I have assumed that being a parent has always been an anxiety-producing experience. Even back when the neonatal mortality rate was orders of magnitude greater than we are experiencing now, I suspect that each birth was still accompanied by a period of angst. However, as families no longer felt the need to produce more children to replace those lost to illness, each surviving child fell under the glare of an ever brightening spotlight.

Raising a child no longer became just something that came naturally, learned from one’s parents. Philosophers and eventually physicians felt obligated to advise parents on the best practices. My parents turned to Dr. Benjamin Spock’s classic work when they had a question, but I never got the feeling that they took his words as gospel.

By the time I started in practice the condition of being a parent was morphing into a verb. Books on “parenting” were beginning to fill the shelves of libraries and bookstores. Frustrated by what I saw as poorly conceived instruction manuals I succumbed to the temptation to spread my “better” advice for anxiety-tormented parents by writing books on how to feed picky eaters, or how to get erratic sleepers to sleep, or how to get a misbehaving child to understand the simple concept of “No!”

Back in the pre-Internet days I was competing for the attention of anxiety-driven parents not just with other self-described experts sitting at word processors, but with grandmothers, aunts, and the ladies next door. The book publishing market has cooled but the demand for advice on how to be the best parent has heated up. Into the void, enabled by the Internet, has erupted the phenomenon of social-media mom groups.

The lady next door and the mothers with strollers meeting informally at the playground are a tiny blip on the radar screen compared with the abundance of other mothers eager to listen and comment on social media–based mom groups unlimited by either geographic or temporal time restraints.

Unfortunately, as a recent article in the Wall Street Journal suggests, these support groups can often have a dark side. Researchers from Pepperdine University found in a small survey of a homogenous population of women that stress, as measured by saliva cortisol levels, increased with increasing use of “mom-centric social media” sites.

Citing anecdotal observations by mothers who did not participate in the study, the WSJ article describes episodes of shaming over topics such as steroid use in eczema and vaccine hesitancy. One mother described how she found group discussions about breastfeeding “particularly anxiety-producing.”

I have limited experience with online support groups but I have been surprised by how rude and condescending some of the contributors can be to what I could consider to be emotionally neutral subjects such as outboard motor oil pressure. I can imagine that when it comes to subjects in which there is no one best answer, the relative anonymity of the Internet provides cover for language that can be hurtful and stress inducing for someone already feeling isolated and anxious about being a parent.

Although this Pepperdine study is small, I suspect that a larger study would support the authors’ observations. For us as providers, it suggests that we need to find where parents are getting their information when we are trying to help those who seem particularly distressed. We should caution them that, while sharing information with peers can be reassuring and helpful at times, mom groups can be toxic as well. It also means that we should be careful in recommending social media sites – even those for which we have had good feedback.

And, most importantly, we must continue to work hard to make ourselves available to provide sensible and sensitive answers to those questions that are anxiety-producing for new parents.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

I have assumed that being a parent has always been an anxiety-producing experience. Even back when the neonatal mortality rate was orders of magnitude greater than we are experiencing now, I suspect that each birth was still accompanied by a period of angst. However, as families no longer felt the need to produce more children to replace those lost to illness, each surviving child fell under the glare of an ever brightening spotlight.

Raising a child no longer became just something that came naturally, learned from one’s parents. Philosophers and eventually physicians felt obligated to advise parents on the best practices. My parents turned to Dr. Benjamin Spock’s classic work when they had a question, but I never got the feeling that they took his words as gospel.

By the time I started in practice the condition of being a parent was morphing into a verb. Books on “parenting” were beginning to fill the shelves of libraries and bookstores. Frustrated by what I saw as poorly conceived instruction manuals I succumbed to the temptation to spread my “better” advice for anxiety-tormented parents by writing books on how to feed picky eaters, or how to get erratic sleepers to sleep, or how to get a misbehaving child to understand the simple concept of “No!”

Back in the pre-Internet days I was competing for the attention of anxiety-driven parents not just with other self-described experts sitting at word processors, but with grandmothers, aunts, and the ladies next door. The book publishing market has cooled but the demand for advice on how to be the best parent has heated up. Into the void, enabled by the Internet, has erupted the phenomenon of social-media mom groups.

The lady next door and the mothers with strollers meeting informally at the playground are a tiny blip on the radar screen compared with the abundance of other mothers eager to listen and comment on social media–based mom groups unlimited by either geographic or temporal time restraints.

Unfortunately, as a recent article in the Wall Street Journal suggests, these support groups can often have a dark side. Researchers from Pepperdine University found in a small survey of a homogenous population of women that stress, as measured by saliva cortisol levels, increased with increasing use of “mom-centric social media” sites.

