Federal Practitioner

Aspartame, an artificial sweetener commonly found in diet drinks and food, may raise the risk for anxiety, early research suggests.

In a new preclinical study, investigators observed that mice that drank water containing aspartame exhibited pronounced anxiety-like behaviors in a variety of maze tests.

This behavior occurred at aspartame doses equivalent to less than 15% of the maximum daily human intake recommended by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

“It was such a robust anxiety-like trait that I don’t think any of us were anticipating we would see. It was completely unexpected. Usually you see subtle changes,” lead author Sara Jones, doctoral candidate at Florida State University, Tallahassee, said in a news release.

The findings were published online in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.


 

Transgenerational transmission

When consumed, aspartame becomes aspartic acid, phenylalanine, and methanol – all of which can have potent effects on the central nervous system, the researchers point out.

Exposing the mice to aspartame also produced changes in the expression of genes regulating excitation-inhibition balance in the amygdala, a brain region that regulates anxiety and fear.

Giving the mice diazepam, which is used to treat generalized anxiety disorder, alleviated the anxiety behavior in the animals.

“The anxiety, its response to diazepam, and the changes in amygdala gene expression are not limited to the aspartame-exposed individuals but also appear in up to two generations descending from the aspartame-exposed males,” the researchers report.

“Extrapolation of the findings to humans suggests that aspartame consumption at doses below the FDA recommended maximum daily intake may produce neurobehavioral changes in aspartame-consuming individuals and their descendants,” they write.

“Thus, human population at risk of aspartame’s potential mental health effects may be larger than current expectations, which only include aspartame-consuming individuals,” they add.
 

Far from harmless?

The investigators plan to publish additional data from the study that focus on how aspartame affected memory in the mice.

In future research, they hope to identify molecular mechanisms that influence the transmission of aspartame’s effect across generations.

The Florida State University study joins several others that discount the long-held notion that aspartame and other nonnutritive sweeteners have no effect on the body.

As reported by this news organization, in a recent study researchers found that these sugar substitutes are not metabolically inert and can alter the gut microbiome in a way that can influence blood glucose levels.

Artificial sweeteners have also been linked to an increased risk for heart disease and stroke and for cancer.

The study was funded by the Jim and Betty Ann Rodgers Chair Fund at Florida State University and by the Bryan Robinson Foundation. The investigators have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Aspartame, an artificial sweetener commonly found in diet drinks and food, may raise the risk for anxiety, early research suggests.

In a new preclinical study, investigators observed that mice that drank water containing aspartame exhibited pronounced anxiety-like behaviors in a variety of maze tests.

This behavior occurred at aspartame doses equivalent to less than 15% of the maximum daily human intake recommended by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

“It was such a robust anxiety-like trait that I don’t think any of us were anticipating we would see. It was completely unexpected. Usually you see subtle changes,” lead author Sara Jones, doctoral candidate at Florida State University, Tallahassee, said in a news release.

The findings were published online in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.


 

Transgenerational transmission

When consumed, aspartame becomes aspartic acid, phenylalanine, and methanol – all of which can have potent effects on the central nervous system, the researchers point out.

Exposing the mice to aspartame also produced changes in the expression of genes regulating excitation-inhibition balance in the amygdala, a brain region that regulates anxiety and fear.

Giving the mice diazepam, which is used to treat generalized anxiety disorder, alleviated the anxiety behavior in the animals.

“The anxiety, its response to diazepam, and the changes in amygdala gene expression are not limited to the aspartame-exposed individuals but also appear in up to two generations descending from the aspartame-exposed males,” the researchers report.

“Extrapolation of the findings to humans suggests that aspartame consumption at doses below the FDA recommended maximum daily intake may produce neurobehavioral changes in aspartame-consuming individuals and their descendants,” they write.

“Thus, human population at risk of aspartame’s potential mental health effects may be larger than current expectations, which only include aspartame-consuming individuals,” they add.
 

Far from harmless?

The investigators plan to publish additional data from the study that focus on how aspartame affected memory in the mice.

In future research, they hope to identify molecular mechanisms that influence the transmission of aspartame’s effect across generations.

The Florida State University study joins several others that discount the long-held notion that aspartame and other nonnutritive sweeteners have no effect on the body.

As reported by this news organization, in a recent study researchers found that these sugar substitutes are not metabolically inert and can alter the gut microbiome in a way that can influence blood glucose levels.

Artificial sweeteners have also been linked to an increased risk for heart disease and stroke and for cancer.

The study was funded by the Jim and Betty Ann Rodgers Chair Fund at Florida State University and by the Bryan Robinson Foundation. The investigators have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Aspartame, an artificial sweetener commonly found in diet drinks and food, may raise the risk for anxiety, early research suggests.

In a new preclinical study, investigators observed that mice that drank water containing aspartame exhibited pronounced anxiety-like behaviors in a variety of maze tests.

This behavior occurred at aspartame doses equivalent to less than 15% of the maximum daily human intake recommended by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

“It was such a robust anxiety-like trait that I don’t think any of us were anticipating we would see. It was completely unexpected. Usually you see subtle changes,” lead author Sara Jones, doctoral candidate at Florida State University, Tallahassee, said in a news release.

The findings were published online in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.


 

Transgenerational transmission

When consumed, aspartame becomes aspartic acid, phenylalanine, and methanol – all of which can have potent effects on the central nervous system, the researchers point out.

Exposing the mice to aspartame also produced changes in the expression of genes regulating excitation-inhibition balance in the amygdala, a brain region that regulates anxiety and fear.

Giving the mice diazepam, which is used to treat generalized anxiety disorder, alleviated the anxiety behavior in the animals.

“The anxiety, its response to diazepam, and the changes in amygdala gene expression are not limited to the aspartame-exposed individuals but also appear in up to two generations descending from the aspartame-exposed males,” the researchers report.

“Extrapolation of the findings to humans suggests that aspartame consumption at doses below the FDA recommended maximum daily intake may produce neurobehavioral changes in aspartame-consuming individuals and their descendants,” they write.

“Thus, human population at risk of aspartame’s potential mental health effects may be larger than current expectations, which only include aspartame-consuming individuals,” they add.
 

Far from harmless?

The investigators plan to publish additional data from the study that focus on how aspartame affected memory in the mice.

In future research, they hope to identify molecular mechanisms that influence the transmission of aspartame’s effect across generations.

The Florida State University study joins several others that discount the long-held notion that aspartame and other nonnutritive sweeteners have no effect on the body.

As reported by this news organization, in a recent study researchers found that these sugar substitutes are not metabolically inert and can alter the gut microbiome in a way that can influence blood glucose levels.

Artificial sweeteners have also been linked to an increased risk for heart disease and stroke and for cancer.

The study was funded by the Jim and Betty Ann Rodgers Chair Fund at Florida State University and by the Bryan Robinson Foundation. The investigators have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The study covered in this summary was published on Research Square as a preprint and has not yet been peer reviewed.

Key takeaway

Patients with multiple myeloma were diagnosed at a significantly higher rate through emergency care during the COVID-19 pandemic, compared with before.

Why this matters

While trying to avoid COVID-19 infection, patients ultimately diagnosed with multiple myeloma may have delayed interactions with healthcare professionals and consequently delayed their cancer diagnosis.

Study design

Researchers collected data on newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma from January 2019 until July 2021 across five institutions (three universities and two hospitals) in England. In total, 323 patients with multiple myeloma were identified.

Patients were divided into two groups: those diagnosed between Jan. 1, 2019, until Jan. 31, 2020, or pre-COVID, and those diagnosed from Feb. 1, 2020, to July 31, 2021, or post COVID.
 

Key results

Among all patients, 80 (24.8%) were diagnosed with smoldering multiple myeloma and 243 (75.2%) were diagnosed with multiple myeloma requiring treatment.

Significantly more patients in the post-COVID group were diagnosed with myeloma through the emergency route (45.5% post COVID vs. 32.7% pre-COVID; P = .03).

Clinical complications leading to emergency admission prior to a myeloma diagnosis also differed between the two cohorts: Acute kidney injury accounted for most emergency admissions in the pre-COVID cohort while skeletal-related events, including spinal cord compression, were the major causes for diagnosis through the emergency route in the post-COVID cohort.

Patients who were diagnosed with symptomatic myeloma pre-COVID were more likely to be treated with a triplet rather than doublet combination compared with those diagnosed in the post-COVID period (triplet pre-COVID 79.1%, post COVID 63.75%; P = .014).

Overall survival at 1 year was not significantly different between the pre-COVID and post-COVID groups: 88.2% pre-COVID, compared with 87.8% post COVID. 

Overall, the authors concluded that the COVID pandemic “resulted in a shift in the symptomatology, disease burden, and routes of diagnosis of patients presenting with myeloma” and “this may have significant consequences” over the long term.
 

Limitations

The study does not provide a clear time frame of delays in diagnosis.

Disclosures

The study authors did not report any conflicts of interest.

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

The study covered in this summary was published on Research Square as a preprint and has not yet been peer reviewed.

Key takeaway

Patients with multiple myeloma were diagnosed at a significantly higher rate through emergency care during the COVID-19 pandemic, compared with before.

Why this matters

While trying to avoid COVID-19 infection, patients ultimately diagnosed with multiple myeloma may have delayed interactions with healthcare professionals and consequently delayed their cancer diagnosis.

Study design

Researchers collected data on newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma from January 2019 until July 2021 across five institutions (three universities and two hospitals) in England. In total, 323 patients with multiple myeloma were identified.

Patients were divided into two groups: those diagnosed between Jan. 1, 2019, until Jan. 31, 2020, or pre-COVID, and those diagnosed from Feb. 1, 2020, to July 31, 2021, or post COVID.
 

Key results

Among all patients, 80 (24.8%) were diagnosed with smoldering multiple myeloma and 243 (75.2%) were diagnosed with multiple myeloma requiring treatment.

Significantly more patients in the post-COVID group were diagnosed with myeloma through the emergency route (45.5% post COVID vs. 32.7% pre-COVID; P = .03).

Clinical complications leading to emergency admission prior to a myeloma diagnosis also differed between the two cohorts: Acute kidney injury accounted for most emergency admissions in the pre-COVID cohort while skeletal-related events, including spinal cord compression, were the major causes for diagnosis through the emergency route in the post-COVID cohort.

Patients who were diagnosed with symptomatic myeloma pre-COVID were more likely to be treated with a triplet rather than doublet combination compared with those diagnosed in the post-COVID period (triplet pre-COVID 79.1%, post COVID 63.75%; P = .014).

Overall survival at 1 year was not significantly different between the pre-COVID and post-COVID groups: 88.2% pre-COVID, compared with 87.8% post COVID. 

Overall, the authors concluded that the COVID pandemic “resulted in a shift in the symptomatology, disease burden, and routes of diagnosis of patients presenting with myeloma” and “this may have significant consequences” over the long term.
 

Limitations

The study does not provide a clear time frame of delays in diagnosis.

Disclosures

The study authors did not report any conflicts of interest.

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

The study covered in this summary was published on Research Square as a preprint and has not yet been peer reviewed.

Key takeaway

Patients with multiple myeloma were diagnosed at a significantly higher rate through emergency care during the COVID-19 pandemic, compared with before.

Why this matters

While trying to avoid COVID-19 infection, patients ultimately diagnosed with multiple myeloma may have delayed interactions with healthcare professionals and consequently delayed their cancer diagnosis.

Study design

Researchers collected data on newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma from January 2019 until July 2021 across five institutions (three universities and two hospitals) in England. In total, 323 patients with multiple myeloma were identified.

Patients were divided into two groups: those diagnosed between Jan. 1, 2019, until Jan. 31, 2020, or pre-COVID, and those diagnosed from Feb. 1, 2020, to July 31, 2021, or post COVID.
 

Key results

Among all patients, 80 (24.8%) were diagnosed with smoldering multiple myeloma and 243 (75.2%) were diagnosed with multiple myeloma requiring treatment.

Significantly more patients in the post-COVID group were diagnosed with myeloma through the emergency route (45.5% post COVID vs. 32.7% pre-COVID; P = .03).

Clinical complications leading to emergency admission prior to a myeloma diagnosis also differed between the two cohorts: Acute kidney injury accounted for most emergency admissions in the pre-COVID cohort while skeletal-related events, including spinal cord compression, were the major causes for diagnosis through the emergency route in the post-COVID cohort.

Patients who were diagnosed with symptomatic myeloma pre-COVID were more likely to be treated with a triplet rather than doublet combination compared with those diagnosed in the post-COVID period (triplet pre-COVID 79.1%, post COVID 63.75%; P = .014).

Overall survival at 1 year was not significantly different between the pre-COVID and post-COVID groups: 88.2% pre-COVID, compared with 87.8% post COVID. 

Overall, the authors concluded that the COVID pandemic “resulted in a shift in the symptomatology, disease burden, and routes of diagnosis of patients presenting with myeloma” and “this may have significant consequences” over the long term.
 

Limitations

The study does not provide a clear time frame of delays in diagnosis.

Disclosures

The study authors did not report any conflicts of interest.

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

It’s a story perhaps more appropriate for Halloween than for the festive holiday season, given its scary implications. Four Omicron subvariants of the virus that causes COVID-19 will be the most common strains going from person to person in the winter of 2022-2023, new research predicts.

Not too dire so far, until the researchers’ other findings are considered.

The BQ.1, BQ1.1, XBB, and XBB.1 subvariants are the most resistant to neutralizing antibodies, researcher Qian Wang, PhD, and colleagues wrote in a study published online in the journal Cell. This means people have no or “markedly reduced” protection against infection from these four strains, even if they’ve already had COVID-19 or are vaccinated and boosted multiple times, including with a bivalent vaccine.

On top of that, all available monoclonal antibody treatments are mostly or completely ineffective against these subvariants.

What does that mean for the immediate future? The findings are definitely “worrisome,” said Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Translational Research Institute in La Jolla, Calif.

But evidence from other countries, specifically Singapore and France, show that at least two of these variants turned out not to be as damaging as expected, likely because of high numbers of people vaccinated or who survived previous infections, he said.

Still, there is little to celebrate in the new findings, except that COVID-19 vaccinations and prior infections can still reduce the risk for serious outcomes such as hospitalization and death, the researchers wrote.

