjuvant followed by surgery.

Dr. Rotow: Exactly.

Dr. West: We know there’s major drop-off if patients have surgery, and in the recovery room they hear you got it all, and then they need to come back and maybe get chemotherapy and immunotherapy for a year. They’d ask, “What for? I can’t see anything.”

Dr. Rotow: Exactly. I think there are many advantages to that neoadjuvant component. I think all or many of us now have integrated this into our routine practice. Now the question is, do you need the adjuvant element or not on top? That is challenging because no trial has compared adjuvant to nonadjuvant. I think we all advocate for the need for this trial to answer this in a more randomized, prospective fashion. Of course, that doesn’t help our clinic practice tomorrow when we see a patient.

Dr. West: Or for the next 4 years.

Dr. Rotow: Or for the next 4 years – exactly. There’s going to be the open question of who really needs this? In some sense, we may be guided by the path response during the surgery itself. I think there may be those who claim that if you have a pCR, do you really need additional therapy? We don’t know the answer, but it’s tempting to say we know the outcomes in event-free survival are extremely good with a pCR.

Dr. West: Which is only 20% or 25% of patients, so it’s not most.

Dr. Rotow: It’s not most, but it’s better than the 2% or so with chemotherapy alone. That’s real progress, and it’s nice to have that readout. For that 80% without a pCR, what to do? I suspect there will be variation from provider to provider and from patient to patient, depending on tolerability to prior therapy, the patient’s wishes around the goals of care, and the patient’s risk for autoimmune toxicities.

Maybe there’s a patient with underlying autoimmune disease who’s gotten their neoadjuvant therapy and done well. You don’t want to risk that ongoing risk of exposure. Perhaps a patient with no risk factors who desires very aggressive treatment might be interested in more treatment.

In KEYNOTE-671, I was interested in the PD-L1 subgroups. These did trend the way you expect, with better responses in PD-L1 high, but there were also good outcomes and benefit to immunotherapy with the perioperative strategy in PD-L1–negative patients.

Dr. West: That didn’t really exclude anybody.

Dr. Rotow: It didn’t exclude anybody. In CheckMate 816, everyone benefited, but the benefit was less with those PD-L1–negative patients.

Dr. West: True.

Dr. Rotow: Absent further data to guide me or any prospective data here comparing these strategies, I might lean toward a longer course of immunotherapy in that population in hopes of triggering a response. I suspect that there will be variation from clinician to clinician in that space.

Dr. West: This is a setting where I feel like I have equipoise. I really feel that the incremental benefit is pretty small.

Dr. Rotow: Small. I agree.

Dr. West: It’s, frankly, somewhat dubious. On the other hand, you’re in a situation where if you know that three of four patients will experience a relapse and less-than-amazing outcomes, it’s hard to leave something that’s FDA approved and studied and a well-sanctioned option on the table if this patient may have relapse later.

In the end, I feel like I’d like to offer this and discuss it with all my patients. I think it’s a great place for shared decision-making because if a patient hears about that and decides they’re not interested, I’ll be fine with that. I think that’s a very sensible approach, but I don’t want to make it unilaterally. Other patients may say they want every opportunity, and if it comes back, at least I’ll know I did everything we could.

Dr. Rotow: Exactly. I agree with your statement about equipoise. I truly think that this is present here in the situation, and that there’s room for discussion in both directions with patients.

Now, one caveat I’d like to add to all these data is that the data should not apply to patients with some of our classic nonsmoking-associated driver mutations. This is another piece to the neoadjuvant data that I think is worth commenting on – the need to get appropriate testing before initiation of therapy and the pitfalls of starting this kind of treatment without knowing full biomarker testing. I think that’s something we have to watch for in our clinical practice as well.

Dr. West: Perhaps especially if we’re talking about doing a year of postoperative and someone has an ALK rearrangement or an EGFR mutation and we didn’t know it. That is a group where we’re worried about a rapid transition and potentially prohibitive, even life-threatening, toxicities from not planning in advance for this. This is something you don’t want to give concurrently or one right on top of the other. You don’t want to give immunotherapy and then transition right to targeted therapy. It’s dangerous.

Dr. Rotow: Exactly. The stakes were already high with neoadjuvant alone, but at least you had that gap of the presurgical period, surgical recovery, and then initiation of adjuvant therapy, if needed, or at relapse. With a postoperative long adjuvant period, those stakes are elevated because the immunotherapy exposure continues, so it’s something to be mindful of.

Dr. West: We have a general sense that many, but not all, of the targets that we’re talking about are associated with low benefit from immunotherapy. It’s not that well studied. I think this is another place for individualized discussion of the pros and cons. They were included in the trial, but they probably benefit less.

Dr. Rotow: Exactly. I think with the best established, EGFR and ALK probably are not benefiting much. They were actually included in the trial. Many of the neoadjuvant studies do not allow them to enroll if they’re known. On the other end of that spectrum, I think KRAS is just fine to treat with immunotherapy.

Dr. West: Sure.

Dr. Rotow: It’s an actionable driver. It’s not a traditional nonsmoking-associated driver, and those do just fine.

Dr. West: The studies show that these patients benefit just as much, at least, as the other patients.

Dr. Rotow: Exactly. I would never withhold this form of therapy for a KRAS driver mutation. The others, I think, are still in a gray zone. Depending on the patient demographics and tobacco use, I may elicit more or less caution in that space.

Dr. West: Well, I think we’re going to have much to still tease apart, with room for judgment here without a strong sense of the data telling us exactly what to do.

Dr. Rotow: Exactly.

Dr. West: There’s a large amount of excitement and interest in these new data, but there are still many open questions. I hope we continue to mull it over as we get more data and more insight to shape our plans.