Citing anecdotal observations by mothers who did not participate in the study, the WSJ article describes episodes of shaming over topics such as steroid use in eczema and vaccine hesitancy. One mother described how she found group discussions about breastfeeding “particularly anxiety-producing.”

I have limited experience with online support groups but I have been surprised by how rude and condescending some of the contributors can be to what I could consider to be emotionally neutral subjects such as outboard motor oil pressure. I can imagine that when it comes to subjects in which there is no one best answer, the relative anonymity of the Internet provides cover for language that can be hurtful and stress inducing for someone already feeling isolated and anxious about being a parent.

Although this Pepperdine study is small, I suspect that a larger study would support the authors’ observations. For us as providers, it suggests that we need to find where parents are getting their information when we are trying to help those who seem particularly distressed. We should caution them that, while sharing information with peers can be reassuring and helpful at times, mom groups can be toxic as well. It also means that we should be careful in recommending social media sites – even those for which we have had good feedback.

And, most importantly, we must continue to work hard to make ourselves available to provide sensible and sensitive answers to those questions that are anxiety-producing for new parents.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

I have assumed that being a parent has always been an anxiety-producing experience. Even back when the neonatal mortality rate was orders of magnitude greater than we are experiencing now, I suspect that each birth was still accompanied by a period of angst. However, as families no longer felt the need to produce more children to replace those lost to illness, each surviving child fell under the glare of an ever brightening spotlight.

Raising a child no longer became just something that came naturally, learned from one’s parents. Philosophers and eventually physicians felt obligated to advise parents on the best practices. My parents turned to Dr. Benjamin Spock’s classic work when they had a question, but I never got the feeling that they took his words as gospel.

By the time I started in practice the condition of being a parent was morphing into a verb. Books on “parenting” were beginning to fill the shelves of libraries and bookstores. Frustrated by what I saw as poorly conceived instruction manuals I succumbed to the temptation to spread my “better” advice for anxiety-tormented parents by writing books on how to feed picky eaters, or how to get erratic sleepers to sleep, or how to get a misbehaving child to understand the simple concept of “No!”

Back in the pre-Internet days I was competing for the attention of anxiety-driven parents not just with other self-described experts sitting at word processors, but with grandmothers, aunts, and the ladies next door. The book publishing market has cooled but the demand for advice on how to be the best parent has heated up. Into the void, enabled by the Internet, has erupted the phenomenon of social-media mom groups.

The lady next door and the mothers with strollers meeting informally at the playground are a tiny blip on the radar screen compared with the abundance of other mothers eager to listen and comment on social media–based mom groups unlimited by either geographic or temporal time restraints.

Unfortunately, as a recent article in the Wall Street Journal suggests, these support groups can often have a dark side. Researchers from Pepperdine University found in a small survey of a homogenous population of women that stress, as measured by saliva cortisol levels, increased with increasing use of “mom-centric social media” sites.

Citing anecdotal observations by mothers who did not participate in the study, the WSJ article describes episodes of shaming over topics such as steroid use in eczema and vaccine hesitancy. One mother described how she found group discussions about breastfeeding “particularly anxiety-producing.”

I have limited experience with online support groups but I have been surprised by how rude and condescending some of the contributors can be to what I could consider to be emotionally neutral subjects such as outboard motor oil pressure. I can imagine that when it comes to subjects in which there is no one best answer, the relative anonymity of the Internet provides cover for language that can be hurtful and stress inducing for someone already feeling isolated and anxious about being a parent.

Although this Pepperdine study is small, I suspect that a larger study would support the authors’ observations. For us as providers, it suggests that we need to find where parents are getting their information when we are trying to help those who seem particularly distressed. We should caution them that, while sharing information with peers can be reassuring and helpful at times, mom groups can be toxic as well. It also means that we should be careful in recommending social media sites – even those for which we have had good feedback.

And, most importantly, we must continue to work hard to make ourselves available to provide sensible and sensitive answers to those questions that are anxiety-producing for new parents.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

Any of four variants of genes associated with immunity can significantly increase a carrier’s risk for developing progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML) after exposure to immunosuppressing drugs, a team of European and U.S. investigators reported.

The four-gene signature could be used to screen patients who are currently taking or are candidates for drugs know to increase risk for PML, a rare but frequently lethal demyelinating disorder of the central nervous system, according to Eli Hatchwell, MD, PhD, from Population BIO UK in Oxfordshire, England, and colleagues.

“Due to the seriousness of a PML diagnosis – particularly because it often leads to life-threatening outcomes and the lack of treatment options once it develops – it would seem unethical not to test individuals considering immunosuppressive therapies with PML risk for our top four variants, and advising those with a positive result to consider an alternative therapy or treatment strategy,” they wrote in a study published in Frontiers in Neurology.
 