In fact, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data released on Dec. 16 shows that people who have received four shots of the original COVID-19 vaccines as well as the bivalent booster were 57% less likely to visit an urgent care clinic or emergency room, regardless of age. 

It comes at a time when BQ.1 and BQ.1.1 account for about 70% of the circulating variants, data show. In addition, hospitalizations are up 18% over the past 2 weeks and COVID-19 deaths are up 50% nationwide, The New York Times reported.

Globally, in many places, an “immunity wall” that has been built, Dr. Topol said. That may not be the case in the United States.  

“The problem in the United States, making it harder to predict, is that we have a very low rate of recent boosters, in the past 6 months, especially in seniors,” he said. For example, only 36% of Americans aged 65 years and older, the group with highest risk, have received an updated bivalent booster.
 

An evolving virus

The subvariants are successfully replacing BA.5, which reigned as one of the most common Omicron variants over the past year. The latest CDC data show that BA.5 now accounts for only about 10% of the circulating virus. The researchers wrote: “This rapid replacement of virus strains is raising the specter of yet another wave of infections in the coming months.”

BQ.1 and BQ.1.1 evolved directly from BA.5 – adding more and some novel mutations to the SARS-CoV-2 virus. XBB and XBB.1 are the “offspring” of a combination of two other strains, known as BJ.1 and BA.2.75.

The story sounds familiar to the researchers. “The rapid rise of these subvariants and their extensive array of spike mutations are reminiscent of the appearance of the first Omicron variant last year, thus raising concerns that they may further compromise the efficacy of current COVID-19 vaccines and monoclonal antibody therapeutics,” they wrote. “We now report findings that indicate that such concerns are, sadly, justified, especially so for the XBB and XBB.1 subvariants.”

To figure out how effective existing antibodies could be against these newer subvariants, Dr. Wang and colleagues used blood samples from five groups of people. They tested serum from people who had three doses of the original COVID-19 vaccine, four doses of the original vaccine, those who received a bivalent booster, people who experienced a breakthrough infection with the BA.2 Omicron variant, and those who had a breakthrough with a BA.4 or BA.5 variant.

Adding the new subvariants to these serum samples revealed that the existing antibodies in the blood were ineffective at wiping out or neutralizing BQ.1, BQ.1.1, XBB, and XBB.1.

The BQ.1 subvariant was six times more resistant to antibodies than BA.5, its parent strain, and XBB.1 was 63 times more resistant compared with its predecessor, BA.2.

This shift in the ability of vaccines to stop the subvariants “is particularly concerning,” the researchers wrote.
 

Wiping out treatments too

Dr. Wang and colleagues also tested how well a panel of 23 different monoclonal antibody drugs might work against the four subvariants. The therapies all worked well against the original Omicron variant and included some approved for use through the Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization (EUA) program at the time of the study.

They found that 19 of these 23 monoclonal antibodies lost effectiveness “greatly or completely” against XBB and XBB.1, for example.

This is not the first time that monoclonal antibody therapies have gone from effective to ineffective. Previous variants have come out that no longer responded to treatment with bamlanivimab, etesevimab, imdevimab, casirivimab, tixagevimab, cilgavimab, and sotrovimab. Bebtelovimab now joins this list and is no longer available from Eli Lilly under EUA because of this lack of effectiveness.

The lack of an effective monoclonal antibody treatment “poses a serious problem for millions of immunocompromised individuals who do not respond robustly to COVID-19 vaccines,” the researchers wrote, adding that “the urgent need to develop active monoclonal antibodies for clinical use is obvious.”

A limitation of the study is that the work is done in blood samples. The effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination against the BQ and XBB subvariants should be evaluated in people in clinical studies, the authors noted.

Also, the current study looked at how well antibodies could neutralize the viral strains, but future research, they added, should look at how well “cellular immunity” or other aspects of the immune system might protect people.

Going forward, the challenge remains to develop vaccines and treatments that offer broad protection as the coronavirus continues to evolve.

In an alarming ending, the researchers wrote: “We have collectively chased after SARS-CoV-2 variants for over 2 years, and yet, the virus continues to evolve and evade.”

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

It’s a story perhaps more appropriate for Halloween than for the festive holiday season, given its scary implications. Four Omicron subvariants of the virus that causes COVID-19 will be the most common strains going from person to person in the winter of 2022-2023, new research predicts.

Not too dire so far, until the researchers’ other findings are considered.

The BQ.1, BQ1.1, XBB, and XBB.1 subvariants are the most resistant to neutralizing antibodies, researcher Qian Wang, PhD, and colleagues wrote in a study published online in the journal Cell. This means people have no or “markedly reduced” protection against infection from these four strains, even if they’ve already had COVID-19 or are vaccinated and boosted multiple times, including with a bivalent vaccine.

On top of that, all available monoclonal antibody treatments are mostly or completely ineffective against these subvariants.

What does that mean for the immediate future? The findings are definitely “worrisome,” said Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Translational Research Institute in La Jolla, Calif.

But evidence from other countries, specifically Singapore and France, show that at least two of these variants turned out not to be as damaging as expected, likely because of high numbers of people vaccinated or who survived previous infections, he said.

Still, there is little to celebrate in the new findings, except that COVID-19 vaccinations and prior infections can still reduce the risk for serious outcomes such as hospitalization and death, the researchers wrote.

In fact, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data released on Dec. 16 shows that people who have received four shots of the original COVID-19 vaccines as well as the bivalent booster were 57% less likely to visit an urgent care clinic or emergency room, regardless of age. 

It comes at a time when BQ.1 and BQ.1.1 account for about 70% of the circulating variants, data show. In addition, hospitalizations are up 18% over the past 2 weeks and COVID-19 deaths are up 50% nationwide, The New York Times reported.

Globally, in many places, an “immunity wall” that has been built, Dr. Topol said. That may not be the case in the United States.  

“The problem in the United States, making it harder to predict, is that we have a very low rate of recent boosters, in the past 6 months, especially in seniors,” he said. For example, only 36% of Americans aged 65 years and older, the group with highest risk, have received an updated bivalent booster.
 

An evolving virus

The subvariants are successfully replacing BA.5, which reigned as one of the most common Omicron variants over the past year. The latest CDC data show that BA.5 now accounts for only about 10% of the circulating virus. The researchers wrote: “This rapid replacement of virus strains is raising the specter of yet another wave of infections in the coming months.”

BQ.1 and BQ.1.1 evolved directly from BA.5 – adding more and some novel mutations to the SARS-CoV-2 virus. XBB and XBB.1 are the “offspring” of a combination of two other strains, known as BJ.1 and BA.2.75.

The story sounds familiar to the researchers. “The rapid rise of these subvariants and their extensive array of spike mutations are reminiscent of the appearance of the first Omicron variant last year, thus raising concerns that they may further compromise the efficacy of current COVID-19 vaccines and monoclonal antibody therapeutics,” they wrote. “We now report findings that indicate that such concerns are, sadly, justified, especially so for the XBB and XBB.1 subvariants.”

To figure out how effective existing antibodies could be against these newer subvariants, Dr. Wang and colleagues used blood samples from five groups of people. They tested serum from people who had three doses of the original COVID-19 vaccine, four doses of the original vaccine, those who received a bivalent booster, people who experienced a breakthrough infection with the BA.2 Omicron variant, and those who had a breakthrough with a BA.4 or BA.5 variant.

Adding the new subvariants to these serum samples revealed that the existing antibodies in the blood were ineffective at wiping out or neutralizing BQ.1, BQ.1.1, XBB, and XBB.1.

The BQ.1 subvariant was six times more resistant to antibodies than BA.5, its parent strain, and XBB.1 was 63 times more resistant compared with its predecessor, BA.2.

This shift in the ability of vaccines to stop the subvariants “is particularly concerning,” the researchers wrote.
 

Wiping out treatments too

Dr. Wang and colleagues also tested how well a panel of 23 different monoclonal antibody drugs might work against the four subvariants. The therapies all worked well against the original Omicron variant and included some approved for use through the Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization (EUA) program at the time of the study.

They found that 19 of these 23 monoclonal antibodies lost effectiveness “greatly or completely” against XBB and XBB.1, for example.

This is not the first time that monoclonal antibody therapies have gone from effective to ineffective. Previous variants have come out that no longer responded to treatment with bamlanivimab, etesevimab, imdevimab, casirivimab, tixagevimab, cilgavimab, and sotrovimab. Bebtelovimab now joins this list and is no longer available from Eli Lilly under EUA because of this lack of effectiveness.

The lack of an effective monoclonal antibody treatment “poses a serious problem for millions of immunocompromised individuals who do not respond robustly to COVID-19 vaccines,” the researchers wrote, adding that “the urgent need to develop active monoclonal antibodies for clinical use is obvious.”

A limitation of the study is that the work is done in blood samples. The effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination against the BQ and XBB subvariants should be evaluated in people in clinical studies, the authors noted.

Also, the current study looked at how well antibodies could neutralize the viral strains, but future research, they added, should look at how well “cellular immunity” or other aspects of the immune system might protect people.

Going forward, the challenge remains to develop vaccines and treatments that offer broad protection as the coronavirus continues to evolve.

In an alarming ending, the researchers wrote: “We have collectively chased after SARS-CoV-2 variants for over 2 years, and yet, the virus continues to evolve and evade.”

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

It’s a story perhaps more appropriate for Halloween than for the festive holiday season, given its scary implications. Four Omicron subvariants of the virus that causes COVID-19 will be the most common strains going from person to person in the winter of 2022-2023, new research predicts.

Not too dire so far, until the researchers’ other findings are considered.

The BQ.1, BQ1.1, XBB, and XBB.1 subvariants are the most resistant to neutralizing antibodies, researcher Qian Wang, PhD, and colleagues wrote in a study published online in the journal Cell. This means people have no or “markedly reduced” protection against infection from these four strains, even if they’ve already had COVID-19 or are vaccinated and boosted multiple times, including with a bivalent vaccine.

On top of that, all available monoclonal antibody treatments are mostly or completely ineffective against these subvariants.

What does that mean for the immediate future? The findings are definitely “worrisome,” said Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Translational Research Institute in La Jolla, Calif.

But evidence from other countries, specifically Singapore and France, show that at least two of these variants turned out not to be as damaging as expected, likely because of high numbers of people vaccinated or who survived previous infections, he said.

Still, there is little to celebrate in the new findings, except that COVID-19 vaccinations and prior infections can still reduce the risk for serious outcomes such as hospitalization and death, the researchers wrote.

In fact, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data released on Dec. 16 shows that people who have received four shots of the original COVID-19 vaccines as well as the bivalent booster were 57% less likely to visit an urgent care clinic or emergency room, regardless of age. 

It comes at a time when BQ.1 and BQ.1.1 account for about 70% of the circulating variants, data show. In addition, hospitalizations are up 18% over the past 2 weeks and COVID-19 deaths are up 50% nationwide, The New York Times reported.

Globally, in many places, an “immunity wall” that has been built, Dr. Topol said. That may not be the case in the United States.  

“The problem in the United States, making it harder to predict, is that we have a very low rate of recent boosters, in the past 6 months, especially in seniors,” he said. For example, only 36% of Americans aged 65 years and older, the group with highest risk, have received an updated bivalent booster.
 

An evolving virus

The subvariants are successfully replacing BA.5, which reigned as one of the most common Omicron variants over the past year. The latest CDC data show that BA.5 now accounts for only about 10% of the circulating virus. The researchers wrote: “This rapid replacement of virus strains is raising the specter of yet another wave of infections in the coming months.”

BQ.1 and BQ.1.1 evolved directly from BA.5 – adding more and some novel mutations to the SARS-CoV-2 virus. XBB and XBB.1 are the “offspring” of a combination of two other strains, known as BJ.1 and BA.2.75.

The story sounds familiar to the researchers. “The rapid rise of these subvariants and their extensive array of spike mutations are reminiscent of the appearance of the first Omicron variant last year, thus raising concerns that they may further compromise the efficacy of current COVID-19 vaccines and monoclonal antibody therapeutics,” they wrote. “We now report findings that indicate that such concerns are, sadly, justified, especially so for the XBB and XBB.1 subvariants.”

To figure out how effective existing antibodies could be against these newer subvariants, Dr. Wang and colleagues used blood samples from five groups of people. They tested serum from people who had three doses of the original COVID-19 vaccine, four doses of the original vaccine, those who received a bivalent booster, people who experienced a breakthrough infection with the BA.2 Omicron variant, and those who had a breakthrough with a BA.4 or BA.5 variant.

Adding the new subvariants to these serum samples revealed that the existing antibodies in the blood were ineffective at wiping out or neutralizing BQ.1, BQ.1.1, XBB, and XBB.1.

The BQ.1 subvariant was six times more resistant to antibodies than BA.5, its parent strain, and XBB.1 was 63 times more resistant compared with its predecessor, BA.2.

This shift in the ability of vaccines to stop the subvariants “is particularly concerning,” the researchers wrote.
 

Wiping out treatments too

Dr. Wang and colleagues also tested how well a panel of 23 different monoclonal antibody drugs might work against the four subvariants. The therapies all worked well against the original Omicron variant and included some approved for use through the Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization (EUA) program at the time of the study.

They found that 19 of these 23 monoclonal antibodies lost effectiveness “greatly or completely” against XBB and XBB.1, for example.

This is not the first time that monoclonal antibody therapies have gone from effective to ineffective. Previous variants have come out that no longer responded to treatment with bamlanivimab, etesevimab, imdevimab, casirivimab, tixagevimab, cilgavimab, and sotrovimab. Bebtelovimab now joins this list and is no longer available from Eli Lilly under EUA because of this lack of effectiveness.

The lack of an effective monoclonal antibody treatment “poses a serious problem for millions of immunocompromised individuals who do not respond robustly to COVID-19 vaccines,” the researchers wrote, adding that “the urgent need to develop active monoclonal antibodies for clinical use is obvious.”

A limitation of the study is that the work is done in blood samples. The effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination against the BQ and XBB subvariants should be evaluated in people in clinical studies, the authors noted.

Also, the current study looked at how well antibodies could neutralize the viral strains, but future research, they added, should look at how well “cellular immunity” or other aspects of the immune system might protect people.

Going forward, the challenge remains to develop vaccines and treatments that offer broad protection as the coronavirus continues to evolve.