Dr. West is an associate professor at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Duarte, Calif., and vice president of network strategy at AccessHope in Los Angeles. Dr. Rotow is the clinical director of the Lowe Center for Thoracic Oncology at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston. Dr. West reported conflicts of interest with Ariad/Takeda, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Spectrum, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Genentech/Roche, Pfizer, Merck, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Rotow reported conflicts of interest with Genentech, AstraZeneca,Guardant, and Janssen.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Dr. West: Here at ASCO 2023 [American Society of Clinical Oncology] in Chicago, we’ve seen some blockbuster presentations in thoracic oncology. Many of these have brought up some important questions about the clinical implications that we need to discuss further.

At ASCO, as well as in the couple or 3 months preceding ASCO, we’ve gotten more and more data on perioperative approaches. Of course, over the past couple of years, we’ve had some new options of postoperative immunotherapy for a year, say, after chemotherapy or possibly after chemotherapy.

We have also had very influential data, such as the CheckMate 816 trial that gave three cycles of chemotherapy with nivolumab vs. chemotherapy alone to patients with stage IB to IIIA disease, but largely, nearly two thirds, with IIIA disease. That showed a very clear improvement in the pathologic complete response (pCR) rate with nivolumab added to chemotherapy and also a highly significant improvement in event-free survival and a strong trend toward improved overall survival. This is FDA approved and has been increasingly adopted, I would say, maybe with some variability by geography and center, but really a good amount of enthusiasm.

Now, we have a bunch of trials that give chemotherapy with immunotherapy. We’ve got the AEGEAN trial with durvalumab. We have Neotorch with chemotherapy and toripalimab. At ASCO 2023, we had a highly prominent presentation of KEYNOTE-671, giving four cycles of chemotherapy with pembrolizumab vs. chemotherapy and placebo.

Then there’s the built-in postoperative component of a year of immunotherapy as well, in all these trials. The data for KEYNOTE-671 look quite good. Of course, the other trials also were significant. I would say the comparator now is not nothing or chemotherapy alone anymore; it’s really against what is the best current standard of care.

The real question is, if we were happy to do chemoimmunotherapy neoadjuvant with chemotherapy/nivolumab, do we want or need to add the year of immunotherapy? It certainly adds some cost, it adds some risk for toxicity, and it adds a year of a patient coming into the clinic and getting IV infusions all this time to get a treatment that the patient has already had for four cycles in most of these trials.

If your cancer is resistant, is there going to be an incremental benefit to giving more of it? What are your thoughts about the risk and benefit? Going to a patient in your own clinic, how are you going to counsel your patients? Will anything change after the presentation of all these data and how you approach preoperatively?

Dr. Rotow: I agree. In some sense, it’s an embarrassment of riches, right?

Dr. West: Yes.

Dr. Rotow: We have so many positive studies looking at perioperative immunotherapy for our patients. They all show improved outcomes, but of course, they all compare with the old control arm of chemotherapy alone in some form, and this is no longer a useful control in this space. The open question is, do you use neoadjuvant, do you use adjuvant, or do you use both?

My high-level takeaway from these data is that the neoadjuvant component appears to be important. I think the overall trend, comparing across studies, of course, is that outcomes seem to be better with the neoadjuvant component. You also get the advantage of potential downstaging and potential greater ease of surgical resection. We know they have lower morbidity resection and shorter surgeries. You can comment on that. You also get your pathologic response data.

Dr. West: You get the feedback.

Dr. Rotow: Exactly.

Dr. West: The deliverability is also a big issue. You know you can much more reliably deliver your intended treatment by doing neoadjuvant followed by surgery.

Dr. Rotow: Exactly.

Dr. West: We know there’s major drop-off if patients have surgery, and in the recovery room they hear you got it all, and then they need to come back and maybe get chemotherapy and immunotherapy for a year. They’d ask, “What for? I can’t see anything.”

Dr. Rotow: Exactly. I think there are many advantages to that neoadjuvant component. I think all or many of us now have integrated this into our routine practice. Now the question is, do you need the adjuvant element or not on top? That is challenging because no trial has compared adjuvant to nonadjuvant. I think we all advocate for the need for this trial to answer this in a more randomized, prospective fashion. Of course, that doesn’t help our clinic practice tomorrow when we see a patient.

Dr. West: Or for the next 4 years.

Dr. Rotow: Or for the next 4 years – exactly. There’s going to be the open question of who really needs this? In some sense, we may be guided by the path response during the surgery itself. I think there may be those who claim that if you have a pCR, do you really need additional therapy? We don’t know the answer, but it’s tempting to say we know the outcomes in event-free survival are extremely good with a pCR.

Dr. West: Which is only 20% or 25% of patients, so it’s not most.

Dr. Rotow: It’s not most, but it’s better than the 2% or so with chemotherapy alone. That’s real progress, and it’s nice to have that readout. For that 80% without a pCR, what to do? I suspect there will be variation from provider to provider and from patient to patient, depending on tolerability to prior therapy, the patient’s wishes around the goals of care, and the patient’s risk for autoimmune toxicities.

Maybe there’s a patient with underlying autoimmune disease who’s gotten their neoadjuvant therapy and done well. You don’t want to risk that ongoing risk of exposure. Perhaps a patient with no risk factors who desires very aggressive treatment might be interested in more treatment.

In KEYNOTE-671, I was interested in the PD-L1 subgroups. These did trend the way you expect, with better responses in PD-L1 high, but there were also good outcomes and benefit to immunotherapy with the perioperative strategy in PD-L1–negative patients.

Dr. West: That didn’t really exclude anybody.

Dr. Rotow: It didn’t exclude anybody. In CheckMate 816, everyone benefited, but the benefit was less with those PD-L1–negative patients.

Dr. West: True.

Dr. Rotow: Absent further data to guide me or any prospective data here comparing these strategies, I might lean toward a longer course of immunotherapy in that population in hopes of triggering a response. I suspect that there will be variation from clinician to clinician in that space.

Dr. West: This is a setting where I feel like I have equipoise. I really feel that the incremental benefit is pretty small.

Dr. Rotow: Small. I agree.