Benign virus, bad disease

PML is caused by reactivation of the otherwise benign JC virus (JCV), also known as human polyomavirus 2. (The “J” and “C” in the virus’ common name stand for John Cunningham, a man with Hodgkin lymphoma from whose brain the virus was first isolated, in 1971.)

The estimated prevalence of JCV infection ranges from 40% to 70% of the population worldwide, although PML itself is rare, with an incidence of approximately 1 in 200,000.

PML is a complication of treatment with targeted monoclonal antibodies, such as natalizumab (Tysabri), rituximab (Rituxan), alemtuzumab (Campath; Lemtrada), and other agents with immunosuppressive properties, such as dimethyl fumarate and mycophenolate mofetil.

In addition, PML can occur among patients with diseases that disrupt or inhibit natural immunity, such as HIV/AIDS, hematologic cancers, and autoimmune diseases.
 

Predisposing variants suspected

Dr. Hatchwell and colleagues hypothesized that some patients may have rare genetic variants in immune-system genes that predispose them to increased risk for PML. The researchers had previously shown an association between PML and 19 genetic risk variants among 184 patients with PML.

In the current study, they looked at variants in an additional 152 patients with PML who served as a validation sample. Of the 19 risk variants they had previously identified, the investigators narrowed the field down to 4 variants in both population controls and in a matched control set consisting of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) who were positive for JCV and who were on therapy with a PML-linked drug for at least 2 years.

The four variants they identified, all linked to immune viral defense, were C8B, 1-57409459-C-A, rs139498867; LY9 (a checkpoint regulator also known as SLAMF3), 1-160769595-AG-A, rs763811636; FCN2, 9-137779251-G-A, rs76267164; and STXBP2, 19-7712287-G-C, rs35490401.

In all, 10.9% of patients with PML carried at least one of the variants.

The investigators reported that carriers of any one of the variants has a nearly ninefold risk for developing PML after exposure to a PML-linked drug compared with non-carriers with similar drug exposures (odds ratio, 8.7; P < .001).

“Measures of clinical validity and utility compare favorably to other genetic risk tests, such as BRCA1 and BRCA2 screening for breast cancer risk and HLA-B_15:02 pharmacogenetic screening for pharmacovigilance of carbamazepine to prevent Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis,” the authors noted.
 

Screening? Maybe

In a press release, Lawrence Steinman, MD, from Stanford (Calif.) University, who was not involved in the study, stated that “preventative screening for these variants should become part of the standard of care. I wish we had more powerful tools like this for other therapies.”

But another neurologist who was not involved in the study commented that the finding, while “exciting” as a confirmation study, is not as yet practice changing.

“It does give us very good confidence that these four genes are indeed risk factors that increase the risk of this brain infection by quite a bit, so that makes it very exciting,” said Robert Fox, MD, from the Neurological Institute at the Cleveland Clinic.

“Indeed, we are trying to risk-stratify patients to try to reduce the risk of PML in the patients treated with our MS drugs. So for natalizumab we risk stratify by testing them for JC virus serology. Half of people don’t have it and we say ‘OK, you’re good to go.’ With other drugs like Tecfidera – dimethyl fumarate – we follow their lymphocyte counts, so when their lymphocyte counts drop too low we say ‘OK, you need to come off the drug because of the risk of PML,’ ” he said in an interview.

The four-gene signature, however, only identifies about 11% of patients with PML, which is not a sufficiently large enough effect to be clinically useful. For example, the risk for PML in patients treated with natalizumab is about 1%, and if the test can only detect enhanced risk in about 11% of those patients, the risk would drop from 1% to 0.9%, which “doesn’t really the move needle much,” he pointed out.

Dr. Fox also noted that neurologists now have a large formulary of drugs to offer their patients, including agents (such as interferon-beta and corticosteroids that are not associated with increased risk for PML).

The study was funded by Emerald Lake Safety and Population Bio. Dr. Hatchwell and several coauthors are employees of the respective companies, and several are inventors of genetic screening methods for PML. Dr. Steiman has disclosed consulting for TG Therapeutics. Dr. Fox reported consulting for manufacturers of MS therapies.

Any of four variants of genes associated with immunity can significantly increase a carrier’s risk for developing progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML) after exposure to immunosuppressing drugs, a team of European and U.S. investigators reported.

The four-gene signature could be used to screen patients who are currently taking or are candidates for drugs know to increase risk for PML, a rare but frequently lethal demyelinating disorder of the central nervous system, according to Eli Hatchwell, MD, PhD, from Population BIO UK in Oxfordshire, England, and colleagues.