In an alarming ending, the researchers wrote: “We have collectively chased after SARS-CoV-2 variants for over 2 years, and yet, the virus continues to evolve and evade.”

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

Findings from the LymphVAX study recently presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium show that relatively few women with breast cancer who are at risk for lymphedema develop lymph node swelling after receiving an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.

Lymph node swelling can be a particularly troubling side effect, since it could be mistaken for breast cancer progression. In this study, of 621 women who received the first dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, 9.8% developed lymph node swelling as compared with 12.9% of 621 women who received the second dose, and 11.3% of 469 women who received the third dose. The findings were comparable to those of studies conducted of the general population, said study author Brooke C. Juhel, BS, a clinical research coordinator in the lymphedema research program at Massachusetts General Hospital and a student at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston. In the general population, 10.2% experienced lymph node swelling after the first dose and 14% after the second dose, according to the Centers for Disease Control and studies of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.

“This is consistent with the hypothesis that, after repeated vaccine doses, the immune system already has the antigens ready to fight the virus, thus the side effects may worsen as the immune response has increased,” she said. “Having screened over 6,500 women for breast cancer–related lymphedema, and with our patients reaching out with concerns about vaccine side effects, we were in a unique position to conduct this study.”

The study also confirmed that the most common side effects of receiving mRNA COVID-19 vaccines for women treated for breast cancer included injection site soreness, fatigue, muscle soreness, headache and chills lasting an average of 48 hours, which are symptoms comparable with those experienced by the general population.

“The side-effect profiles reported in this study for a cohort of women treated for breast cancer can be used to provide evidence-based patient education regarding future COVID-19 vaccine administration. The effect of the COVID-19 vaccines on breast cancer–related lymphedema risk is currently unknown and more research is required. In the interim, we would recommend vaccination away from the side of lymph node removal, either in the contralateral arm or in the thigh,” Ms. Juhel said.

The median duration of lymph node swelling was less than 1 week. In cases where lymph node swelling occurred after the first dose, 54.1% had swelling in ipsilateral axillary lymph nodes, and 45.9% in contralateral axillary lymph nodes. About 29.5% experienced swelling in ipsilateral supraclavicular lymph nodes, and 18.0% in contralateral supraclavicular lymph nodes.

Injection-site soreness, fatigue, GMS, headache, and chills occurred less often among older individuals (P < .001), and fatigue, muscle soreness, headache, and chills occurred more frequently after the second dose than the first (P < .001). The median duration of all side effects was 48 hours or less.

“The informed education that can be produced based on these results will hopefully ease the fears of women treated for breast cancer and empower them to make informed decisions regarding future vaccine doses,” Ms. Juhel said.

Ms. Juhel has no relevant financial disclosures.

Findings from the LymphVAX study recently presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium show that relatively few women with breast cancer who are at risk for lymphedema develop lymph node swelling after receiving an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.

Lymph node swelling can be a particularly troubling side effect, since it could be mistaken for breast cancer progression. In this study, of 621 women who received the first dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, 9.8% developed lymph node swelling as compared with 12.9% of 621 women who received the second dose, and 11.3% of 469 women who received the third dose. The findings were comparable to those of studies conducted of the general population, said study author Brooke C. Juhel, BS, a clinical research coordinator in the lymphedema research program at Massachusetts General Hospital and a student at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston. In the general population, 10.2% experienced lymph node swelling after the first dose and 14% after the second dose, according to the Centers for Disease Control and studies of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.

“This is consistent with the hypothesis that, after repeated vaccine doses, the immune system already has the antigens ready to fight the virus, thus the side effects may worsen as the immune response has increased,” she said. “Having screened over 6,500 women for breast cancer–related lymphedema, and with our patients reaching out with concerns about vaccine side effects, we were in a unique position to conduct this study.”

The study also confirmed that the most common side effects of receiving mRNA COVID-19 vaccines for women treated for breast cancer included injection site soreness, fatigue, muscle soreness, headache and chills lasting an average of 48 hours, which are symptoms comparable with those experienced by the general population.

“The side-effect profiles reported in this study for a cohort of women treated for breast cancer can be used to provide evidence-based patient education regarding future COVID-19 vaccine administration. The effect of the COVID-19 vaccines on breast cancer–related lymphedema risk is currently unknown and more research is required. In the interim, we would recommend vaccination away from the side of lymph node removal, either in the contralateral arm or in the thigh,” Ms. Juhel said.

The median duration of lymph node swelling was less than 1 week. In cases where lymph node swelling occurred after the first dose, 54.1% had swelling in ipsilateral axillary lymph nodes, and 45.9% in contralateral axillary lymph nodes. About 29.5% experienced swelling in ipsilateral supraclavicular lymph nodes, and 18.0% in contralateral supraclavicular lymph nodes.

Injection-site soreness, fatigue, GMS, headache, and chills occurred less often among older individuals (P < .001), and fatigue, muscle soreness, headache, and chills occurred more frequently after the second dose than the first (P < .001). The median duration of all side effects was 48 hours or less.

“The informed education that can be produced based on these results will hopefully ease the fears of women treated for breast cancer and empower them to make informed decisions regarding future vaccine doses,” Ms. Juhel said.

Ms. Juhel has no relevant financial disclosures.

Findings from the LymphVAX study recently presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium show that relatively few women with breast cancer who are at risk for lymphedema develop lymph node swelling after receiving an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.

Lymph node swelling can be a particularly troubling side effect, since it could be mistaken for breast cancer progression. In this study, of 621 women who received the first dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, 9.8% developed lymph node swelling as compared with 12.9% of 621 women who received the second dose, and 11.3% of 469 women who received the third dose. The findings were comparable to those of studies conducted of the general population, said study author Brooke C. Juhel, BS, a clinical research coordinator in the lymphedema research program at Massachusetts General Hospital and a student at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston. In the general population, 10.2% experienced lymph node swelling after the first dose and 14% after the second dose, according to the Centers for Disease Control and studies of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.

“This is consistent with the hypothesis that, after repeated vaccine doses, the immune system already has the antigens ready to fight the virus, thus the side effects may worsen as the immune response has increased,” she said. “Having screened over 6,500 women for breast cancer–related lymphedema, and with our patients reaching out with concerns about vaccine side effects, we were in a unique position to conduct this study.”

The study also confirmed that the most common side effects of receiving mRNA COVID-19 vaccines for women treated for breast cancer included injection site soreness, fatigue, muscle soreness, headache and chills lasting an average of 48 hours, which are symptoms comparable with those experienced by the general population.

“The side-effect profiles reported in this study for a cohort of women treated for breast cancer can be used to provide evidence-based patient education regarding future COVID-19 vaccine administration. The effect of the COVID-19 vaccines on breast cancer–related lymphedema risk is currently unknown and more research is required. In the interim, we would recommend vaccination away from the side of lymph node removal, either in the contralateral arm or in the thigh,” Ms. Juhel said.

The median duration of lymph node swelling was less than 1 week. In cases where lymph node swelling occurred after the first dose, 54.1% had swelling in ipsilateral axillary lymph nodes, and 45.9% in contralateral axillary lymph nodes. About 29.5% experienced swelling in ipsilateral supraclavicular lymph nodes, and 18.0% in contralateral supraclavicular lymph nodes.

Injection-site soreness, fatigue, GMS, headache, and chills occurred less often among older individuals (P < .001), and fatigue, muscle soreness, headache, and chills occurred more frequently after the second dose than the first (P < .001). The median duration of all side effects was 48 hours or less.

“The informed education that can be produced based on these results will hopefully ease the fears of women treated for breast cancer and empower them to make informed decisions regarding future vaccine doses,” Ms. Juhel said.

Ms. Juhel has no relevant financial disclosures.

It’s not unusual for physicians to see other doctors as patients – often they’re colleagues or even friends. That relationship can influence their behavior and how they treat the physician-patient, which may have unintended consequences for both of them.

“When doctors don’t get the proper care, that’s when things go south. Any time physicians lower their standard of care, there is a risk of missing something that could affect their differential diagnosis, ultimate working diagnosis, and treatment plan,” said Michael Myers, MD, professor of clinical psychiatry at State University of New York, Brooklyn, who saw only medical students, physicians, and their family members in his private practice for over 3 decades.

Of the more than 200 physicians who responded to a recent Medscape poll, more than half said they treated physician-patients differently from other patients.

They granted their peers special privileges: They spent more time with them than other patients, gave out their personal contact information, and granted them professional courtesy by waiving or discounting their fees.

Published studies have reported that special treatment of physician-patients, such as giving personal contact information or avoiding uncomfortable testing, can create challenges for the treating physicians who may feel pressure to deviate from the standard of care.

The American Medical Association has recognized the challenges that physicians have when they treat other physicians they know personally or professionally, including a potential loss of objectivity, privacy, or confidentiality.

The AMA recommends that physicians treat physician-patients the same way they would other patients. The guidance states that the treating physician should exercise objective professional judgment and make unbiased treatment recommendations; be sensitive to the potential psychological discomfort of the physician-patient, and respect the physical and informational privacy of physician-patients.

Dr. Myers recalled that one doctor-patient said his primary care physician was his business partner in the practice. They ordered tests for each other and occasionally examined each other, but the patient never felt comfortable asking his partner for a full physical, said Dr. Myers, the author of “Becoming a Doctors’ Doctor: A Memoir.”

“I recommended that he choose a primary care doctor whom he didn’t know so that he could truly be a patient and the doctor could truly be a treating doctor,” said Dr. Myers.

Physician-patients may also be concerned about running into their physicians and being judged, or that they will break confidentiality and tell their spouse or another colleague, said Dr. Myers.

“When your doctor is a complete and total stranger, and especially if you live in a sizable community and your paths never cross, you don’t have that added worry,” he said.
 

Do docs expect special treatment as patients?

Some doctors expect special treatment from other doctors when they’re patients – 14% of physician poll respondents said that was their experience.

Dr. Myers recommends setting boundaries with doctor-patients early on in the relationship. “Some doctors expected me to go over my regular appointment time and when they realized that I started and stopped on time, they got upset. Once, one doctor insisted to my answering service that he had to talk to me although I was at home. When he started talking, I interrupted him and asked if the matter was urgent. He said no, so I offered to fit him in before his next appointment if he felt it couldn’t wait,” said Dr. Myers.

Some doctors also give physician-patients “professional courtesy” when it comes to payment. One in four poll respondents said they waived or discounted their professional fees for a doctor-patient. As most doctors have health insurance, doctors may waive copayments or other out-of-pocket fees, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics.

However, waiving or discounting health insurance fees, especially for government funded insurance, may be illegal under federal anti-fraud and abuse laws and payer contracts as well as state laws, the AAP says. It’s best to check with an attorney.
 

Treating other physicians can be rewarding

“Physicians can be the most rewarding patients because they are allies and partners in the effort to overcome whatever is ailing them,” said one doctor who responded to the Medscape poll.

Over two-thirds of respondents said that doctor-patients participated much more in their care than did other patients – typically, they discussed their care in more depth than did other patients.

Most doctors also felt that it was easier to communicate with their physician-patients than other patients because they understood medicine and were knowledgeable about their conditions.
 

Being judged by your peers can be stressful

How physicians feel about treating physician-patients is complicated. Nearly half of respondents said that it was more stressful than treating other patients.

One respondent said, “If we are honest, treating other physicians as patients is more stressful because we know that our skills are being assessed by someone who is at our level. There is no training for treating physicians, as there is for the Pope’s confessor. And we can be challenging in more ways than one!”

About one-third of poll respondents said they were afraid of disappointing their physician-patients.

“I’m not surprised,” said Dr. Myers, when told of that poll response. “This is why some doctors are reluctant to treat other physicians; they may wonder whether they’re up to speed. I have always thrived on having a high bar set for me – it spurs me on to really stay current with the literature and be humble,” he said.

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

It’s not unusual for physicians to see other doctors as patients – often they’re colleagues or even friends. That relationship can influence their behavior and how they treat the physician-patient, which may have unintended consequences for both of them.

“When doctors don’t get the proper care, that’s when things go south. Any time physicians lower their standard of care, there is a risk of missing something that could affect their differential diagnosis, ultimate working diagnosis, and treatment plan,” said Michael Myers, MD, professor of clinical psychiatry at State University of New York, Brooklyn, who saw only medical students, physicians, and their family members in his private practice for over 3 decades.

Of the more than 200 physicians who responded to a recent Medscape poll, more than half said they treated physician-patients differently from other patients.

They granted their peers special privileges: They spent more time with them than other patients, gave out their personal contact information, and granted them professional courtesy by waiving or discounting their fees.

Published studies have reported that special treatment of physician-patients, such as giving personal contact information or avoiding uncomfortable testing, can create challenges for the treating physicians who may feel pressure to deviate from the standard of care.

The American Medical Association has recognized the challenges that physicians have when they treat other physicians they know personally or professionally, including a potential loss of objectivity, privacy, or confidentiality.

The AMA recommends that physicians treat physician-patients the same way they would other patients. The guidance states that the treating physician should exercise objective professional judgment and make unbiased treatment recommendations; be sensitive to the potential psychological discomfort of the physician-patient, and respect the physical and informational privacy of physician-patients.

Dr. Myers recalled that one doctor-patient said his primary care physician was his business partner in the practice. They ordered tests for each other and occasionally examined each other, but the patient never felt comfortable asking his partner for a full physical, said Dr. Myers, the author of “Becoming a Doctors’ Doctor: A Memoir.”

“I recommended that he choose a primary care doctor whom he didn’t know so that he could truly be a patient and the doctor could truly be a treating doctor,” said Dr. Myers.

Physician-patients may also be concerned about running into their physicians and being judged, or that they will break confidentiality and tell their spouse or another colleague, said Dr. Myers.

“When your doctor is a complete and total stranger, and especially if you live in a sizable community and your paths never cross, you don’t have that added worry,” he said.
 

Do docs expect special treatment as patients?

Some doctors expect special treatment from other doctors when they’re patients – 14% of physician poll respondents said that was their experience.

Dr. Myers recommends setting boundaries with doctor-patients early on in the relationship. “Some doctors expected me to go over my regular appointment time and when they realized that I started and stopped on time, they got upset. Once, one doctor insisted to my answering service that he had to talk to me although I was at home. When he started talking, I interrupted him and asked if the matter was urgent. He said no, so I offered to fit him in before his next appointment if he felt it couldn’t wait,” said Dr. Myers.