Dr. West: It’s, frankly, somewhat dubious. On the other hand, you’re in a situation where if you know that three of four patients will experience a relapse and less-than-amazing outcomes, it’s hard to leave something that’s FDA approved and studied and a well-sanctioned option on the table if this patient may have relapse later.

In the end, I feel like I’d like to offer this and discuss it with all my patients. I think it’s a great place for shared decision-making because if a patient hears about that and decides they’re not interested, I’ll be fine with that. I think that’s a very sensible approach, but I don’t want to make it unilaterally. Other patients may say they want every opportunity, and if it comes back, at least I’ll know I did everything we could.

Dr. Rotow: Exactly. I agree with your statement about equipoise. I truly think that this is present here in the situation, and that there’s room for discussion in both directions with patients.

Now, one caveat I’d like to add to all these data is that the data should not apply to patients with some of our classic nonsmoking-associated driver mutations. This is another piece to the neoadjuvant data that I think is worth commenting on – the need to get appropriate testing before initiation of therapy and the pitfalls of starting this kind of treatment without knowing full biomarker testing. I think that’s something we have to watch for in our clinical practice as well.

Dr. West: Perhaps especially if we’re talking about doing a year of postoperative and someone has an ALK rearrangement or an EGFR mutation and we didn’t know it. That is a group where we’re worried about a rapid transition and potentially prohibitive, even life-threatening, toxicities from not planning in advance for this. This is something you don’t want to give concurrently or one right on top of the other. You don’t want to give immunotherapy and then transition right to targeted therapy. It’s dangerous.

Dr. Rotow: Exactly. The stakes were already high with neoadjuvant alone, but at least you had that gap of the presurgical period, surgical recovery, and then initiation of adjuvant therapy, if needed, or at relapse. With a postoperative long adjuvant period, those stakes are elevated because the immunotherapy exposure continues, so it’s something to be mindful of.

Dr. West: We have a general sense that many, but not all, of the targets that we’re talking about are associated with low benefit from immunotherapy. It’s not that well studied. I think this is another place for individualized discussion of the pros and cons. They were included in the trial, but they probably benefit less.

Dr. Rotow: Exactly. I think with the best established, EGFR and ALK probably are not benefiting much. They were actually included in the trial. Many of the neoadjuvant studies do not allow them to enroll if they’re known. On the other end of that spectrum, I think KRAS is just fine to treat with immunotherapy.

Dr. West: Sure.

Dr. Rotow: It’s an actionable driver. It’s not a traditional nonsmoking-associated driver, and those do just fine.

Dr. West: The studies show that these patients benefit just as much, at least, as the other patients.

Dr. Rotow: Exactly. I would never withhold this form of therapy for a KRAS driver mutation. The others, I think, are still in a gray zone. Depending on the patient demographics and tobacco use, I may elicit more or less caution in that space.

Dr. West: Well, I think we’re going to have much to still tease apart, with room for judgment here without a strong sense of the data telling us exactly what to do.

Dr. Rotow: Exactly.

Dr. West: There’s a large amount of excitement and interest in these new data, but there are still many open questions. I hope we continue to mull it over as we get more data and more insight to shape our plans.

Dr. West is an associate professor at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Duarte, Calif., and vice president of network strategy at AccessHope in Los Angeles. Dr. Rotow is the clinical director of the Lowe Center for Thoracic Oncology at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston. Dr. West reported conflicts of interest with Ariad/Takeda, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Spectrum, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Genentech/Roche, Pfizer, Merck, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Rotow reported conflicts of interest with Genentech, AstraZeneca,Guardant, and Janssen.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Dr. West: Here at ASCO 2023 [American Society of Clinical Oncology] in Chicago, we’ve seen some blockbuster presentations in thoracic oncology. Many of these have brought up some important questions about the clinical implications that we need to discuss further.

At ASCO, as well as in the couple or 3 months preceding ASCO, we’ve gotten more and more data on perioperative approaches. Of course, over the past couple of years, we’ve had some new options of postoperative immunotherapy for a year, say, after chemotherapy or possibly after chemotherapy.

We have also had very influential data, such as the CheckMate 816 trial that gave three cycles of chemotherapy with nivolumab vs. chemotherapy alone to patients with stage IB to IIIA disease, but largely, nearly two thirds, with IIIA disease. That showed a very clear improvement in the pathologic complete response (pCR) rate with nivolumab added to chemotherapy and also a highly significant improvement in event-free survival and a strong trend toward improved overall survival. This is FDA approved and has been increasingly adopted, I would say, maybe with some variability by geography and center, but really a good amount of enthusiasm.

Now, we have a bunch of trials that give chemotherapy with immunotherapy. We’ve got the AEGEAN trial with durvalumab. We have Neotorch with chemotherapy and toripalimab. At ASCO 2023, we had a highly prominent presentation of KEYNOTE-671, giving four cycles of chemotherapy with pembrolizumab vs. chemotherapy and placebo.

Then there’s the built-in postoperative component of a year of immunotherapy as well, in all these trials. The data for KEYNOTE-671 look quite good. Of course, the other trials also were significant. I would say the comparator now is not nothing or chemotherapy alone anymore; it’s really against what is the best current standard of care.

The real question is, if we were happy to do chemoimmunotherapy neoadjuvant with chemotherapy/nivolumab, do we want or need to add the year of immunotherapy? It certainly adds some cost, it adds some risk for toxicity, and it adds a year of a patient coming into the clinic and getting IV infusions all this time to get a treatment that the patient has already had for four cycles in most of these trials.

If your cancer is resistant, is there going to be an incremental benefit to giving more of it? What are your thoughts about the risk and benefit? Going to a patient in your own clinic, how are you going to counsel your patients? Will anything change after the presentation of all these data and how you approach preoperatively?

Dr. Rotow: I agree. In some sense, it’s an embarrassment of riches, right?

Dr. West: Yes.

Dr. Rotow: We have so many positive studies looking at perioperative immunotherapy for our patients. They all show improved outcomes, but of course, they all compare with the old control arm of chemotherapy alone in some form, and this is no longer a useful control in this space. The open question is, do you use neoadjuvant, do you use adjuvant, or do you use both?