“Due to the seriousness of a PML diagnosis – particularly because it often leads to life-threatening outcomes and the lack of treatment options once it develops – it would seem unethical not to test individuals considering immunosuppressive therapies with PML risk for our top four variants, and advising those with a positive result to consider an alternative therapy or treatment strategy,” they wrote in a study published in Frontiers in Neurology.
 

Benign virus, bad disease

PML is caused by reactivation of the otherwise benign JC virus (JCV), also known as human polyomavirus 2. (The “J” and “C” in the virus’ common name stand for John Cunningham, a man with Hodgkin lymphoma from whose brain the virus was first isolated, in 1971.)

The estimated prevalence of JCV infection ranges from 40% to 70% of the population worldwide, although PML itself is rare, with an incidence of approximately 1 in 200,000.

PML is a complication of treatment with targeted monoclonal antibodies, such as natalizumab (Tysabri), rituximab (Rituxan), alemtuzumab (Campath; Lemtrada), and other agents with immunosuppressive properties, such as dimethyl fumarate and mycophenolate mofetil.

In addition, PML can occur among patients with diseases that disrupt or inhibit natural immunity, such as HIV/AIDS, hematologic cancers, and autoimmune diseases.
 

Predisposing variants suspected

Dr. Hatchwell and colleagues hypothesized that some patients may have rare genetic variants in immune-system genes that predispose them to increased risk for PML. The researchers had previously shown an association between PML and 19 genetic risk variants among 184 patients with PML.

In the current study, they looked at variants in an additional 152 patients with PML who served as a validation sample. Of the 19 risk variants they had previously identified, the investigators narrowed the field down to 4 variants in both population controls and in a matched control set consisting of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) who were positive for JCV and who were on therapy with a PML-linked drug for at least 2 years.

The four variants they identified, all linked to immune viral defense, were C8B, 1-57409459-C-A, rs139498867; LY9 (a checkpoint regulator also known as SLAMF3), 1-160769595-AG-A, rs763811636; FCN2, 9-137779251-G-A, rs76267164; and STXBP2, 19-7712287-G-C, rs35490401.

In all, 10.9% of patients with PML carried at least one of the variants.

The investigators reported that carriers of any one of the variants has a nearly ninefold risk for developing PML after exposure to a PML-linked drug compared with non-carriers with similar drug exposures (odds ratio, 8.7; P < .001).

“Measures of clinical validity and utility compare favorably to other genetic risk tests, such as BRCA1 and BRCA2 screening for breast cancer risk and HLA-B_15:02 pharmacogenetic screening for pharmacovigilance of carbamazepine to prevent Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis,” the authors noted.
 

Screening? Maybe

In a press release, Lawrence Steinman, MD, from Stanford (Calif.) University, who was not involved in the study, stated that “preventative screening for these variants should become part of the standard of care. I wish we had more powerful tools like this for other therapies.”

But another neurologist who was not involved in the study commented that the finding, while “exciting” as a confirmation study, is not as yet practice changing.

“It does give us very good confidence that these four genes are indeed risk factors that increase the risk of this brain infection by quite a bit, so that makes it very exciting,” said Robert Fox, MD, from the Neurological Institute at the Cleveland Clinic.

“Indeed, we are trying to risk-stratify patients to try to reduce the risk of PML in the patients treated with our MS drugs. So for natalizumab we risk stratify by testing them for JC virus serology. Half of people don’t have it and we say ‘OK, you’re good to go.’ With other drugs like Tecfidera – dimethyl fumarate – we follow their lymphocyte counts, so when their lymphocyte counts drop too low we say ‘OK, you need to come off the drug because of the risk of PML,’ ” he said in an interview.

The four-gene signature, however, only identifies about 11% of patients with PML, which is not a sufficiently large enough effect to be clinically useful. For example, the risk for PML in patients treated with natalizumab is about 1%, and if the test can only detect enhanced risk in about 11% of those patients, the risk would drop from 1% to 0.9%, which “doesn’t really the move needle much,” he pointed out.

Dr. Fox also noted that neurologists now have a large formulary of drugs to offer their patients, including agents (such as interferon-beta and corticosteroids that are not associated with increased risk for PML).

The study was funded by Emerald Lake Safety and Population Bio. Dr. Hatchwell and several coauthors are employees of the respective companies, and several are inventors of genetic screening methods for PML. Dr. Steiman has disclosed consulting for TG Therapeutics. Dr. Fox reported consulting for manufacturers of MS therapies.

Any of four variants of genes associated with immunity can significantly increase a carrier’s risk for developing progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML) after exposure to immunosuppressing drugs, a team of European and U.S. investigators reported.

The four-gene signature could be used to screen patients who are currently taking or are candidates for drugs know to increase risk for PML, a rare but frequently lethal demyelinating disorder of the central nervous system, according to Eli Hatchwell, MD, PhD, from Population BIO UK in Oxfordshire, England, and colleagues.