Some doctors also give physician-patients “professional courtesy” when it comes to payment. One in four poll respondents said they waived or discounted their professional fees for a doctor-patient. As most doctors have health insurance, doctors may waive copayments or other out-of-pocket fees, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics.

However, waiving or discounting health insurance fees, especially for government funded insurance, may be illegal under federal anti-fraud and abuse laws and payer contracts as well as state laws, the AAP says. It’s best to check with an attorney.
 

Treating other physicians can be rewarding

“Physicians can be the most rewarding patients because they are allies and partners in the effort to overcome whatever is ailing them,” said one doctor who responded to the Medscape poll.

Over two-thirds of respondents said that doctor-patients participated much more in their care than did other patients – typically, they discussed their care in more depth than did other patients.

Most doctors also felt that it was easier to communicate with their physician-patients than other patients because they understood medicine and were knowledgeable about their conditions.
 

Being judged by your peers can be stressful

How physicians feel about treating physician-patients is complicated. Nearly half of respondents said that it was more stressful than treating other patients.

One respondent said, “If we are honest, treating other physicians as patients is more stressful because we know that our skills are being assessed by someone who is at our level. There is no training for treating physicians, as there is for the Pope’s confessor. And we can be challenging in more ways than one!”

About one-third of poll respondents said they were afraid of disappointing their physician-patients.

“I’m not surprised,” said Dr. Myers, when told of that poll response. “This is why some doctors are reluctant to treat other physicians; they may wonder whether they’re up to speed. I have always thrived on having a high bar set for me – it spurs me on to really stay current with the literature and be humble,” he said.

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

It’s not unusual for physicians to see other doctors as patients – often they’re colleagues or even friends. That relationship can influence their behavior and how they treat the physician-patient, which may have unintended consequences for both of them.

“When doctors don’t get the proper care, that’s when things go south. Any time physicians lower their standard of care, there is a risk of missing something that could affect their differential diagnosis, ultimate working diagnosis, and treatment plan,” said Michael Myers, MD, professor of clinical psychiatry at State University of New York, Brooklyn, who saw only medical students, physicians, and their family members in his private practice for over 3 decades.

Of the more than 200 physicians who responded to a recent Medscape poll, more than half said they treated physician-patients differently from other patients.

They granted their peers special privileges: They spent more time with them than other patients, gave out their personal contact information, and granted them professional courtesy by waiving or discounting their fees.

Published studies have reported that special treatment of physician-patients, such as giving personal contact information or avoiding uncomfortable testing, can create challenges for the treating physicians who may feel pressure to deviate from the standard of care.

The American Medical Association has recognized the challenges that physicians have when they treat other physicians they know personally or professionally, including a potential loss of objectivity, privacy, or confidentiality.

The AMA recommends that physicians treat physician-patients the same way they would other patients. The guidance states that the treating physician should exercise objective professional judgment and make unbiased treatment recommendations; be sensitive to the potential psychological discomfort of the physician-patient, and respect the physical and informational privacy of physician-patients.

Dr. Myers recalled that one doctor-patient said his primary care physician was his business partner in the practice. They ordered tests for each other and occasionally examined each other, but the patient never felt comfortable asking his partner for a full physical, said Dr. Myers, the author of “Becoming a Doctors’ Doctor: A Memoir.”

“I recommended that he choose a primary care doctor whom he didn’t know so that he could truly be a patient and the doctor could truly be a treating doctor,” said Dr. Myers.

Physician-patients may also be concerned about running into their physicians and being judged, or that they will break confidentiality and tell their spouse or another colleague, said Dr. Myers.

“When your doctor is a complete and total stranger, and especially if you live in a sizable community and your paths never cross, you don’t have that added worry,” he said.
 

Do docs expect special treatment as patients?

Some doctors expect special treatment from other doctors when they’re patients – 14% of physician poll respondents said that was their experience.

Dr. Myers recommends setting boundaries with doctor-patients early on in the relationship. “Some doctors expected me to go over my regular appointment time and when they realized that I started and stopped on time, they got upset. Once, one doctor insisted to my answering service that he had to talk to me although I was at home. When he started talking, I interrupted him and asked if the matter was urgent. He said no, so I offered to fit him in before his next appointment if he felt it couldn’t wait,” said Dr. Myers.

Some doctors also give physician-patients “professional courtesy” when it comes to payment. One in four poll respondents said they waived or discounted their professional fees for a doctor-patient. As most doctors have health insurance, doctors may waive copayments or other out-of-pocket fees, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics.

However, waiving or discounting health insurance fees, especially for government funded insurance, may be illegal under federal anti-fraud and abuse laws and payer contracts as well as state laws, the AAP says. It’s best to check with an attorney.
 

Treating other physicians can be rewarding

“Physicians can be the most rewarding patients because they are allies and partners in the effort to overcome whatever is ailing them,” said one doctor who responded to the Medscape poll.

Over two-thirds of respondents said that doctor-patients participated much more in their care than did other patients – typically, they discussed their care in more depth than did other patients.

Most doctors also felt that it was easier to communicate with their physician-patients than other patients because they understood medicine and were knowledgeable about their conditions.
 

Being judged by your peers can be stressful

How physicians feel about treating physician-patients is complicated. Nearly half of respondents said that it was more stressful than treating other patients.

One respondent said, “If we are honest, treating other physicians as patients is more stressful because we know that our skills are being assessed by someone who is at our level. There is no training for treating physicians, as there is for the Pope’s confessor. And we can be challenging in more ways than one!”

About one-third of poll respondents said they were afraid of disappointing their physician-patients.

“I’m not surprised,” said Dr. Myers, when told of that poll response. “This is why some doctors are reluctant to treat other physicians; they may wonder whether they’re up to speed. I have always thrived on having a high bar set for me – it spurs me on to really stay current with the literature and be humble,” he said.

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

Much attention has been given recently to the idea of detecting many different types of cancer from a single blood test, and a new test claiming to do that has just been reported.

The leader in this field is the Galleri test (from GRAIL) which is already in clinical use in some health care networks across the United States. That test uses next-generation sequencing to analyze the arrangement of methyl groups on circulating tumor (or cell-free) DNA (cfDNA) in a blood sample.

The new test, under development by Swedish biotechnology company Elypta AB, has a different premise. It can detect 14 cancer types based on the analysis of glycosaminoglycans, which are a diverse group of polysaccharides that are altered by the presence of tumors. Using plasma and urine samples, the method had a 41.6%-62.3% sensitivity for detecting stage I cancer at 95% specificity.

In comparison, say the authors, other assays have reported 39%-73% sensitivity to stage I cancers, but these estimates are usually limited to 12 cancer types that are considered “high-signal,” and the assays perform poorly in cancers that emit little cfDNA, such as genitourinary and brain malignancies.

“The main advantage of glycosaminoglycans appears to be that they change in the blood and urine at the earliest stages of cancer,” said study author Francesco Gatto, PhD, founder and chief scientific officer at Elypta. “Consequently, this method showed an impressive detection rate in stage I compared to other emerging methods.”

The study was published online in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.


 

Combine tests?

Dr. Gatto commented that he “could envision that one day we may be able to combine these methods.”

“The same blood specimen could be used to test both glycosaminoglycans and genomic biomarkers,” said Dr. Gatto. “This strategy could hopefully detect even more cancers than with either method alone, and the resulting performance may well be sufficient as a one-stop-shop screening program.”

So how does the new test from Elypta compare with the Galleri test?

“Galleri and similar methods mostly focused on information coming from molecules of DNA naturally floating in the blood,” explained Dr. Gatto. “It makes sense to conduct research there because cancers typically start with events in the DNA.”

He noted that the current study explored a new layer of information, molecules called glycosaminoglycans, that participate in the metabolism of cancer.

“This method detected many cancers that the previous methods missed, and a substantial proportion of these were at stage I,” said Dr. Gatto. “Cancer is a complex disease, so the most layers of information we can probe noninvasively, say with a blood test, the more likely we can catch more cancers at its earliest stage.”

Other platforms typically rely on sequencing and detecting cancer-derived fractions of cfDNA, but these methods have challenges that can interfere with their usage. For example, some cancer types do not shed sufficient cfDNA and it cannot be accurately measured.

“An advantage on focusing on glycosaminoglycans is that the method does not require next-generation sequencing or similarly complex assays because glycosaminoglycans are informative with less than 10 simultaneous measurements as opposed to Galleri that looks at over 1 million DNA methylation sites,” he said.

“This makes the assay behind the test much cheaper and robust – we estimated a 5-10 times lower cost difference,” Dr. Gatto said.
 

Prospective and comparative data needed

In a comment, Eric Klein, MD, emeritus chair of the Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute at the Cleveland Clinic explained that the “only accurate way to know how a test will perform in an intended-use population is to actually test it in that population. It’s not possible to extrapolate results directly from a case-control study.”

Cancers shed many different biologic markers into body fluids, but which of these signals will be best to serve as the basis of an MCED (multi-cancer detection test) that has clinical utility in a screening population has yet to be determined, he noted. “And it’s possible that no single test will be optimum for every clinical situation.”

“The results of this study appear promising, but it is not possible to claim superiority of one test over another based on individual case-control studies because of uncontrolled differences in the selected populations,” Dr. Klein continued. “The only scientifically accurate way to do this is to perform different tests on the same patient samples in a head-to-head comparison.”

There is only one study that he is aware of that has done this recently, in which multiple different assays looking at various signals in cell-free DNA were directly compared on the same samples (Cancer cell. 2022;40:1537-49.e12). “A targeted methylation assay that is the basis for Galleri was best for the lowest limit of detection and for predicting cancer site of origin,” said Dr. Klein.

Another expert agreed that a direct head-to-head study is needed to compare assays. “Based on this data, you cannot say that this method is better than the other one because that requires a comparative study,” said Fred Hirsch, MD, PhD, executive director of the Center for Thoracic Oncology, Tisch Cancer Institute at Mount Sinai, New York.

Metabolomics is interesting, and the data are encouraging, he continued. “But this is a multicancer early detection test and metabolism changes may vary from cancer type to cancer type. I’m not sure that the metabolism of lung cancer is the same as that of a gynecologic cancer.”

Dr. Hirsch also pointed out that there could also be confounding factors. “They have excluded inflammatory disease, but there can be other variables such as smoking,” he said. “Overall it gives some interesting perspectives but I would like to see more prospective validation and studies in specific disease groups, and eventually comparative studies with other methodologies.”
 

Study details

The authors evaluated if plasma and urine free GAGomes (free glycosaminoglycan profiles) deviated from baseline physiological levels in 14 cancer types and could serve as metabolic cancer biomarkers. They also then validated using free GAGomes for MCED in an external population with 2,064 samples obtained from 1,260 patients with cancer and healthy individuals.

In an in vivo cancer progression model, they observed widespread cancer-specific changes in biofluidic free GAGomes and then developed three machine-learning models based on urine (n_urine = 220 cancer vs. 360 healthy) and plasma (n_plasma = 517 cancer vs. 425 healthy) free GAGomes that were able to detect any cancer with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.83-0.93 (with up to 62% sensitivity to stage I disease at 95% specificity).

To assess if altered GAGome features associated with cancer suggested more aggressive tumor biology, they correlated each score with overall survival. The median follow-up time was 17 months in the plasma cohort (n = 370 across 13 cancer types), 15 months in the urine cohort (n = 162 across 4 cancer types), and 15 months in the combined cohort (n = 152 across 4 cancer types).

They found that all three scores independently predicted overall survival in a multivariable analysis (hazard ratio, 1.29; P = .0009 for plasma; HR, 1.79; P = .0009 for urine; HR, 1.91; P = .0004 for combined) after adjusting for cancer type, age, sex, and stage IV or high-grade disease.

These findings showed an association of free GAGome alterations with aggressive cancer phenotypes and suggested that scores below the 95% specificity cutoff might have a better prognosis, the authors comment.

In addition, other analyses showed that free GAGomes predicted the putative cancer location with 89% accuracy. And finally, to confirm whether the free GAGome MCED scores could be used for screening, a validation analysis was conducted using a typical “screening population,” which requires at least 99% specificity. The combined free GAGomes were able to predict a poor prognosis of any cancer type within 18 months and with 43% sensitivity (21% in stage I; n = 121 and 49 cases).

Dr. Gatto believes that these results, as well as those from other studies looking at glycosaminoglycans as cancer biomarkers, will lead to the next steps of development. “But I speculate that this test could be most useful to assess in a cheap, practical, and noninvasive manner if a person at increased risk of cancer should be selected for cancer screening as part of established or emerging screening programs.”

The study was sponsored by Elypta. Dr. Gatto is listed as an inventor in patent applications related to the biomarkers described in this study and later assigned to Elypta, and is a shareholder and employed at Elypta. Dr. Hirsch reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Klein is a consultant for GRAIL and an investigator for CCGA and Pathfinder.

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

Much attention has been given recently to the idea of detecting many different types of cancer from a single blood test, and a new test claiming to do that has just been reported.

The leader in this field is the Galleri test (from GRAIL) which is already in clinical use in some health care networks across the United States. That test uses next-generation sequencing to analyze the arrangement of methyl groups on circulating tumor (or cell-free) DNA (cfDNA) in a blood sample.

The new test, under development by Swedish biotechnology company Elypta AB, has a different premise. It can detect 14 cancer types based on the analysis of glycosaminoglycans, which are a diverse group of polysaccharides that are altered by the presence of tumors. Using plasma and urine samples, the method had a 41.6%-62.3% sensitivity for detecting stage I cancer at 95% specificity.

In comparison, say the authors, other assays have reported 39%-73% sensitivity to stage I cancers, but these estimates are usually limited to 12 cancer types that are considered “high-signal,” and the assays perform poorly in cancers that emit little cfDNA, such as genitourinary and brain malignancies.

“The main advantage of glycosaminoglycans appears to be that they change in the blood and urine at the earliest stages of cancer,” said study author Francesco Gatto, PhD, founder and chief scientific officer at Elypta. “Consequently, this method showed an impressive detection rate in stage I compared to other emerging methods.”

The study was published online in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.


 

Combine tests?

Dr. Gatto commented that he “could envision that one day we may be able to combine these methods.”