My high-level takeaway from these data is that the neoadjuvant component appears to be important. I think the overall trend, comparing across studies, of course, is that outcomes seem to be better with the neoadjuvant component. You also get the advantage of potential downstaging and potential greater ease of surgical resection. We know they have lower morbidity resection and shorter surgeries. You can comment on that. You also get your pathologic response data.

Dr. West: You get the feedback.

Dr. Rotow: Exactly.

Dr. West: The deliverability is also a big issue. You know you can much more reliably deliver your intended treatment by doing neoadjuvant followed by surgery.

Dr. Rotow: Exactly.

Dr. West: We know there’s major drop-off if patients have surgery, and in the recovery room they hear you got it all, and then they need to come back and maybe get chemotherapy and immunotherapy for a year. They’d ask, “What for? I can’t see anything.”

Dr. Rotow: Exactly. I think there are many advantages to that neoadjuvant component. I think all or many of us now have integrated this into our routine practice. Now the question is, do you need the adjuvant element or not on top? That is challenging because no trial has compared adjuvant to nonadjuvant. I think we all advocate for the need for this trial to answer this in a more randomized, prospective fashion. Of course, that doesn’t help our clinic practice tomorrow when we see a patient.

Dr. West: Or for the next 4 years.

Dr. Rotow: Or for the next 4 years – exactly. There’s going to be the open question of who really needs this? In some sense, we may be guided by the path response during the surgery itself. I think there may be those who claim that if you have a pCR, do you really need additional therapy? We don’t know the answer, but it’s tempting to say we know the outcomes in event-free survival are extremely good with a pCR.

Dr. West: Which is only 20% or 25% of patients, so it’s not most.

Dr. Rotow: It’s not most, but it’s better than the 2% or so with chemotherapy alone. That’s real progress, and it’s nice to have that readout. For that 80% without a pCR, what to do? I suspect there will be variation from provider to provider and from patient to patient, depending on tolerability to prior therapy, the patient’s wishes around the goals of care, and the patient’s risk for autoimmune toxicities.

Maybe there’s a patient with underlying autoimmune disease who’s gotten their neoadjuvant therapy and done well. You don’t want to risk that ongoing risk of exposure. Perhaps a patient with no risk factors who desires very aggressive treatment might be interested in more treatment.

In KEYNOTE-671, I was interested in the PD-L1 subgroups. These did trend the way you expect, with better responses in PD-L1 high, but there were also good outcomes and benefit to immunotherapy with the perioperative strategy in PD-L1–negative patients.

Dr. West: That didn’t really exclude anybody.

Dr. Rotow: It didn’t exclude anybody. In CheckMate 816, everyone benefited, but the benefit was less with those PD-L1–negative patients.

Dr. West: True.

Dr. Rotow: Absent further data to guide me or any prospective data here comparing these strategies, I might lean toward a longer course of immunotherapy in that population in hopes of triggering a response. I suspect that there will be variation from clinician to clinician in that space.

Dr. West: This is a setting where I feel like I have equipoise. I really feel that the incremental benefit is pretty small.

Dr. Rotow: Small. I agree.

Dr. West: It’s, frankly, somewhat dubious. On the other hand, you’re in a situation where if you know that three of four patients will experience a relapse and less-than-amazing outcomes, it’s hard to leave something that’s FDA approved and studied and a well-sanctioned option on the table if this patient may have relapse later.

In the end, I feel like I’d like to offer this and discuss it with all my patients. I think it’s a great place for shared decision-making because if a patient hears about that and decides they’re not interested, I’ll be fine with that. I think that’s a very sensible approach, but I don’t want to make it unilaterally. Other patients may say they want every opportunity, and if it comes back, at least I’ll know I did everything we could.

Dr. Rotow: Exactly. I agree with your statement about equipoise. I truly think that this is present here in the situation, and that there’s room for discussion in both directions with patients.

Now, one caveat I’d like to add to all these data is that the data should not apply to patients with some of our classic nonsmoking-associated driver mutations. This is another piece to the neoadjuvant data that I think is worth commenting on – the need to get appropriate testing before initiation of therapy and the pitfalls of starting this kind of treatment without knowing full biomarker testing. I think that’s something we have to watch for in our clinical practice as well.

Dr. West: Perhaps especially if we’re talking about doing a year of postoperative and someone has an ALK rearrangement or an EGFR mutation and we didn’t know it. That is a group where we’re worried about a rapid transition and potentially prohibitive, even life-threatening, toxicities from not planning in advance for this. This is something you don’t want to give concurrently or one right on top of the other. You don’t want to give immunotherapy and then transition right to targeted therapy. It’s dangerous.

Dr. Rotow: Exactly. The stakes were already high with neoadjuvant alone, but at least you had that gap of the presurgical period, surgical recovery, and then initiation of adjuvant therapy, if needed, or at relapse. With a postoperative long adjuvant period, those stakes are elevated because the immunotherapy exposure continues, so it’s something to be mindful of.

Dr. West: We have a general sense that many, but not all, of the targets that we’re talking about are associated with low benefit from immunotherapy. It’s not that well studied. I think this is another place for individualized discussion of the pros and cons. They were included in the trial, but they probably benefit less.

Dr. Rotow: Exactly. I think with the best established, EGFR and ALK probably are not benefiting much. They were actually included in the trial. Many of the neoadjuvant studies do not allow them to enroll if they’re known. On the other end of that spectrum, I think KRAS is just fine to treat with immunotherapy.

Dr. West: Sure.

Dr. Rotow: It’s an actionable driver. It’s not a traditional nonsmoking-associated driver, and those do just fine.

Dr. West: The studies show that these patients benefit just as much, at least, as the other patients.

Dr. Rotow: Exactly. I would never withhold this form of therapy for a KRAS driver mutation. The others, I think, are still in a gray zone. Depending on the patient demographics and tobacco use, I may elicit more or less caution in that space.