“Due to the seriousness of a PML diagnosis – particularly because it often leads to life-threatening outcomes and the lack of treatment options once it develops – it would seem unethical not to test individuals considering immunosuppressive therapies with PML risk for our top four variants, and advising those with a positive result to consider an alternative therapy or treatment strategy,” they wrote in a study published in Frontiers in Neurology.
 

Benign virus, bad disease

PML is caused by reactivation of the otherwise benign JC virus (JCV), also known as human polyomavirus 2. (The “J” and “C” in the virus’ common name stand for John Cunningham, a man with Hodgkin lymphoma from whose brain the virus was first isolated, in 1971.)

The estimated prevalence of JCV infection ranges from 40% to 70% of the population worldwide, although PML itself is rare, with an incidence of approximately 1 in 200,000.

PML is a complication of treatment with targeted monoclonal antibodies, such as natalizumab (Tysabri), rituximab (Rituxan), alemtuzumab (Campath; Lemtrada), and other agents with immunosuppressive properties, such as dimethyl fumarate and mycophenolate mofetil.

In addition, PML can occur among patients with diseases that disrupt or inhibit natural immunity, such as HIV/AIDS, hematologic cancers, and autoimmune diseases.
 

Predisposing variants suspected

Dr. Hatchwell and colleagues hypothesized that some patients may have rare genetic variants in immune-system genes that predispose them to increased risk for PML. The researchers had previously shown an association between PML and 19 genetic risk variants among 184 patients with PML.

In the current study, they looked at variants in an additional 152 patients with PML who served as a validation sample. Of the 19 risk variants they had previously identified, the investigators narrowed the field down to 4 variants in both population controls and in a matched control set consisting of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) who were positive for JCV and who were on therapy with a PML-linked drug for at least 2 years.

The four variants they identified, all linked to immune viral defense, were C8B, 1-57409459-C-A, rs139498867; LY9 (a checkpoint regulator also known as SLAMF3), 1-160769595-AG-A, rs763811636; FCN2, 9-137779251-G-A, rs76267164; and STXBP2, 19-7712287-G-C, rs35490401.

In all, 10.9% of patients with PML carried at least one of the variants.

The investigators reported that carriers of any one of the variants has a nearly ninefold risk for developing PML after exposure to a PML-linked drug compared with non-carriers with similar drug exposures (odds ratio, 8.7; P < .001).

“Measures of clinical validity and utility compare favorably to other genetic risk tests, such as BRCA1 and BRCA2 screening for breast cancer risk and HLA-B_15:02 pharmacogenetic screening for pharmacovigilance of carbamazepine to prevent Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis,” the authors noted.
 

Screening? Maybe

In a press release, Lawrence Steinman, MD, from Stanford (Calif.) University, who was not involved in the study, stated that “preventative screening for these variants should become part of the standard of care. I wish we had more powerful tools like this for other therapies.”

But another neurologist who was not involved in the study commented that the finding, while “exciting” as a confirmation study, is not as yet practice changing.

“It does give us very good confidence that these four genes are indeed risk factors that increase the risk of this brain infection by quite a bit, so that makes it very exciting,” said Robert Fox, MD, from the Neurological Institute at the Cleveland Clinic.

“Indeed, we are trying to risk-stratify patients to try to reduce the risk of PML in the patients treated with our MS drugs. So for natalizumab we risk stratify by testing them for JC virus serology. Half of people don’t have it and we say ‘OK, you’re good to go.’ With other drugs like Tecfidera – dimethyl fumarate – we follow their lymphocyte counts, so when their lymphocyte counts drop too low we say ‘OK, you need to come off the drug because of the risk of PML,’ ” he said in an interview.

The four-gene signature, however, only identifies about 11% of patients with PML, which is not a sufficiently large enough effect to be clinically useful. For example, the risk for PML in patients treated with natalizumab is about 1%, and if the test can only detect enhanced risk in about 11% of those patients, the risk would drop from 1% to 0.9%, which “doesn’t really the move needle much,” he pointed out.

Dr. Fox also noted that neurologists now have a large formulary of drugs to offer their patients, including agents (such as interferon-beta and corticosteroids that are not associated with increased risk for PML).

The study was funded by Emerald Lake Safety and Population Bio. Dr. Hatchwell and several coauthors are employees of the respective companies, and several are inventors of genetic screening methods for PML. Dr. Steiman has disclosed consulting for TG Therapeutics. Dr. Fox reported consulting for manufacturers of MS therapies.

SAN DIEGO – Proper patient selection and setting realistic expectations are the keys to enhancing results with fractional radiofrequency (RF) microneedling devices, according to Catherine M. DiGiorgio, MD.