“The same blood specimen could be used to test both glycosaminoglycans and genomic biomarkers,” said Dr. Gatto. “This strategy could hopefully detect even more cancers than with either method alone, and the resulting performance may well be sufficient as a one-stop-shop screening program.”

So how does the new test from Elypta compare with the Galleri test?

“Galleri and similar methods mostly focused on information coming from molecules of DNA naturally floating in the blood,” explained Dr. Gatto. “It makes sense to conduct research there because cancers typically start with events in the DNA.”

He noted that the current study explored a new layer of information, molecules called glycosaminoglycans, that participate in the metabolism of cancer.

“This method detected many cancers that the previous methods missed, and a substantial proportion of these were at stage I,” said Dr. Gatto. “Cancer is a complex disease, so the most layers of information we can probe noninvasively, say with a blood test, the more likely we can catch more cancers at its earliest stage.”

Other platforms typically rely on sequencing and detecting cancer-derived fractions of cfDNA, but these methods have challenges that can interfere with their usage. For example, some cancer types do not shed sufficient cfDNA and it cannot be accurately measured.

“An advantage on focusing on glycosaminoglycans is that the method does not require next-generation sequencing or similarly complex assays because glycosaminoglycans are informative with less than 10 simultaneous measurements as opposed to Galleri that looks at over 1 million DNA methylation sites,” he said.

“This makes the assay behind the test much cheaper and robust – we estimated a 5-10 times lower cost difference,” Dr. Gatto said.
 

Prospective and comparative data needed

In a comment, Eric Klein, MD, emeritus chair of the Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute at the Cleveland Clinic explained that the “only accurate way to know how a test will perform in an intended-use population is to actually test it in that population. It’s not possible to extrapolate results directly from a case-control study.”

Cancers shed many different biologic markers into body fluids, but which of these signals will be best to serve as the basis of an MCED (multi-cancer detection test) that has clinical utility in a screening population has yet to be determined, he noted. “And it’s possible that no single test will be optimum for every clinical situation.”

“The results of this study appear promising, but it is not possible to claim superiority of one test over another based on individual case-control studies because of uncontrolled differences in the selected populations,” Dr. Klein continued. “The only scientifically accurate way to do this is to perform different tests on the same patient samples in a head-to-head comparison.”

There is only one study that he is aware of that has done this recently, in which multiple different assays looking at various signals in cell-free DNA were directly compared on the same samples (Cancer cell. 2022;40:1537-49.e12). “A targeted methylation assay that is the basis for Galleri was best for the lowest limit of detection and for predicting cancer site of origin,” said Dr. Klein.

Another expert agreed that a direct head-to-head study is needed to compare assays. “Based on this data, you cannot say that this method is better than the other one because that requires a comparative study,” said Fred Hirsch, MD, PhD, executive director of the Center for Thoracic Oncology, Tisch Cancer Institute at Mount Sinai, New York.

Metabolomics is interesting, and the data are encouraging, he continued. “But this is a multicancer early detection test and metabolism changes may vary from cancer type to cancer type. I’m not sure that the metabolism of lung cancer is the same as that of a gynecologic cancer.”

Dr. Hirsch also pointed out that there could also be confounding factors. “They have excluded inflammatory disease, but there can be other variables such as smoking,” he said. “Overall it gives some interesting perspectives but I would like to see more prospective validation and studies in specific disease groups, and eventually comparative studies with other methodologies.”
 

Study details

The authors evaluated if plasma and urine free GAGomes (free glycosaminoglycan profiles) deviated from baseline physiological levels in 14 cancer types and could serve as metabolic cancer biomarkers. They also then validated using free GAGomes for MCED in an external population with 2,064 samples obtained from 1,260 patients with cancer and healthy individuals.

In an in vivo cancer progression model, they observed widespread cancer-specific changes in biofluidic free GAGomes and then developed three machine-learning models based on urine (n_urine = 220 cancer vs. 360 healthy) and plasma (n_plasma = 517 cancer vs. 425 healthy) free GAGomes that were able to detect any cancer with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.83-0.93 (with up to 62% sensitivity to stage I disease at 95% specificity).

To assess if altered GAGome features associated with cancer suggested more aggressive tumor biology, they correlated each score with overall survival. The median follow-up time was 17 months in the plasma cohort (n = 370 across 13 cancer types), 15 months in the urine cohort (n = 162 across 4 cancer types), and 15 months in the combined cohort (n = 152 across 4 cancer types).

They found that all three scores independently predicted overall survival in a multivariable analysis (hazard ratio, 1.29; P = .0009 for plasma; HR, 1.79; P = .0009 for urine; HR, 1.91; P = .0004 for combined) after adjusting for cancer type, age, sex, and stage IV or high-grade disease.

These findings showed an association of free GAGome alterations with aggressive cancer phenotypes and suggested that scores below the 95% specificity cutoff might have a better prognosis, the authors comment.

In addition, other analyses showed that free GAGomes predicted the putative cancer location with 89% accuracy. And finally, to confirm whether the free GAGome MCED scores could be used for screening, a validation analysis was conducted using a typical “screening population,” which requires at least 99% specificity. The combined free GAGomes were able to predict a poor prognosis of any cancer type within 18 months and with 43% sensitivity (21% in stage I; n = 121 and 49 cases).

Dr. Gatto believes that these results, as well as those from other studies looking at glycosaminoglycans as cancer biomarkers, will lead to the next steps of development. “But I speculate that this test could be most useful to assess in a cheap, practical, and noninvasive manner if a person at increased risk of cancer should be selected for cancer screening as part of established or emerging screening programs.”

The study was sponsored by Elypta. Dr. Gatto is listed as an inventor in patent applications related to the biomarkers described in this study and later assigned to Elypta, and is a shareholder and employed at Elypta. Dr. Hirsch reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Klein is a consultant for GRAIL and an investigator for CCGA and Pathfinder.

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

Much attention has been given recently to the idea of detecting many different types of cancer from a single blood test, and a new test claiming to do that has just been reported.

The leader in this field is the Galleri test (from GRAIL) which is already in clinical use in some health care networks across the United States. That test uses next-generation sequencing to analyze the arrangement of methyl groups on circulating tumor (or cell-free) DNA (cfDNA) in a blood sample.

The new test, under development by Swedish biotechnology company Elypta AB, has a different premise. It can detect 14 cancer types based on the analysis of glycosaminoglycans, which are a diverse group of polysaccharides that are altered by the presence of tumors. Using plasma and urine samples, the method had a 41.6%-62.3% sensitivity for detecting stage I cancer at 95% specificity.

In comparison, say the authors, other assays have reported 39%-73% sensitivity to stage I cancers, but these estimates are usually limited to 12 cancer types that are considered “high-signal,” and the assays perform poorly in cancers that emit little cfDNA, such as genitourinary and brain malignancies.

“The main advantage of glycosaminoglycans appears to be that they change in the blood and urine at the earliest stages of cancer,” said study author Francesco Gatto, PhD, founder and chief scientific officer at Elypta. “Consequently, this method showed an impressive detection rate in stage I compared to other emerging methods.”

The study was published online in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.


 

Combine tests?

Dr. Gatto commented that he “could envision that one day we may be able to combine these methods.”

“The same blood specimen could be used to test both glycosaminoglycans and genomic biomarkers,” said Dr. Gatto. “This strategy could hopefully detect even more cancers than with either method alone, and the resulting performance may well be sufficient as a one-stop-shop screening program.”

So how does the new test from Elypta compare with the Galleri test?

“Galleri and similar methods mostly focused on information coming from molecules of DNA naturally floating in the blood,” explained Dr. Gatto. “It makes sense to conduct research there because cancers typically start with events in the DNA.”

He noted that the current study explored a new layer of information, molecules called glycosaminoglycans, that participate in the metabolism of cancer.

“This method detected many cancers that the previous methods missed, and a substantial proportion of these were at stage I,” said Dr. Gatto. “Cancer is a complex disease, so the most layers of information we can probe noninvasively, say with a blood test, the more likely we can catch more cancers at its earliest stage.”

Other platforms typically rely on sequencing and detecting cancer-derived fractions of cfDNA, but these methods have challenges that can interfere with their usage. For example, some cancer types do not shed sufficient cfDNA and it cannot be accurately measured.

“An advantage on focusing on glycosaminoglycans is that the method does not require next-generation sequencing or similarly complex assays because glycosaminoglycans are informative with less than 10 simultaneous measurements as opposed to Galleri that looks at over 1 million DNA methylation sites,” he said.

“This makes the assay behind the test much cheaper and robust – we estimated a 5-10 times lower cost difference,” Dr. Gatto said.
 

Prospective and comparative data needed

In a comment, Eric Klein, MD, emeritus chair of the Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute at the Cleveland Clinic explained that the “only accurate way to know how a test will perform in an intended-use population is to actually test it in that population. It’s not possible to extrapolate results directly from a case-control study.”

Cancers shed many different biologic markers into body fluids, but which of these signals will be best to serve as the basis of an MCED (multi-cancer detection test) that has clinical utility in a screening population has yet to be determined, he noted. “And it’s possible that no single test will be optimum for every clinical situation.”

“The results of this study appear promising, but it is not possible to claim superiority of one test over another based on individual case-control studies because of uncontrolled differences in the selected populations,” Dr. Klein continued. “The only scientifically accurate way to do this is to perform different tests on the same patient samples in a head-to-head comparison.”

There is only one study that he is aware of that has done this recently, in which multiple different assays looking at various signals in cell-free DNA were directly compared on the same samples (Cancer cell. 2022;40:1537-49.e12). “A targeted methylation assay that is the basis for Galleri was best for the lowest limit of detection and for predicting cancer site of origin,” said Dr. Klein.

Another expert agreed that a direct head-to-head study is needed to compare assays. “Based on this data, you cannot say that this method is better than the other one because that requires a comparative study,” said Fred Hirsch, MD, PhD, executive director of the Center for Thoracic Oncology, Tisch Cancer Institute at Mount Sinai, New York.

Metabolomics is interesting, and the data are encouraging, he continued. “But this is a multicancer early detection test and metabolism changes may vary from cancer type to cancer type. I’m not sure that the metabolism of lung cancer is the same as that of a gynecologic cancer.”

Dr. Hirsch also pointed out that there could also be confounding factors. “They have excluded inflammatory disease, but there can be other variables such as smoking,” he said. “Overall it gives some interesting perspectives but I would like to see more prospective validation and studies in specific disease groups, and eventually comparative studies with other methodologies.”
 

Study details

The authors evaluated if plasma and urine free GAGomes (free glycosaminoglycan profiles) deviated from baseline physiological levels in 14 cancer types and could serve as metabolic cancer biomarkers. They also then validated using free GAGomes for MCED in an external population with 2,064 samples obtained from 1,260 patients with cancer and healthy individuals.

In an in vivo cancer progression model, they observed widespread cancer-specific changes in biofluidic free GAGomes and then developed three machine-learning models based on urine (n_urine = 220 cancer vs. 360 healthy) and plasma (n_plasma = 517 cancer vs. 425 healthy) free GAGomes that were able to detect any cancer with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.83-0.93 (with up to 62% sensitivity to stage I disease at 95% specificity).

To assess if altered GAGome features associated with cancer suggested more aggressive tumor biology, they correlated each score with overall survival. The median follow-up time was 17 months in the plasma cohort (n = 370 across 13 cancer types), 15 months in the urine cohort (n = 162 across 4 cancer types), and 15 months in the combined cohort (n = 152 across 4 cancer types).

They found that all three scores independently predicted overall survival in a multivariable analysis (hazard ratio, 1.29; P = .0009 for plasma; HR, 1.79; P = .0009 for urine; HR, 1.91; P = .0004 for combined) after adjusting for cancer type, age, sex, and stage IV or high-grade disease.

These findings showed an association of free GAGome alterations with aggressive cancer phenotypes and suggested that scores below the 95% specificity cutoff might have a better prognosis, the authors comment.

In addition, other analyses showed that free GAGomes predicted the putative cancer location with 89% accuracy. And finally, to confirm whether the free GAGome MCED scores could be used for screening, a validation analysis was conducted using a typical “screening population,” which requires at least 99% specificity. The combined free GAGomes were able to predict a poor prognosis of any cancer type within 18 months and with 43% sensitivity (21% in stage I; n = 121 and 49 cases).

Dr. Gatto believes that these results, as well as those from other studies looking at glycosaminoglycans as cancer biomarkers, will lead to the next steps of development. “But I speculate that this test could be most useful to assess in a cheap, practical, and noninvasive manner if a person at increased risk of cancer should be selected for cancer screening as part of established or emerging screening programs.”

The study was sponsored by Elypta. Dr. Gatto is listed as an inventor in patent applications related to the biomarkers described in this study and later assigned to Elypta, and is a shareholder and employed at Elypta. Dr. Hirsch reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Klein is a consultant for GRAIL and an investigator for CCGA and Pathfinder.

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

SAN ANTONIO – A wide range of research on hormone receptor (HR)–positive breast cancer was presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

This news organization spoke with SABCS program director Virginia Kaklamani, MD, leader of the Breast Cancer Program at UT Health, San Antonio, and Jason A. Mouabbi, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, about their top five picks on HR-positive disease – the research they were most excited about and what the findings could mean for clinical practice and patient outcomes.
 

1. Addressing an unmet need

Data from the phase 3 CAPItello-291 clinical trial showed that the addition of the investigational AKT inhibitor capivasertib to fulvestrant resulted in statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) among 708 patients with HR-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer, compared with those who received placebo plus fulvestrant (GS3-04).

For patients treated with capivasertib plus fulvestrant, median PFS was 7.2 months, compared with 3.6 months for those who received placebo plus fulvestrant (hazard ratio, 0.60). Among patients assigned to the capivasertib group, 41% had tumors with AKT pathway mutations. In this group, the median PFS was 7.3 months vs. 3.1 months in the placebo cohort. The objective response rate among patients with measurable disease was 23% overall in the capivasertib group, compared with 12.2% in the placebo arm; it was 28.8% vs. 9.7% among the patients with AKT alterations.

Dr. Mouabbi noted that the study “met its primary endpoint” and that, importantly, it “addresses an area of unmet need.”

“The study’s treatment targets the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway, which is a very active pathway in hormone-positive metastatic breast cancer,” Dr. Mouabbi explained. He noted, “We’ve always wanted to tackle that pathway effectively, and it looks like this drug can do that.”
 