Dr. West: Well, I think we’re going to have much to still tease apart, with room for judgment here without a strong sense of the data telling us exactly what to do.

Dr. Rotow: Exactly.

Dr. West: There’s a large amount of excitement and interest in these new data, but there are still many open questions. I hope we continue to mull it over as we get more data and more insight to shape our plans.

Dr. West is an associate professor at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Duarte, Calif., and vice president of network strategy at AccessHope in Los Angeles. Dr. Rotow is the clinical director of the Lowe Center for Thoracic Oncology at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston. Dr. West reported conflicts of interest with Ariad/Takeda, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Spectrum, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Genentech/Roche, Pfizer, Merck, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Rotow reported conflicts of interest with Genentech, AstraZeneca,Guardant, and Janssen.

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

TOPLINE:

Long-term and recurrent use of antibiotics early in life may raise the risk of early-onset colorectal cancer (CRC) and adenomas, particularly in people with a variant in a specific gut microbiota regulatory gene, a new analysis found.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from UK Biobank participants who were recruited between 2006 and 2010 and were followed up to February 2022.
• They evaluated associations between early-life factors and early-onset CRC risk overall, focusing on long-term and recurrent antibiotic use.
• The team also estimated associations between long-term and recurrent antibiotic use in early life and CRC risk by polygenic risk score using 127 CRC-related genetic variants, as well as a particular gut microbiota regulatory gene FUT2.
• Associations for early-onset colorectal adenomas, as precursor to CRC, were also evaluated.
• The study included 113,256 participants. There were 165 early-onset CRC cases and 719 early-onset adenoma cases.

TAKEAWAY:

• Early-life, long-term, and recurrent antibiotic use was “nominally” associated with an increased risk of early-onset CRC (odds ratio, 1.48; P = .046) and adenomas (OR, 1.40; P < .001).
• Regarding variants of FUT2, the risk of early-onset CRC appeared to be greater for individuals with the rs281377 TT genotype (OR, 2.74) in comparison with those with the CT and TT genotypes, but none of the estimates reached statistical significance.
• The researchers found a strong positive association between long-term and recurrent antibiotic use and adenomas, largely in patients with rs281377 TT (OR, 1.75) and CT genotypes (OR, 1.51).
• Individuals with a high polygenic risk score were at higher risk of early-onset CRC (OR, 1.72; P = .019), while those with low polygenic risk scores were not at higher risk (OR, 1.05; P = .889). The association between antibiotic use and early-onset CRC risk by family history was also higher (OR, 2.34).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings suggested that individuals with genetic risk factors (i.e., family history of CRC) who have experienced early-life antibiotics use on a long-term basis are probably at increased early-onset CRC risk,” the authors concluded. “Given that antibiotics remain valuable in the management of bacterial infections during early life, investigating the pros and cons of early-life antibiotic use is of great significance.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Fangyuan Jiang, with Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China, was published online in the International Journal of Cancer.

LIMITATIONS:

The study relied on participants’ recall of early-life antibiotics use, which could introduce recall bias and misclassification of this exposure.

DISCLOSURES:

No conflicts of interest were reported.

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

TOPLINE:

Long-term and recurrent use of antibiotics early in life may raise the risk of early-onset colorectal cancer (CRC) and adenomas, particularly in people with a variant in a specific gut microbiota regulatory gene, a new analysis found.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from UK Biobank participants who were recruited between 2006 and 2010 and were followed up to February 2022.
• They evaluated associations between early-life factors and early-onset CRC risk overall, focusing on long-term and recurrent antibiotic use.
• The team also estimated associations between long-term and recurrent antibiotic use in early life and CRC risk by polygenic risk score using 127 CRC-related genetic variants, as well as a particular gut microbiota regulatory gene FUT2.
• Associations for early-onset colorectal adenomas, as precursor to CRC, were also evaluated.
• The study included 113,256 participants. There were 165 early-onset CRC cases and 719 early-onset adenoma cases.

TAKEAWAY:

• Early-life, long-term, and recurrent antibiotic use was “nominally” associated with an increased risk of early-onset CRC (odds ratio, 1.48; P = .046) and adenomas (OR, 1.40; P < .001).
• Regarding variants of FUT2, the risk of early-onset CRC appeared to be greater for individuals with the rs281377 TT genotype (OR, 2.74) in comparison with those with the CT and TT genotypes, but none of the estimates reached statistical significance.
• The researchers found a strong positive association between long-term and recurrent antibiotic use and adenomas, largely in patients with rs281377 TT (OR, 1.75) and CT genotypes (OR, 1.51).
• Individuals with a high polygenic risk score were at higher risk of early-onset CRC (OR, 1.72; P = .019), while those with low polygenic risk scores were not at higher risk (OR, 1.05; P = .889). The association between antibiotic use and early-onset CRC risk by family history was also higher (OR, 2.34).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings suggested that individuals with genetic risk factors (i.e., family history of CRC) who have experienced early-life antibiotics use on a long-term basis are probably at increased early-onset CRC risk,” the authors concluded. “Given that antibiotics remain valuable in the management of bacterial infections during early life, investigating the pros and cons of early-life antibiotic use is of great significance.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Fangyuan Jiang, with Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China, was published online in the International Journal of Cancer.

LIMITATIONS:

The study relied on participants’ recall of early-life antibiotics use, which could introduce recall bias and misclassification of this exposure.

DISCLOSURES:

No conflicts of interest were reported.

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

TOPLINE:

Long-term and recurrent use of antibiotics early in life may raise the risk of early-onset colorectal cancer (CRC) and adenomas, particularly in people with a variant in a specific gut microbiota regulatory gene, a new analysis found.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from UK Biobank participants who were recruited between 2006 and 2010 and were followed up to February 2022.
• They evaluated associations between early-life factors and early-onset CRC risk overall, focusing on long-term and recurrent antibiotic use.
• The team also estimated associations between long-term and recurrent antibiotic use in early life and CRC risk by polygenic risk score using 127 CRC-related genetic variants, as well as a particular gut microbiota regulatory gene FUT2.
• Associations for early-onset colorectal adenomas, as precursor to CRC, were also evaluated.
• The study included 113,256 participants. There were 165 early-onset CRC cases and 719 early-onset adenoma cases.