Most core fractional RF microneedling indications – acne scars, rhytides, skin tightening – require multiple treatments, Dr. DiGiorgio, a laser and cosmetic dermatologist who practices in Boston, said at the annual Masters of Aesthetics Symposium. “That’s an important expectation to set for your patients,” she said. “You also want to select depth and density parameters based on pathophysiology of the condition being treated, and combination treatments always provide the best results. So, whether you’re treating someone for acne scars or rhytides, you want to treat them for their erythema or their dermatoheliosis. The same goes for skin tightening procedures.”

Many nonpolar and bipolar devices are available for use, most of which feature adjustable depths and energies. Tips can be insulated or noninsulated. Generally, the insulated tips are safer for darker skin types because the energy is not delivered to the epidermis. However, the Sylfirm X device from Benev has a noninsulated tip but is safe for all skin types because the energy is delivered from the tip of a conically shaped needle and moves proximally but never reaches the epidermis, said Dr. DiGiorgio. Continuous wave mode is used for tightening and wrinkles while pulsed mode is used for pigment and vascular lesions.

Treatment with most fractional RF microneedling devices is painful so topical anesthesia is required. Dr. DiGiorgio typically uses topical 23% lidocaine and 7% tetracaine. The downtime varies depending on which device is being used. For anesthesia prior to aggressive fractional microneedle RF treatments such as with the Profound RF for skin tightening, Dr. DiGiorgio typically uses a Mesoram needle with a cocktail of 30 ccs of 2% lidocaine with epinephrine, 15 ccs of bicarbonate, and 5 ccs of saline. “More aggressive RF procedures can result in bruising for 7 to 8 days,” she said. “It can be covered with makeup. Wearing masks during the COVID-19 pandemic have also helped patients cover the bruising.”

In her clinical experience, the ideal patient for skin tightening with fractional RF microneedling has mild to moderate skin laxity that does not require surgical intervention. “Nonsurgical treatments provide nonsurgical results,” she said. “If a patient comes in holding their skin back and there is a lot of laxity, this is not going to be the right treatment for that person.”

Dr. DiGiorgio offers fractional RF microneedling in the context of a full-face rejuvenation. She begins by addressing volume loss and dynamic rhytides with injectables prior to skin tightening devices such as fractional RF microneedling or ultrasound-based tightening devices such as Sofwave or Ulthera (also referred to as Ultherapy). “You can add an ablative fractional to target deeper rhytides or pigment-targeting laser to address their dermatoheliosis, which will enhance their results,” she said. “Finally, you can follow up with a thread lift two weeks after the microneedle RF to achieve greater skin tightening. If the thread lift is performed before the microneedle RF, you want to wait about 2 months because the microneedle RF can damage the thread.”

Despite the limited efficacy for tissue tightening with fractional RF microneedling, “it’s a good alternative to lasers, especially for darker skin types,” she said. “Combination treatments will always enhance your results.”

Dr. DiGiorgio disclosed that she is a member of the advisory board for Quthero. She is also a consultant for Revelle and has received equipment from Acclaro.

SAN DIEGO – Proper patient selection and setting realistic expectations are the keys to enhancing results with fractional radiofrequency (RF) microneedling devices, according to Catherine M. DiGiorgio, MD.

Most core fractional RF microneedling indications – acne scars, rhytides, skin tightening – require multiple treatments, Dr. DiGiorgio, a laser and cosmetic dermatologist who practices in Boston, said at the annual Masters of Aesthetics Symposium. “That’s an important expectation to set for your patients,” she said. “You also want to select depth and density parameters based on pathophysiology of the condition being treated, and combination treatments always provide the best results. So, whether you’re treating someone for acne scars or rhytides, you want to treat them for their erythema or their dermatoheliosis. The same goes for skin tightening procedures.”

Many nonpolar and bipolar devices are available for use, most of which feature adjustable depths and energies. Tips can be insulated or noninsulated. Generally, the insulated tips are safer for darker skin types because the energy is not delivered to the epidermis. However, the Sylfirm X device from Benev has a noninsulated tip but is safe for all skin types because the energy is delivered from the tip of a conically shaped needle and moves proximally but never reaches the epidermis, said Dr. DiGiorgio. Continuous wave mode is used for tightening and wrinkles while pulsed mode is used for pigment and vascular lesions.