2. Next-generation SERD

Data from the phase 2 SERENA-2 trial offers evidence that camizestrant, a next-generation selective estrogen-receptor degrader (SERD), improved PFS compared with fulvestrant for patients with HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer (GS3-02).

Overall, 240 patients were randomly assigned to receive camizestrant monotherapy at various doses or fulvestrant at 500 mg. Among patients who received camizestrant 75 mg, median PFS was 7.2 months; among those who received camizestrant 150 mg, PFS was slightly longer, at 7.7 months vs. 3.7 months for patients treated with fulvestrant. Compared with fulvestrant, camizestrant reduced the risk of disease progression by 42% at 75 mg (HR, 0.58) and by 33% at 150 mg (HR, 0.67). In a subgroup of patients with ESR1 mutations, camizestrant reduced the risk of disease progression by 67% in the group that received 75 mg and by 45% in the group that received 150 mg, compared with fulvestrant (median PFS, 6.3, 9.2, and 2.2 months, respectively).

“In this trial, camizestrant looks like a more beneficial treatment in the target group,” said Dr. Kaklamani. “This is significant because it means that camizestrant could be used in the future in HR-positive metastatic breast cancer instead of fulvestrant.” In addition, “camizestrant is taken orally and is much more convenient for patients, unlike fulvestrant, which is taken intramuscularly.”
 

3. Pregnancy risks

Can endocrine therapy be safely interrupted for women with breast cancer who wish to become pregnant? That’s what researchers tried to glean in a recent prospective trial presented at the meeting (GS4-09).

The study enrolled over 500 women for whom endocrine therapy had been stopped in the hopes of their becoming pregnant. Almost all (93.4%) had stage I/II HR-positive breast cancer. The primary objective was to determine the risk of breast cancer relapse associated with interrupting therapy for about 2 years. The authors defined no more than 46 breast cancer–free interval (BCFI) events as the safety threshold. A BCFI event was defined as local, regional, or distant recurrence or a new invasive contralateral breast cancer.

Among 497 women, 368 (74%) had at least one pregnancy and 317 (64%) had at least one live birth, for a total of 365 babies born. At a median follow-up of 41 months, 44 participants experienced a BCFI event, in line with the safety threshold. The 3-year BCFI failure rate was 8.9%, similar to the 9.2% rate in an external control cohort from the SOFT/TEXT trials. In addition, 76.3% of patients resumed endocrine therapy; 15.4% had not yet resumed therapy.

“This trial is more confirmatory but an extremely important step for young women who want to get pregnant after diagnosis and recovery from HR-positive breast cancer,” Dr. Kaklamani said. “It seems that stopping endocrine therapy to become pregnant did not cause any adverse outcomes or increase the risk of reoccurrence of cancer in the women in the study.”

Dr. Mouabbi agreed, noting, “Many of our patients are afraid that they will miss the window to get pregnant because they have to be on treatment for so long. This is the first study that let us know pregnancy and safety outcomes in patients who took a break from endocrine therapy to get pregnant. The results are promising and will be exciting for many of our patients.”
 

4. Assay identifies OFS benefit

A genomic assay was able to distinguish premenopausal patients with early-stage HR-positive breast cancer who benefited from the addition of ovarian function suppression (OFS) to adjuvant endocrine therapy, according to new data presented at the meeting (GS1-06).

In the study, investigators analyzed 1,717 patient tumor samples from the landmark Suppression of Ovarian Function Trial (SOFT) trial. The Breast Cancer Index identified 58% of women who benefited from the addition of ovarian function suppression to tamoxifen or exemestane therapy. They experienced an absolute benefit of 11.6% (42% did not benefit), compared with those with received tamoxifen alone. The predictive benefit was observed regardless of age, lymph node involvement, and receipt of chemotherapy.

Dr. Kaklamani highlighted this study’s importance, saying, “Ovarian suppression is associated with severe adverse events for patients. Obviously, the women who will get a benefit should continue, but this research is important because it will hopefully show us who to recommend ovarian suppression to while not exposing patients who are likely to get little benefit to unneeded toxicity.”
 

5. Optimizing elacestrant PFS

Last year, data from the Emerald trial showed that elacestrant is superior to standard-of-care therapy for HR-positive metastatic breast cancer. An update that Dr. Kaklamani presented at SABCS (GS3-01) explored whether the duration of a prior CDK4/6 inhibitor affects PFS.

The study was a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial in which 478 patients with ER-positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer received either elacestrant or standard of care. These patients had previously received one or two lines of endocrine therapy, a CDK4/6 inhibitor, and ≤ 1 line of chemotherapy.

Overall, the duration of prior CDK4/6 inhibitor in the metastatic setting was positively associated with PFS – the longer the duration of prior CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy, the longer the PFS with elacestrant. PFS outcomes were even stronger among patients with ESR1 mutations.

“What we found was that the women who benefit most from elacestrant had previously received a CDK4/6 inhibitor for at least 6 months,” Dr. Kaklamani said. These data can help us determine who may do best on the drug, she added.

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

SAN ANTONIO – A wide range of research on hormone receptor (HR)–positive breast cancer was presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

This news organization spoke with SABCS program director Virginia Kaklamani, MD, leader of the Breast Cancer Program at UT Health, San Antonio, and Jason A. Mouabbi, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, about their top five picks on HR-positive disease – the research they were most excited about and what the findings could mean for clinical practice and patient outcomes.
 

1. Addressing an unmet need

Data from the phase 3 CAPItello-291 clinical trial showed that the addition of the investigational AKT inhibitor capivasertib to fulvestrant resulted in statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) among 708 patients with HR-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer, compared with those who received placebo plus fulvestrant (GS3-04).

For patients treated with capivasertib plus fulvestrant, median PFS was 7.2 months, compared with 3.6 months for those who received placebo plus fulvestrant (hazard ratio, 0.60). Among patients assigned to the capivasertib group, 41% had tumors with AKT pathway mutations. In this group, the median PFS was 7.3 months vs. 3.1 months in the placebo cohort. The objective response rate among patients with measurable disease was 23% overall in the capivasertib group, compared with 12.2% in the placebo arm; it was 28.8% vs. 9.7% among the patients with AKT alterations.

Dr. Mouabbi noted that the study “met its primary endpoint” and that, importantly, it “addresses an area of unmet need.”

“The study’s treatment targets the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway, which is a very active pathway in hormone-positive metastatic breast cancer,” Dr. Mouabbi explained. He noted, “We’ve always wanted to tackle that pathway effectively, and it looks like this drug can do that.”
 

2. Next-generation SERD

Data from the phase 2 SERENA-2 trial offers evidence that camizestrant, a next-generation selective estrogen-receptor degrader (SERD), improved PFS compared with fulvestrant for patients with HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer (GS3-02).

Overall, 240 patients were randomly assigned to receive camizestrant monotherapy at various doses or fulvestrant at 500 mg. Among patients who received camizestrant 75 mg, median PFS was 7.2 months; among those who received camizestrant 150 mg, PFS was slightly longer, at 7.7 months vs. 3.7 months for patients treated with fulvestrant. Compared with fulvestrant, camizestrant reduced the risk of disease progression by 42% at 75 mg (HR, 0.58) and by 33% at 150 mg (HR, 0.67). In a subgroup of patients with ESR1 mutations, camizestrant reduced the risk of disease progression by 67% in the group that received 75 mg and by 45% in the group that received 150 mg, compared with fulvestrant (median PFS, 6.3, 9.2, and 2.2 months, respectively).

“In this trial, camizestrant looks like a more beneficial treatment in the target group,” said Dr. Kaklamani. “This is significant because it means that camizestrant could be used in the future in HR-positive metastatic breast cancer instead of fulvestrant.” In addition, “camizestrant is taken orally and is much more convenient for patients, unlike fulvestrant, which is taken intramuscularly.”
 

3. Pregnancy risks

Can endocrine therapy be safely interrupted for women with breast cancer who wish to become pregnant? That’s what researchers tried to glean in a recent prospective trial presented at the meeting (GS4-09).

The study enrolled over 500 women for whom endocrine therapy had been stopped in the hopes of their becoming pregnant. Almost all (93.4%) had stage I/II HR-positive breast cancer. The primary objective was to determine the risk of breast cancer relapse associated with interrupting therapy for about 2 years. The authors defined no more than 46 breast cancer–free interval (BCFI) events as the safety threshold. A BCFI event was defined as local, regional, or distant recurrence or a new invasive contralateral breast cancer.

Among 497 women, 368 (74%) had at least one pregnancy and 317 (64%) had at least one live birth, for a total of 365 babies born. At a median follow-up of 41 months, 44 participants experienced a BCFI event, in line with the safety threshold. The 3-year BCFI failure rate was 8.9%, similar to the 9.2% rate in an external control cohort from the SOFT/TEXT trials. In addition, 76.3% of patients resumed endocrine therapy; 15.4% had not yet resumed therapy.

“This trial is more confirmatory but an extremely important step for young women who want to get pregnant after diagnosis and recovery from HR-positive breast cancer,” Dr. Kaklamani said. “It seems that stopping endocrine therapy to become pregnant did not cause any adverse outcomes or increase the risk of reoccurrence of cancer in the women in the study.”

Dr. Mouabbi agreed, noting, “Many of our patients are afraid that they will miss the window to get pregnant because they have to be on treatment for so long. This is the first study that let us know pregnancy and safety outcomes in patients who took a break from endocrine therapy to get pregnant. The results are promising and will be exciting for many of our patients.”
 

4. Assay identifies OFS benefit

A genomic assay was able to distinguish premenopausal patients with early-stage HR-positive breast cancer who benefited from the addition of ovarian function suppression (OFS) to adjuvant endocrine therapy, according to new data presented at the meeting (GS1-06).

In the study, investigators analyzed 1,717 patient tumor samples from the landmark Suppression of Ovarian Function Trial (SOFT) trial. The Breast Cancer Index identified 58% of women who benefited from the addition of ovarian function suppression to tamoxifen or exemestane therapy. They experienced an absolute benefit of 11.6% (42% did not benefit), compared with those with received tamoxifen alone. The predictive benefit was observed regardless of age, lymph node involvement, and receipt of chemotherapy.

Dr. Kaklamani highlighted this study’s importance, saying, “Ovarian suppression is associated with severe adverse events for patients. Obviously, the women who will get a benefit should continue, but this research is important because it will hopefully show us who to recommend ovarian suppression to while not exposing patients who are likely to get little benefit to unneeded toxicity.”
 

5. Optimizing elacestrant PFS

Last year, data from the Emerald trial showed that elacestrant is superior to standard-of-care therapy for HR-positive metastatic breast cancer. An update that Dr. Kaklamani presented at SABCS (GS3-01) explored whether the duration of a prior CDK4/6 inhibitor affects PFS.

The study was a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial in which 478 patients with ER-positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer received either elacestrant or standard of care. These patients had previously received one or two lines of endocrine therapy, a CDK4/6 inhibitor, and ≤ 1 line of chemotherapy.

Overall, the duration of prior CDK4/6 inhibitor in the metastatic setting was positively associated with PFS – the longer the duration of prior CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy, the longer the PFS with elacestrant. PFS outcomes were even stronger among patients with ESR1 mutations.

“What we found was that the women who benefit most from elacestrant had previously received a CDK4/6 inhibitor for at least 6 months,” Dr. Kaklamani said. These data can help us determine who may do best on the drug, she added.

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

SAN ANTONIO – A wide range of research on hormone receptor (HR)–positive breast cancer was presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

This news organization spoke with SABCS program director Virginia Kaklamani, MD, leader of the Breast Cancer Program at UT Health, San Antonio, and Jason A. Mouabbi, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, about their top five picks on HR-positive disease – the research they were most excited about and what the findings could mean for clinical practice and patient outcomes.
 

1. Addressing an unmet need

Data from the phase 3 CAPItello-291 clinical trial showed that the addition of the investigational AKT inhibitor capivasertib to fulvestrant resulted in statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) among 708 patients with HR-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer, compared with those who received placebo plus fulvestrant (GS3-04).

For patients treated with capivasertib plus fulvestrant, median PFS was 7.2 months, compared with 3.6 months for those who received placebo plus fulvestrant (hazard ratio, 0.60). Among patients assigned to the capivasertib group, 41% had tumors with AKT pathway mutations. In this group, the median PFS was 7.3 months vs. 3.1 months in the placebo cohort. The objective response rate among patients with measurable disease was 23% overall in the capivasertib group, compared with 12.2% in the placebo arm; it was 28.8% vs. 9.7% among the patients with AKT alterations.

Dr. Mouabbi noted that the study “met its primary endpoint” and that, importantly, it “addresses an area of unmet need.”

“The study’s treatment targets the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway, which is a very active pathway in hormone-positive metastatic breast cancer,” Dr. Mouabbi explained. He noted, “We’ve always wanted to tackle that pathway effectively, and it looks like this drug can do that.”
 

2. Next-generation SERD

Data from the phase 2 SERENA-2 trial offers evidence that camizestrant, a next-generation selective estrogen-receptor degrader (SERD), improved PFS compared with fulvestrant for patients with HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer (GS3-02).

Overall, 240 patients were randomly assigned to receive camizestrant monotherapy at various doses or fulvestrant at 500 mg. Among patients who received camizestrant 75 mg, median PFS was 7.2 months; among those who received camizestrant 150 mg, PFS was slightly longer, at 7.7 months vs. 3.7 months for patients treated with fulvestrant. Compared with fulvestrant, camizestrant reduced the risk of disease progression by 42% at 75 mg (HR, 0.58) and by 33% at 150 mg (HR, 0.67). In a subgroup of patients with ESR1 mutations, camizestrant reduced the risk of disease progression by 67% in the group that received 75 mg and by 45% in the group that received 150 mg, compared with fulvestrant (median PFS, 6.3, 9.2, and 2.2 months, respectively).

“In this trial, camizestrant looks like a more beneficial treatment in the target group,” said Dr. Kaklamani. “This is significant because it means that camizestrant could be used in the future in HR-positive metastatic breast cancer instead of fulvestrant.” In addition, “camizestrant is taken orally and is much more convenient for patients, unlike fulvestrant, which is taken intramuscularly.”
 

3. Pregnancy risks

Can endocrine therapy be safely interrupted for women with breast cancer who wish to become pregnant? That’s what researchers tried to glean in a recent prospective trial presented at the meeting (GS4-09).