TAKEAWAY:

• Early-life, long-term, and recurrent antibiotic use was “nominally” associated with an increased risk of early-onset CRC (odds ratio, 1.48; P = .046) and adenomas (OR, 1.40; P < .001).
• Regarding variants of FUT2, the risk of early-onset CRC appeared to be greater for individuals with the rs281377 TT genotype (OR, 2.74) in comparison with those with the CT and TT genotypes, but none of the estimates reached statistical significance.
• The researchers found a strong positive association between long-term and recurrent antibiotic use and adenomas, largely in patients with rs281377 TT (OR, 1.75) and CT genotypes (OR, 1.51).
• Individuals with a high polygenic risk score were at higher risk of early-onset CRC (OR, 1.72; P = .019), while those with low polygenic risk scores were not at higher risk (OR, 1.05; P = .889). The association between antibiotic use and early-onset CRC risk by family history was also higher (OR, 2.34).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings suggested that individuals with genetic risk factors (i.e., family history of CRC) who have experienced early-life antibiotics use on a long-term basis are probably at increased early-onset CRC risk,” the authors concluded. “Given that antibiotics remain valuable in the management of bacterial infections during early life, investigating the pros and cons of early-life antibiotic use is of great significance.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Fangyuan Jiang, with Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China, was published online in the International Journal of Cancer.

LIMITATIONS:

The study relied on participants’ recall of early-life antibiotics use, which could introduce recall bias and misclassification of this exposure.

DISCLOSURES:

No conflicts of interest were reported.

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

Deanna Denham Hughes was stunned when she was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2022. She was only 32. She had no family history of cancer, and tests found no genetic link. Ms. Hughes wondered why she, an otherwise healthy Black mother of two, would develop a malignancy known as a “silent killer.”

After emergency surgery to remove the mass, along with her ovaries, uterus, fallopian tubes, and appendix, Ms. Hughes said, she saw an Instagram post in which a woman with uterine cancer linked her condition to chemical hair straighteners.

“I almost fell over,” she said from her home in Smyrna, Ga.

When Ms. Hughes was about 4, her mother began applying a chemical straightener, or relaxer, to her hair every 6-8 weeks. “It burned, and it smelled awful,” Ms. Hughes recalled. “But it was just part of our routine to ‘deal with my hair.’ ”

The routine continued until she went to college and met other Black women who wore their hair naturally. Soon, Ms. Hughes quit relaxers.

Social and economic pressures have long compelled Black girls and women to straighten their hair to conform to Eurocentric beauty standards. But chemical straighteners are stinky and costly and sometimes cause painful scalp burns. Mounting evidence now shows they could be a health hazard.

Relaxers can contain carcinogens, such as formaldehyde-releasing agents, phthalates, and other endocrine-disrupting compounds, according to National Institutes of Health studies. The compounds can mimic the body’s hormones and have been linked to breast, uterine, and ovarian cancers, studies show.

African American women’s often frequent and lifelong application of chemical relaxers to their hair and scalp might explain why hormone-related cancers kill disproportionately more Black than White women, say researchers and cancer doctors.

“What’s in these products is harmful,” said Tamarra James-Todd, PhD, an epidemiology professor at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, who has studied straightening products for the past 20 years.

She believes manufacturers, policymakers, and physicians should warn consumers that relaxers might cause cancer and other health problems.

But regulators have been slow to act, physicians have been reluctant to take up the cause, and racism continues to dictate fashion standards that make it tough for women to quit relaxers, products so addictive they’re known as “creamy crack.”

Michelle Obama straightened her hair when Barack Obama served as president because she believed Americans were “not ready” to see her in braids, the former first lady said after leaving the White House. The U.S. military still prohibited popular Black hairstyles such as dreadlocks and twists while the nation’s first Black president was in office.

California in 2019 became the first of nearly two dozen states to ban race-based hair discrimination. Last year, the U.S. House of Representatives passed similar legislation, known as the CROWN Act, for Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair. But the bill failed in the Senate.

The need for legislation underscores the challenges Black girls and women face at school and in the workplace.

“You have to pick your struggles,” said Atlanta-based surgical oncologist Ryland J. Gore, MD. She informs her breast cancer patients about the increased cancer risk from relaxers. Despite her knowledge, however, Dr. Gore continues to use chemical straighteners on her own hair, as she has since she was about 7 years old.

“Your hair tells a story,” she said.

In conversations with patients, Dr. Gore sometimes talks about how African American women once wove messages into their braids about the route to take on the Underground Railroad as they sought freedom from slavery.

“It’s just a deep discussion,” one that touches on culture, history, and research into current hairstyling practices, she said. “The data is out there. So patients should be warned, and then they can make a decision.”

The first hint of a connection between hair products and health issues surfaced in the 1990s. Doctors began seeing signs of sexual maturation in Black babies and young girls who developed breasts and pubic hair after using shampoo containing estrogen or placental extract. When the girls stopped using the shampoo, the hair and breast development receded, according to a study published in the journal Clinical Pediatrics in 1998.

Since then, Dr. James-Todd and other researchers have linked chemicals in hair products to a variety of health issues more prevalent among Black women – from early puberty to preterm birth, obesity, and diabetes.

In recent years, researchers have focused on a possible connection between ingredients in chemical relaxers and hormone-related cancers, like the one Ms. Hughes developed, which tend to be more aggressive and deadly in Black women.

A 2017 study found White women who used chemical relaxers were nearly twice as likely to develop breast cancer as those who did not use them. Because the vast majority of the Black study participants used relaxers, researchers could not effectively test the association in Black women, said lead author Adana Llanos, PhD, associate professor of epidemiology at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health, New York.