Treatment with most fractional RF microneedling devices is painful so topical anesthesia is required. Dr. DiGiorgio typically uses topical 23% lidocaine and 7% tetracaine. The downtime varies depending on which device is being used. For anesthesia prior to aggressive fractional microneedle RF treatments such as with the Profound RF for skin tightening, Dr. DiGiorgio typically uses a Mesoram needle with a cocktail of 30 ccs of 2% lidocaine with epinephrine, 15 ccs of bicarbonate, and 5 ccs of saline. “More aggressive RF procedures can result in bruising for 7 to 8 days,” she said. “It can be covered with makeup. Wearing masks during the COVID-19 pandemic have also helped patients cover the bruising.”

In her clinical experience, the ideal patient for skin tightening with fractional RF microneedling has mild to moderate skin laxity that does not require surgical intervention. “Nonsurgical treatments provide nonsurgical results,” she said. “If a patient comes in holding their skin back and there is a lot of laxity, this is not going to be the right treatment for that person.”

Dr. DiGiorgio offers fractional RF microneedling in the context of a full-face rejuvenation. She begins by addressing volume loss and dynamic rhytides with injectables prior to skin tightening devices such as fractional RF microneedling or ultrasound-based tightening devices such as Sofwave or Ulthera (also referred to as Ultherapy). “You can add an ablative fractional to target deeper rhytides or pigment-targeting laser to address their dermatoheliosis, which will enhance their results,” she said. “Finally, you can follow up with a thread lift two weeks after the microneedle RF to achieve greater skin tightening. If the thread lift is performed before the microneedle RF, you want to wait about 2 months because the microneedle RF can damage the thread.”

Despite the limited efficacy for tissue tightening with fractional RF microneedling, “it’s a good alternative to lasers, especially for darker skin types,” she said. “Combination treatments will always enhance your results.”

Dr. DiGiorgio disclosed that she is a member of the advisory board for Quthero. She is also a consultant for Revelle and has received equipment from Acclaro.

SAN DIEGO – Proper patient selection and setting realistic expectations are the keys to enhancing results with fractional radiofrequency (RF) microneedling devices, according to Catherine M. DiGiorgio, MD.

Most core fractional RF microneedling indications – acne scars, rhytides, skin tightening – require multiple treatments, Dr. DiGiorgio, a laser and cosmetic dermatologist who practices in Boston, said at the annual Masters of Aesthetics Symposium. “That’s an important expectation to set for your patients,” she said. “You also want to select depth and density parameters based on pathophysiology of the condition being treated, and combination treatments always provide the best results. So, whether you’re treating someone for acne scars or rhytides, you want to treat them for their erythema or their dermatoheliosis. The same goes for skin tightening procedures.”

Many nonpolar and bipolar devices are available for use, most of which feature adjustable depths and energies. Tips can be insulated or noninsulated. Generally, the insulated tips are safer for darker skin types because the energy is not delivered to the epidermis. However, the Sylfirm X device from Benev has a noninsulated tip but is safe for all skin types because the energy is delivered from the tip of a conically shaped needle and moves proximally but never reaches the epidermis, said Dr. DiGiorgio. Continuous wave mode is used for tightening and wrinkles while pulsed mode is used for pigment and vascular lesions.

Treatment with most fractional RF microneedling devices is painful so topical anesthesia is required. Dr. DiGiorgio typically uses topical 23% lidocaine and 7% tetracaine. The downtime varies depending on which device is being used. For anesthesia prior to aggressive fractional microneedle RF treatments such as with the Profound RF for skin tightening, Dr. DiGiorgio typically uses a Mesoram needle with a cocktail of 30 ccs of 2% lidocaine with epinephrine, 15 ccs of bicarbonate, and 5 ccs of saline. “More aggressive RF procedures can result in bruising for 7 to 8 days,” she said. “It can be covered with makeup. Wearing masks during the COVID-19 pandemic have also helped patients cover the bruising.”

In her clinical experience, the ideal patient for skin tightening with fractional RF microneedling has mild to moderate skin laxity that does not require surgical intervention. “Nonsurgical treatments provide nonsurgical results,” she said. “If a patient comes in holding their skin back and there is a lot of laxity, this is not going to be the right treatment for that person.”

Dr. DiGiorgio offers fractional RF microneedling in the context of a full-face rejuvenation. She begins by addressing volume loss and dynamic rhytides with injectables prior to skin tightening devices such as fractional RF microneedling or ultrasound-based tightening devices such as Sofwave or Ulthera (also referred to as Ultherapy). “You can add an ablative fractional to target deeper rhytides or pigment-targeting laser to address their dermatoheliosis, which will enhance their results,” she said. “Finally, you can follow up with a thread lift two weeks after the microneedle RF to achieve greater skin tightening. If the thread lift is performed before the microneedle RF, you want to wait about 2 months because the microneedle RF can damage the thread.”

Despite the limited efficacy for tissue tightening with fractional RF microneedling, “it’s a good alternative to lasers, especially for darker skin types,” she said. “Combination treatments will always enhance your results.”