The study enrolled over 500 women for whom endocrine therapy had been stopped in the hopes of their becoming pregnant. Almost all (93.4%) had stage I/II HR-positive breast cancer. The primary objective was to determine the risk of breast cancer relapse associated with interrupting therapy for about 2 years. The authors defined no more than 46 breast cancer–free interval (BCFI) events as the safety threshold. A BCFI event was defined as local, regional, or distant recurrence or a new invasive contralateral breast cancer.

Among 497 women, 368 (74%) had at least one pregnancy and 317 (64%) had at least one live birth, for a total of 365 babies born. At a median follow-up of 41 months, 44 participants experienced a BCFI event, in line with the safety threshold. The 3-year BCFI failure rate was 8.9%, similar to the 9.2% rate in an external control cohort from the SOFT/TEXT trials. In addition, 76.3% of patients resumed endocrine therapy; 15.4% had not yet resumed therapy.

“This trial is more confirmatory but an extremely important step for young women who want to get pregnant after diagnosis and recovery from HR-positive breast cancer,” Dr. Kaklamani said. “It seems that stopping endocrine therapy to become pregnant did not cause any adverse outcomes or increase the risk of reoccurrence of cancer in the women in the study.”

Dr. Mouabbi agreed, noting, “Many of our patients are afraid that they will miss the window to get pregnant because they have to be on treatment for so long. This is the first study that let us know pregnancy and safety outcomes in patients who took a break from endocrine therapy to get pregnant. The results are promising and will be exciting for many of our patients.”
 

4. Assay identifies OFS benefit

A genomic assay was able to distinguish premenopausal patients with early-stage HR-positive breast cancer who benefited from the addition of ovarian function suppression (OFS) to adjuvant endocrine therapy, according to new data presented at the meeting (GS1-06).

In the study, investigators analyzed 1,717 patient tumor samples from the landmark Suppression of Ovarian Function Trial (SOFT) trial. The Breast Cancer Index identified 58% of women who benefited from the addition of ovarian function suppression to tamoxifen or exemestane therapy. They experienced an absolute benefit of 11.6% (42% did not benefit), compared with those with received tamoxifen alone. The predictive benefit was observed regardless of age, lymph node involvement, and receipt of chemotherapy.

Dr. Kaklamani highlighted this study’s importance, saying, “Ovarian suppression is associated with severe adverse events for patients. Obviously, the women who will get a benefit should continue, but this research is important because it will hopefully show us who to recommend ovarian suppression to while not exposing patients who are likely to get little benefit to unneeded toxicity.”
 

5. Optimizing elacestrant PFS

Last year, data from the Emerald trial showed that elacestrant is superior to standard-of-care therapy for HR-positive metastatic breast cancer. An update that Dr. Kaklamani presented at SABCS (GS3-01) explored whether the duration of a prior CDK4/6 inhibitor affects PFS.

The study was a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial in which 478 patients with ER-positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer received either elacestrant or standard of care. These patients had previously received one or two lines of endocrine therapy, a CDK4/6 inhibitor, and ≤ 1 line of chemotherapy.

Overall, the duration of prior CDK4/6 inhibitor in the metastatic setting was positively associated with PFS – the longer the duration of prior CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy, the longer the PFS with elacestrant. PFS outcomes were even stronger among patients with ESR1 mutations.

“What we found was that the women who benefit most from elacestrant had previously received a CDK4/6 inhibitor for at least 6 months,” Dr. Kaklamani said. These data can help us determine who may do best on the drug, she added.

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

Meharry Medical College, one of the oldest and largest historically Black academic health institutions in the United States, disclosed recently that its MD program had been placed on probationary status after a national accrediting agency’s onsite survey uncovered “infrastructure” problems earlier this year. Those include faculty shortages and inadequate student access to financial aid as well as to career and wellness counseling.

The inspection was conducted by the Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME), an accrediting body sponsored by the Association of American Medical Colleges and the American Medical Association.

While participation is voluntary, institutions must comply with 12 standards to maintain their standing. These include hiring qualified faculty and providing students with financial aid and debt management counseling.

Jeannette South-Paul, MD, Meharry’s senior vice president and chief academic officer, said in an interview that the degree program remains fully accredited despite the fact that LCME representatives found “notable areas of concern,” including the “need for some infrastructure updates and additional educational and financial resources for students.”

Specifically, students did not have sufficient access to advising services, broadband internet, and study spaces. In addition, faculty shortages caused delays in student evaluations, she said.

The new status does not affect the ability of students to complete their medical degrees or residency programs, she said. Dr. South-Paul added that school officials have begun addressing several of the issues and anticipate a swift resolution “guided by an aggressive action plan over the next 18-24 months.”

The university, located in Nashville, Tenn., has had accreditation problems before. In January, following a site visit and low scores on annual resident surveys, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) placed several of the schools’ residency and fellowship programs on probationary status.

At the time, school officials said that all programs would remain accredited, and they committed to expanding available resources, such as hiring additional staff and an independent expert to make program recommendations. A follow-up site visit was scheduled for August.

Regarding the most recent accreditation challenges, Veronica M. Catanese, MD, MBA, co-secretary of LCME, said the organization could only disclose the accreditation status of a medical school.

“LCME is not able to discuss any details concerning the accreditation of individual medical education programs, including the review process, resulting decisions, or survey results,” she said.

Established medical education programs typically undergo a self-study process and a full survey visit every 8 years. According to LCME’s website, a full survey visit may be conducted sooner if concerns arise about the program’s quality or sustainability.

The LCME program directory lists Meharry Medical College’s accreditation status as “full, on probation.” The next survey visit is scheduled for the 2023-2024 school year.

LCME accreditation is a prerequisite for having access to federal grants and programs, such as Title VII funding, which helps increase minority participation in health care careers. In addition, most state licensure boards and ACGME-affiliated residency programs require applicants to graduate from an LCME-accredited school.

Last year, when Meharry Medical College received pandemic aid money as part of the CARES Act, the school distributed nearly $10 million in scholarships to students – many of whom come from modest-income families and struggle to afford college tuition.

But in general, endowments to historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) are often at least 70% smaller than those made to non-HBCUs, which raises the question: Does the lack of funding make it more difficult for schools such as Meharry to maintain accreditation standards?

“Many different factors played into this finding by LCME,” said Dr. South-Paul. “It is a well-known fact that HBCUs have historically not been as well funded or possess the same size endowments as their mainstream academic peers. That is true of Meharry, but it would not be accurate to say this probation is because we are an HBCU.”

Similarly, Dr. Catanese said there is no evidence that HBCUs and non-HBCUs differ in their ability to meet LCME accreditation standards.

About half of the school’s residency and fellowship programs continue to have accreditation problems. According to ACGME’s database, the internal medicine program is currently on “continued accreditation with warning” status. The psychiatry and ob.gyn. programs are on “probationary accreditation” after receiving warnings in previous years.

Meharry was chartered in 1915 but was founded in 1876 as one of the first medical schools in the South for Black Americans.

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

Meharry Medical College, one of the oldest and largest historically Black academic health institutions in the United States, disclosed recently that its MD program had been placed on probationary status after a national accrediting agency’s onsite survey uncovered “infrastructure” problems earlier this year. Those include faculty shortages and inadequate student access to financial aid as well as to career and wellness counseling.

The inspection was conducted by the Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME), an accrediting body sponsored by the Association of American Medical Colleges and the American Medical Association.

While participation is voluntary, institutions must comply with 12 standards to maintain their standing. These include hiring qualified faculty and providing students with financial aid and debt management counseling.

Jeannette South-Paul, MD, Meharry’s senior vice president and chief academic officer, said in an interview that the degree program remains fully accredited despite the fact that LCME representatives found “notable areas of concern,” including the “need for some infrastructure updates and additional educational and financial resources for students.”

Specifically, students did not have sufficient access to advising services, broadband internet, and study spaces. In addition, faculty shortages caused delays in student evaluations, she said.

The new status does not affect the ability of students to complete their medical degrees or residency programs, she said. Dr. South-Paul added that school officials have begun addressing several of the issues and anticipate a swift resolution “guided by an aggressive action plan over the next 18-24 months.”

The university, located in Nashville, Tenn., has had accreditation problems before. In January, following a site visit and low scores on annual resident surveys, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) placed several of the schools’ residency and fellowship programs on probationary status.

At the time, school officials said that all programs would remain accredited, and they committed to expanding available resources, such as hiring additional staff and an independent expert to make program recommendations. A follow-up site visit was scheduled for August.

Regarding the most recent accreditation challenges, Veronica M. Catanese, MD, MBA, co-secretary of LCME, said the organization could only disclose the accreditation status of a medical school.

“LCME is not able to discuss any details concerning the accreditation of individual medical education programs, including the review process, resulting decisions, or survey results,” she said.

Established medical education programs typically undergo a self-study process and a full survey visit every 8 years. According to LCME’s website, a full survey visit may be conducted sooner if concerns arise about the program’s quality or sustainability.

The LCME program directory lists Meharry Medical College’s accreditation status as “full, on probation.” The next survey visit is scheduled for the 2023-2024 school year.

LCME accreditation is a prerequisite for having access to federal grants and programs, such as Title VII funding, which helps increase minority participation in health care careers. In addition, most state licensure boards and ACGME-affiliated residency programs require applicants to graduate from an LCME-accredited school.

Last year, when Meharry Medical College received pandemic aid money as part of the CARES Act, the school distributed nearly $10 million in scholarships to students – many of whom come from modest-income families and struggle to afford college tuition.

But in general, endowments to historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) are often at least 70% smaller than those made to non-HBCUs, which raises the question: Does the lack of funding make it more difficult for schools such as Meharry to maintain accreditation standards?

“Many different factors played into this finding by LCME,” said Dr. South-Paul. “It is a well-known fact that HBCUs have historically not been as well funded or possess the same size endowments as their mainstream academic peers. That is true of Meharry, but it would not be accurate to say this probation is because we are an HBCU.”

Similarly, Dr. Catanese said there is no evidence that HBCUs and non-HBCUs differ in their ability to meet LCME accreditation standards.

About half of the school’s residency and fellowship programs continue to have accreditation problems. According to ACGME’s database, the internal medicine program is currently on “continued accreditation with warning” status. The psychiatry and ob.gyn. programs are on “probationary accreditation” after receiving warnings in previous years.

Meharry was chartered in 1915 but was founded in 1876 as one of the first medical schools in the South for Black Americans.

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

Meharry Medical College, one of the oldest and largest historically Black academic health institutions in the United States, disclosed recently that its MD program had been placed on probationary status after a national accrediting agency’s onsite survey uncovered “infrastructure” problems earlier this year. Those include faculty shortages and inadequate student access to financial aid as well as to career and wellness counseling.

The inspection was conducted by the Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME), an accrediting body sponsored by the Association of American Medical Colleges and the American Medical Association.

While participation is voluntary, institutions must comply with 12 standards to maintain their standing. These include hiring qualified faculty and providing students with financial aid and debt management counseling.

Jeannette South-Paul, MD, Meharry’s senior vice president and chief academic officer, said in an interview that the degree program remains fully accredited despite the fact that LCME representatives found “notable areas of concern,” including the “need for some infrastructure updates and additional educational and financial resources for students.”

Specifically, students did not have sufficient access to advising services, broadband internet, and study spaces. In addition, faculty shortages caused delays in student evaluations, she said.

The new status does not affect the ability of students to complete their medical degrees or residency programs, she said. Dr. South-Paul added that school officials have begun addressing several of the issues and anticipate a swift resolution “guided by an aggressive action plan over the next 18-24 months.”

The university, located in Nashville, Tenn., has had accreditation problems before. In January, following a site visit and low scores on annual resident surveys, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) placed several of the schools’ residency and fellowship programs on probationary status.

At the time, school officials said that all programs would remain accredited, and they committed to expanding available resources, such as hiring additional staff and an independent expert to make program recommendations. A follow-up site visit was scheduled for August.

Regarding the most recent accreditation challenges, Veronica M. Catanese, MD, MBA, co-secretary of LCME, said the organization could only disclose the accreditation status of a medical school.

“LCME is not able to discuss any details concerning the accreditation of individual medical education programs, including the review process, resulting decisions, or survey results,” she said.

Established medical education programs typically undergo a self-study process and a full survey visit every 8 years. According to LCME’s website, a full survey visit may be conducted sooner if concerns arise about the program’s quality or sustainability.

The LCME program directory lists Meharry Medical College’s accreditation status as “full, on probation.” The next survey visit is scheduled for the 2023-2024 school year.

LCME accreditation is a prerequisite for having access to federal grants and programs, such as Title VII funding, which helps increase minority participation in health care careers. In addition, most state licensure boards and ACGME-affiliated residency programs require applicants to graduate from an LCME-accredited school.

Last year, when Meharry Medical College received pandemic aid money as part of the CARES Act, the school distributed nearly $10 million in scholarships to students – many of whom come from modest-income families and struggle to afford college tuition.

But in general, endowments to historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) are often at least 70% smaller than those made to non-HBCUs, which raises the question: Does the lack of funding make it more difficult for schools such as Meharry to maintain accreditation standards?

“Many different factors played into this finding by LCME,” said Dr. South-Paul. “It is a well-known fact that HBCUs have historically not been as well funded or possess the same size endowments as their mainstream academic peers. That is true of Meharry, but it would not be accurate to say this probation is because we are an HBCU.”

Similarly, Dr. Catanese said there is no evidence that HBCUs and non-HBCUs differ in their ability to meet LCME accreditation standards.

About half of the school’s residency and fellowship programs continue to have accreditation problems. According to ACGME’s database, the internal medicine program is currently on “continued accreditation with warning” status. The psychiatry and ob.gyn. programs are on “probationary accreditation” after receiving warnings in previous years.

Meharry was chartered in 1915 but was founded in 1876 as one of the first medical schools in the South for Black Americans.

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

Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr. F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.

We are coming to the end of the year, which always makes me think about getting older. Despite the fact that aging is, definitionally, inexorable, we continue to search for ways to avoid the losses that come with age, whether that is strength, beauty, or our cognitive powers. Much like the search for the fountain of youth, many promising leads have ultimately led to dead ends. And yet, I had high hopes for a trial that focused on two cornerstones of wellness – exercise and mindfulness – to address the subjective loss of memory that comes with aging. Alas, meditation and exercise do not appear to be the fountain of youth.