Researchers did test it in 2020.

The so-called Sister Study, a landmark National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences investigation into the causes of breast cancer and related diseases, followed 50,000 U.S. women whose sisters had been diagnosed with breast cancer and who were cancer-free when they enrolled. Regardless of race, women who reported using relaxers in the prior year were 18% more likely to be diagnosed with breast cancer. Those who used relaxers at least every 5-8 weeks had a 31% higher breast cancer risk.

Nearly 75% of the Black sisters used relaxers in the prior year, compared with 3% of the non-Hispanic White sisters. Three-quarters of Black women self-reported using the straighteners as adolescents, and frequent use of chemical straighteners during adolescence raised the risk of premenopausal breast cancer, a 2021 NIH-funded study in the International Journal of Cancer found.

Another 2021 analysis of the Sister Study data showed sisters who self-reported that they frequently used relaxers or pressing products doubled their ovarian cancer risk. In 2022, another study found frequent use more than doubled uterine cancer risk.

After researchers discovered the link with uterine cancer, some called for policy changes and other measures to reduce exposure to chemical relaxers.

“It is time to intervene,” Dr. Llanos and her colleagues wrote in a Journal of the National Cancer Institute editorial accompanying the uterine cancer analysis. While acknowledging the need for more research, they issued a “call for action.”

No one can say that using permanent hair straighteners will give you cancer, Dr. Llanos said in an interview. “That’s not how cancer works,” she said, noting that some smokers never develop lung cancer, despite tobacco use being a known risk factor.

The body of research linking hair straighteners and cancer is more limited, said Dr. Llanos, who quit using chemical relaxers 15 years ago. But, she asked rhetorically, “Do we need to do the research for 50 more years to know that chemical relaxers are harmful?”

Charlotte R. Gamble, MD, a gynecological oncologist whose Washington, D.C., practice includes Black women with uterine and ovarian cancer, said she and her colleagues see the uterine cancer study findings as worthy of further exploration – but not yet worthy of discussion with patients.

“The jury’s out for me personally,” she said. “There’s so much more data that’s needed.”

Meanwhile, Dr. James-Todd and other researchers believe they have built a solid body of evidence.

“There are enough things we do know to begin taking action, developing interventions, providing useful information to clinicians and patients and the general public,” said Traci N. Bethea, PhD, assistant professor in the Office of Minority Health and Health Disparities Research at Georgetown University.

Responsibility for regulating personal-care products, including chemical hair straighteners and hair dyes – which also have been linked to hormone-related cancers – lies with the Food and Drug Administration. But the FDA does not subject personal-care products to the same approval process it uses for food and drugs. The FDA restricts only 11 categories of chemicals used in cosmetics, while concerns about health effects have prompted the European Union to restrict the use of at least 2,400 substances.

In March, Reps. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) and Shontel Brown (D-Ohio) asked the FDA to investigate the potential health threat posed by chemical relaxers. An FDA representative said the agency would look into it.

Natural hairstyles are enjoying a resurgence among Black girls and women, but many continue to rely on the creamy crack, said Dede Teteh, DrPH, assistant professor of public health at Chapman University, Irvine, Calif.

She had her first straightening perm at 8 and has struggled to withdraw from relaxers as an adult, said Dr. Teteh, who now wears locs. Not long ago, she considered chemically straightening her hair for an academic job interview because she didn’t want her hair to “be a hindrance” when she appeared before White professors.

Dr. Teteh led “The Cost of Beauty,” a hair-health research project published in 2017. She and her team interviewed 91 Black women in Southern California. Some became “combative” at the idea of quitting relaxers and claimed “everything can cause cancer.”

Their reactions speak to the challenges Black women face in America, Dr. Teteh said.

“It’s not that people do not want to hear the information related to their health,” she said. “But they want people to share the information in a way that it’s really empathetic to the plight of being Black here in the United States.”
 

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF – the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.

Deanna Denham Hughes was stunned when she was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2022. She was only 32. She had no family history of cancer, and tests found no genetic link. Ms. Hughes wondered why she, an otherwise healthy Black mother of two, would develop a malignancy known as a “silent killer.”

After emergency surgery to remove the mass, along with her ovaries, uterus, fallopian tubes, and appendix, Ms. Hughes said, she saw an Instagram post in which a woman with uterine cancer linked her condition to chemical hair straighteners.

“I almost fell over,” she said from her home in Smyrna, Ga.

When Ms. Hughes was about 4, her mother began applying a chemical straightener, or relaxer, to her hair every 6-8 weeks. “It burned, and it smelled awful,” Ms. Hughes recalled. “But it was just part of our routine to ‘deal with my hair.’ ”

The routine continued until she went to college and met other Black women who wore their hair naturally. Soon, Ms. Hughes quit relaxers.

Social and economic pressures have long compelled Black girls and women to straighten their hair to conform to Eurocentric beauty standards. But chemical straighteners are stinky and costly and sometimes cause painful scalp burns. Mounting evidence now shows they could be a health hazard.

Relaxers can contain carcinogens, such as formaldehyde-releasing agents, phthalates, and other endocrine-disrupting compounds, according to National Institutes of Health studies. The compounds can mimic the body’s hormones and have been linked to breast, uterine, and ovarian cancers, studies show.

African American women’s often frequent and lifelong application of chemical relaxers to their hair and scalp might explain why hormone-related cancers kill disproportionately more Black than White women, say researchers and cancer doctors.

“What’s in these products is harmful,” said Tamarra James-Todd, PhD, an epidemiology professor at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, who has studied straightening products for the past 20 years.

She believes manufacturers, policymakers, and physicians should warn consumers that relaxers might cause cancer and other health problems.

But regulators have been slow to act, physicians have been reluctant to take up the cause, and racism continues to dictate fashion standards that make it tough for women to quit relaxers, products so addictive they’re known as “creamy crack.”

Michelle Obama straightened her hair when Barack Obama served as president because she believed Americans were “not ready” to see her in braids, the former first lady said after leaving the White House. The U.S. military still prohibited popular Black hairstyles such as dreadlocks and twists while the nation’s first Black president was in office.

California in 2019 became the first of nearly two dozen states to ban race-based hair discrimination. Last year, the U.S. House of Representatives passed similar legislation, known as the CROWN Act, for Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair. But the bill failed in the Senate.

The need for legislation underscores the challenges Black girls and women face at school and in the workplace.

“You have to pick your struggles,” said Atlanta-based surgical oncologist Ryland J. Gore, MD. She informs her breast cancer patients about the increased cancer risk from relaxers. Despite her knowledge, however, Dr. Gore continues to use chemical straighteners on her own hair, as she has since she was about 7 years old.

“Your hair tells a story,” she said.

In conversations with patients, Dr. Gore sometimes talks about how African American women once wove messages into their braids about the route to take on the Underground Railroad as they sought freedom from slavery.

“It’s just a deep discussion,” one that touches on culture, history, and research into current hairstyling practices, she said. “The data is out there. So patients should be warned, and then they can make a decision.”

The first hint of a connection between hair products and health issues surfaced in the 1990s. Doctors began seeing signs of sexual maturation in Black babies and young girls who developed breasts and pubic hair after using shampoo containing estrogen or placental extract. When the girls stopped using the shampoo, the hair and breast development receded, according to a study published in the journal Clinical Pediatrics in 1998.

Since then, Dr. James-Todd and other researchers have linked chemicals in hair products to a variety of health issues more prevalent among Black women – from early puberty to preterm birth, obesity, and diabetes.

In recent years, researchers have focused on a possible connection between ingredients in chemical relaxers and hormone-related cancers, like the one Ms. Hughes developed, which tend to be more aggressive and deadly in Black women.

A 2017 study found White women who used chemical relaxers were nearly twice as likely to develop breast cancer as those who did not use them. Because the vast majority of the Black study participants used relaxers, researchers could not effectively test the association in Black women, said lead author Adana Llanos, PhD, associate professor of epidemiology at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health, New York.

Researchers did test it in 2020.

The so-called Sister Study, a landmark National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences investigation into the causes of breast cancer and related diseases, followed 50,000 U.S. women whose sisters had been diagnosed with breast cancer and who were cancer-free when they enrolled. Regardless of race, women who reported using relaxers in the prior year were 18% more likely to be diagnosed with breast cancer. Those who used relaxers at least every 5-8 weeks had a 31% higher breast cancer risk.

Nearly 75% of the Black sisters used relaxers in the prior year, compared with 3% of the non-Hispanic White sisters. Three-quarters of Black women self-reported using the straighteners as adolescents, and frequent use of chemical straighteners during adolescence raised the risk of premenopausal breast cancer, a 2021 NIH-funded study in the International Journal of Cancer found.

Another 2021 analysis of the Sister Study data showed sisters who self-reported that they frequently used relaxers or pressing products doubled their ovarian cancer risk. In 2022, another study found frequent use more than doubled uterine cancer risk.

After researchers discovered the link with uterine cancer, some called for policy changes and other measures to reduce exposure to chemical relaxers.

“It is time to intervene,” Dr. Llanos and her colleagues wrote in a Journal of the National Cancer Institute editorial accompanying the uterine cancer analysis. While acknowledging the need for more research, they issued a “call for action.”

No one can say that using permanent hair straighteners will give you cancer, Dr. Llanos said in an interview. “That’s not how cancer works,” she said, noting that some smokers never develop lung cancer, despite tobacco use being a known risk factor.

The body of research linking hair straighteners and cancer is more limited, said Dr. Llanos, who quit using chemical relaxers 15 years ago. But, she asked rhetorically, “Do we need to do the research for 50 more years to know that chemical relaxers are harmful?”

Charlotte R. Gamble, MD, a gynecological oncologist whose Washington, D.C., practice includes Black women with uterine and ovarian cancer, said she and her colleagues see the uterine cancer study findings as worthy of further exploration – but not yet worthy of discussion with patients.

“The jury’s out for me personally,” she said. “There’s so much more data that’s needed.”

Meanwhile, Dr. James-Todd and other researchers believe they have built a solid body of evidence.

“There are enough things we do know to begin taking action, developing interventions, providing useful information to clinicians and patients and the general public,” said Traci N. Bethea, PhD, assistant professor in the Office of Minority Health and Health Disparities Research at Georgetown University.

Responsibility for regulating personal-care products, including chemical hair straighteners and hair dyes – which also have been linked to hormone-related cancers – lies with the Food and Drug Administration. But the FDA does not subject personal-care products to the same approval process it uses for food and drugs. The FDA restricts only 11 categories of chemicals used in cosmetics, while concerns about health effects have prompted the European Union to restrict the use of at least 2,400 substances.

In March, Reps. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) and Shontel Brown (D-Ohio) asked the FDA to investigate the potential health threat posed by chemical relaxers. An FDA representative said the agency would look into it.

Natural hairstyles are enjoying a resurgence among Black girls and women, but many continue to rely on the creamy crack, said Dede Teteh, DrPH, assistant professor of public health at Chapman University, Irvine, Calif.

She had her first straightening perm at 8 and has struggled to withdraw from relaxers as an adult, said Dr. Teteh, who now wears locs. Not long ago, she considered chemically straightening her hair for an academic job interview because she didn’t want her hair to “be a hindrance” when she appeared before White professors.

Dr. Teteh led “The Cost of Beauty,” a hair-health research project published in 2017. She and her team interviewed 91 Black women in Southern California. Some became “combative” at the idea of quitting relaxers and claimed “everything can cause cancer.”

Their reactions speak to the challenges Black women face in America, Dr. Teteh said.

“It’s not that people do not want to hear the information related to their health,” she said. “But they want people to share the information in a way that it’s really empathetic to the plight of being Black here in the United States.”