I’m talking about this study, appearing in JAMA, known as the MEDEX trial.

It’s a clever design: a 2 x 2 factorial randomized trial where participants could be randomized to a mindfulness intervention, an exercise intervention, both, or neither.

Courtesy Dr. F. Perry Wilson

In this manner, you can test multiple hypotheses exploiting a shared control group. Or as a mentor of mine used to say, you get two trials for the price of one and a half.

The participants were older adults, aged 65-84, living in the community. They had to be relatively sedentary at baseline and not engaging in mindfulness practices. They had to subjectively report some memory or concentration issues but had to be cognitively intact, based on a standard dementia screening test. In other words, these are your average older people who are worried that they aren’t as sharp as they used to be.

The interventions themselves were fairly intense. The exercise group had instructor-led sessions for 90 minutes twice a week for the first 6 months of the study, once a week thereafter. And participants were encouraged to exercise at home such that they had a total of 300 minutes of weekly exercise.

The mindfulness program was characterized by eight weekly classes of 2.5 hours each as well as a half-day retreat to teach the tenets of mindfulness and meditation, with monthly refreshers thereafter. Participants were instructed to meditate for 60 minutes a day in addition to the classes.

For the 144 people who were randomized to both meditation and exercise, this trial amounted to something of a part-time job. So you might think that adherence to the interventions was low, but apparently that’s not the case. Attendance to the mindfulness classes was over 90%, and over 80% for the exercise classes. And diary-based reporting of home efforts was also pretty good.

The control group wasn’t left to their own devices. Recognizing that the community aspect of exercise or mindfulness classes might convey a benefit independent of the actual exercise or mindfulness, the control group met on a similar schedule to discuss health education, but no mention of exercise or mindfulness occurred in that setting.

The primary outcome was change in memory and executive function scores across a battery of neuropsychologic testing, but the story is told in just a few pictures.

Memory scores improved in all three groups – mindfulness, exercise, and health education – over time. Cognitive composite score improved in all three groups similarly. There was no synergistic effect of mindfulness and exercise either. Basically, everyone got a bit better.

But the study did way more than look at scores on tests. Researchers used MRI to measure brain anatomic outcomes as well. And the surprising thing is that virtually none of these outcomes were different between the groups either.

Hippocampal volume decreased a bit in all the groups. Dorsolateral prefrontal cortex volume was flat. There was no change in scores measuring tasks of daily living.

When you see negative results like this, right away you worry that the intervention wasn’t properly delivered. Were these people really exercising and meditating? Well, the authors showed that individuals randomized to exercise, at least, had less sleep latency, greater aerobic fitness, and greater strength. So we know something was happening.

They then asked, would the people in the exercise group with the greatest changes in those physiologic parameters show some improvement in cognitive parameters? In other words, we know you were exercising because you got stronger and are sleeping better; is your memory better? The answer? Surprisingly, still no. Even in that honestly somewhat cherry-picked group, the interventions had no effect.

Could it be that the control was inappropriate, that the “health education” intervention was actually so helpful that it obscured the benefits of exercise and meditation? After all, cognitive scores did improve in all groups. The authors doubt it. They say they think the improvement in cognitive scores reflects the fact that patients had learned a bit about how to take the tests. This is pretty common in the neuropsychiatric literature.

So here we are and I just want to say, well, shoot. This is not the result I wanted. And I think the reason I’m so disappointed is because aging and the loss of cognitive faculties that comes with aging are just sort of scary. We are all looking for some control over that fear, and how nice it would be to be able to tell ourselves not to worry – that we won’t have those problems as we get older because we exercise, or meditate, or drink red wine, or don’t drink wine, or whatever. And while I have no doubt that staying healthier physically will keep you healthier mentally, it may take more than one simple thing to move the needle.

Dr. Wilson is associate professor, department of medicine, and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr. F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.

We are coming to the end of the year, which always makes me think about getting older. Despite the fact that aging is, definitionally, inexorable, we continue to search for ways to avoid the losses that come with age, whether that is strength, beauty, or our cognitive powers. Much like the search for the fountain of youth, many promising leads have ultimately led to dead ends. And yet, I had high hopes for a trial that focused on two cornerstones of wellness – exercise and mindfulness – to address the subjective loss of memory that comes with aging. Alas, meditation and exercise do not appear to be the fountain of youth.

I’m talking about this study, appearing in JAMA, known as the MEDEX trial.

It’s a clever design: a 2 x 2 factorial randomized trial where participants could be randomized to a mindfulness intervention, an exercise intervention, both, or neither.

Courtesy Dr. F. Perry Wilson

In this manner, you can test multiple hypotheses exploiting a shared control group. Or as a mentor of mine used to say, you get two trials for the price of one and a half.

The participants were older adults, aged 65-84, living in the community. They had to be relatively sedentary at baseline and not engaging in mindfulness practices. They had to subjectively report some memory or concentration issues but had to be cognitively intact, based on a standard dementia screening test. In other words, these are your average older people who are worried that they aren’t as sharp as they used to be.

The interventions themselves were fairly intense. The exercise group had instructor-led sessions for 90 minutes twice a week for the first 6 months of the study, once a week thereafter. And participants were encouraged to exercise at home such that they had a total of 300 minutes of weekly exercise.

The mindfulness program was characterized by eight weekly classes of 2.5 hours each as well as a half-day retreat to teach the tenets of mindfulness and meditation, with monthly refreshers thereafter. Participants were instructed to meditate for 60 minutes a day in addition to the classes.

For the 144 people who were randomized to both meditation and exercise, this trial amounted to something of a part-time job. So you might think that adherence to the interventions was low, but apparently that’s not the case. Attendance to the mindfulness classes was over 90%, and over 80% for the exercise classes. And diary-based reporting of home efforts was also pretty good.

The control group wasn’t left to their own devices. Recognizing that the community aspect of exercise or mindfulness classes might convey a benefit independent of the actual exercise or mindfulness, the control group met on a similar schedule to discuss health education, but no mention of exercise or mindfulness occurred in that setting.

The primary outcome was change in memory and executive function scores across a battery of neuropsychologic testing, but the story is told in just a few pictures.

Memory scores improved in all three groups – mindfulness, exercise, and health education – over time. Cognitive composite score improved in all three groups similarly. There was no synergistic effect of mindfulness and exercise either. Basically, everyone got a bit better.

But the study did way more than look at scores on tests. Researchers used MRI to measure brain anatomic outcomes as well. And the surprising thing is that virtually none of these outcomes were different between the groups either.

Hippocampal volume decreased a bit in all the groups. Dorsolateral prefrontal cortex volume was flat. There was no change in scores measuring tasks of daily living.

When you see negative results like this, right away you worry that the intervention wasn’t properly delivered. Were these people really exercising and meditating? Well, the authors showed that individuals randomized to exercise, at least, had less sleep latency, greater aerobic fitness, and greater strength. So we know something was happening.

They then asked, would the people in the exercise group with the greatest changes in those physiologic parameters show some improvement in cognitive parameters? In other words, we know you were exercising because you got stronger and are sleeping better; is your memory better? The answer? Surprisingly, still no. Even in that honestly somewhat cherry-picked group, the interventions had no effect.

Could it be that the control was inappropriate, that the “health education” intervention was actually so helpful that it obscured the benefits of exercise and meditation? After all, cognitive scores did improve in all groups. The authors doubt it. They say they think the improvement in cognitive scores reflects the fact that patients had learned a bit about how to take the tests. This is pretty common in the neuropsychiatric literature.

So here we are and I just want to say, well, shoot. This is not the result I wanted. And I think the reason I’m so disappointed is because aging and the loss of cognitive faculties that comes with aging are just sort of scary. We are all looking for some control over that fear, and how nice it would be to be able to tell ourselves not to worry – that we won’t have those problems as we get older because we exercise, or meditate, or drink red wine, or don’t drink wine, or whatever. And while I have no doubt that staying healthier physically will keep you healthier mentally, it may take more than one simple thing to move the needle.

Dr. Wilson is associate professor, department of medicine, and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr. F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.

We are coming to the end of the year, which always makes me think about getting older. Despite the fact that aging is, definitionally, inexorable, we continue to search for ways to avoid the losses that come with age, whether that is strength, beauty, or our cognitive powers. Much like the search for the fountain of youth, many promising leads have ultimately led to dead ends. And yet, I had high hopes for a trial that focused on two cornerstones of wellness – exercise and mindfulness – to address the subjective loss of memory that comes with aging. Alas, meditation and exercise do not appear to be the fountain of youth.

I’m talking about this study, appearing in JAMA, known as the MEDEX trial.

It’s a clever design: a 2 x 2 factorial randomized trial where participants could be randomized to a mindfulness intervention, an exercise intervention, both, or neither.

Courtesy Dr. F. Perry Wilson

In this manner, you can test multiple hypotheses exploiting a shared control group. Or as a mentor of mine used to say, you get two trials for the price of one and a half.

The participants were older adults, aged 65-84, living in the community. They had to be relatively sedentary at baseline and not engaging in mindfulness practices. They had to subjectively report some memory or concentration issues but had to be cognitively intact, based on a standard dementia screening test. In other words, these are your average older people who are worried that they aren’t as sharp as they used to be.

The interventions themselves were fairly intense. The exercise group had instructor-led sessions for 90 minutes twice a week for the first 6 months of the study, once a week thereafter. And participants were encouraged to exercise at home such that they had a total of 300 minutes of weekly exercise.

The mindfulness program was characterized by eight weekly classes of 2.5 hours each as well as a half-day retreat to teach the tenets of mindfulness and meditation, with monthly refreshers thereafter. Participants were instructed to meditate for 60 minutes a day in addition to the classes.

For the 144 people who were randomized to both meditation and exercise, this trial amounted to something of a part-time job. So you might think that adherence to the interventions was low, but apparently that’s not the case. Attendance to the mindfulness classes was over 90%, and over 80% for the exercise classes. And diary-based reporting of home efforts was also pretty good.

The control group wasn’t left to their own devices. Recognizing that the community aspect of exercise or mindfulness classes might convey a benefit independent of the actual exercise or mindfulness, the control group met on a similar schedule to discuss health education, but no mention of exercise or mindfulness occurred in that setting.

The primary outcome was change in memory and executive function scores across a battery of neuropsychologic testing, but the story is told in just a few pictures.

Memory scores improved in all three groups – mindfulness, exercise, and health education – over time. Cognitive composite score improved in all three groups similarly. There was no synergistic effect of mindfulness and exercise either. Basically, everyone got a bit better.

But the study did way more than look at scores on tests. Researchers used MRI to measure brain anatomic outcomes as well. And the surprising thing is that virtually none of these outcomes were different between the groups either.

Hippocampal volume decreased a bit in all the groups. Dorsolateral prefrontal cortex volume was flat. There was no change in scores measuring tasks of daily living.

When you see negative results like this, right away you worry that the intervention wasn’t properly delivered. Were these people really exercising and meditating? Well, the authors showed that individuals randomized to exercise, at least, had less sleep latency, greater aerobic fitness, and greater strength. So we know something was happening.

They then asked, would the people in the exercise group with the greatest changes in those physiologic parameters show some improvement in cognitive parameters? In other words, we know you were exercising because you got stronger and are sleeping better; is your memory better? The answer? Surprisingly, still no. Even in that honestly somewhat cherry-picked group, the interventions had no effect.

Could it be that the control was inappropriate, that the “health education” intervention was actually so helpful that it obscured the benefits of exercise and meditation? After all, cognitive scores did improve in all groups. The authors doubt it. They say they think the improvement in cognitive scores reflects the fact that patients had learned a bit about how to take the tests. This is pretty common in the neuropsychiatric literature.

So here we are and I just want to say, well, shoot. This is not the result I wanted. And I think the reason I’m so disappointed is because aging and the loss of cognitive faculties that comes with aging are just sort of scary. We are all looking for some control over that fear, and how nice it would be to be able to tell ourselves not to worry – that we won’t have those problems as we get older because we exercise, or meditate, or drink red wine, or don’t drink wine, or whatever. And while I have no doubt that staying healthier physically will keep you healthier mentally, it may take more than one simple thing to move the needle.

Dr. Wilson is associate professor, department of medicine, and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He reported no conflicts of interest.

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

A 35-year-old woman with a history of hypothyroidism and idiopathic small fiber autonomic and sensory neuropathy presented to the emergency department (ED) 48 hours after IV immunoglobulin (IG) infusion with a severe headache, nausea, neck stiffness, photophobia, and episodes of intense positional eye pressure. The patient reported previous episodes of headaches post-IVIG infusion but not nearly as severe. On ED arrival, the patient was afebrile with vital signs within normal limits. Initial laboratory results were notable for levels within reference range parameters: 5.9 × 10⁹/L white blood cell (WBC) count, 13.3 g/dL hemoglobin, 38.7% hematocrit, and 279 × 10⁹/L platelet count; there were no abnormal urinalysis findings, and she was negative for human chorionic gonadotropin.

Due to the patient’s symptoms concerning for an acute intracranial process, a brain computed tomography (CT) without contrast was ordered. The CT demonstrated no intracranial abnormalities, but the patient’s symptoms continued to worsen. The patient was started on IV fluids and 1 g IV acetaminophen and underwent a lumbar puncture (LP). Her opening pressure was elevated at 29 cm H₂O (reference range, 6-20 cm), and the fluid was notably clear. During the LP, 25 mL of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) was collected for laboratory analysis to include a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) panel and cultures, and a closing pressure of 12 cm H₂O was recorded at the end of the procedure with the patient reporting some relief of pressure. The patient was admitted to the medicine ward for further workup and observations.The patient’s meningitis/encephalitis PCR panel detected no pathogens in the CSF, but her WBC count was 84 × 10⁹/L (reference range, 4-11) with 30 segmented neutrophils (reference range, 0-6) and red blood cell count of 24 (reference range, 0-1); her normal glucose at 60 mg/dL (reference range, 40-70) and protein of 33 mg/dL (reference range, 15-45) were within normal parameters. Brain magnetic resonance images with and without contrast was inconsistent with any acute intracranial pathology to include subarachnoid hemorrhage or central nervous system neoplasm (Figure 1). Bacterial and fungal cultures were negative.