Dr. DiGiorgio disclosed that she is a member of the advisory board for Quthero. She is also a consultant for Revelle and has received equipment from Acclaro.

My year is now over. My staff and I started the habit of closing down mid-December in 2013, when we realized that patients generally didn’t want to come in then, either.

To me a year really ends the day we close up for the holidays. I put away the season’s decorations, send the final batch to my billing company, and lock the door. Not much of a New Year’s, but at my age it’s not a holiday I mark, anyway. It’s more a relief that my office year, at least, is done.

So it’s always a time for reflection, between the more mundane work of returning calls, reviewing the tests that come in, and getting taxes ready. I try to relax as much as I can (given the weird state of our times, I haven’t left town since November 2019, so this is my vacation for now).

Plus, my kids all come home. I have no idea how much longer that’s going to happen, so I’ll enjoy it while I can.

It’s now almost 3 years since I last rounded at a hospital, and I can’t say I miss it. While I usually have plenty to do on my breaks and weekends, and the occasional patient call to return, it’s nice to know that I can stay in my robe, PJs, and slippers through it all.

2022 certainly wasn’t bad for my family and me, though not as good as any of us hoped. The world, already battered by the pandemic, was thrown into greater uncertainty by the war in Europe and its ramifications across the globe. In comparison, I’m very grateful that higher prices are the extent of my suffering as compared with what the people of Ukraine are going through.

But, at the end of it all, my little practice and two wonderful staff are still here, just as we’ve been since 2000. My kids will (hopefully) all be through college by the end of 2023 and moving on with their lives. I love them, and will miss them if they move away, but part of being a parent is accepting that your kids are only visitors and have their own paths to follow.

For my staff I’m glad they’ve stuck with me through good and bad times, and that we still have fun together – even when we haven’t worked under the same roof in a while.

For my patients and their families we’ve seen a few glimmers of optimism in treatments and hopefully they’ll continue to grow and be built upon. Heaven knows my field – and many others – can use them.

And so, with my 2022 having quietly ended, I look forward to 2023 and, hopefully, good things for all.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

My year is now over. My staff and I started the habit of closing down mid-December in 2013, when we realized that patients generally didn’t want to come in then, either.

To me a year really ends the day we close up for the holidays. I put away the season’s decorations, send the final batch to my billing company, and lock the door. Not much of a New Year’s, but at my age it’s not a holiday I mark, anyway. It’s more a relief that my office year, at least, is done.

So it’s always a time for reflection, between the more mundane work of returning calls, reviewing the tests that come in, and getting taxes ready. I try to relax as much as I can (given the weird state of our times, I haven’t left town since November 2019, so this is my vacation for now).

Plus, my kids all come home. I have no idea how much longer that’s going to happen, so I’ll enjoy it while I can.

It’s now almost 3 years since I last rounded at a hospital, and I can’t say I miss it. While I usually have plenty to do on my breaks and weekends, and the occasional patient call to return, it’s nice to know that I can stay in my robe, PJs, and slippers through it all.

2022 certainly wasn’t bad for my family and me, though not as good as any of us hoped. The world, already battered by the pandemic, was thrown into greater uncertainty by the war in Europe and its ramifications across the globe. In comparison, I’m very grateful that higher prices are the extent of my suffering as compared with what the people of Ukraine are going through.

But, at the end of it all, my little practice and two wonderful staff are still here, just as we’ve been since 2000. My kids will (hopefully) all be through college by the end of 2023 and moving on with their lives. I love them, and will miss them if they move away, but part of being a parent is accepting that your kids are only visitors and have their own paths to follow.

For my staff I’m glad they’ve stuck with me through good and bad times, and that we still have fun together – even when we haven’t worked under the same roof in a while.

For my patients and their families we’ve seen a few glimmers of optimism in treatments and hopefully they’ll continue to grow and be built upon. Heaven knows my field – and many others – can use them.

And so, with my 2022 having quietly ended, I look forward to 2023 and, hopefully, good things for all.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

My year is now over. My staff and I started the habit of closing down mid-December in 2013, when we realized that patients generally didn’t want to come in then, either.

To me a year really ends the day we close up for the holidays. I put away the season’s decorations, send the final batch to my billing company, and lock the door. Not much of a New Year’s, but at my age it’s not a holiday I mark, anyway. It’s more a relief that my office year, at least, is done.

So it’s always a time for reflection, between the more mundane work of returning calls, reviewing the tests that come in, and getting taxes ready. I try to relax as much as I can (given the weird state of our times, I haven’t left town since November 2019, so this is my vacation for now).

Plus, my kids all come home. I have no idea how much longer that’s going to happen, so I’ll enjoy it while I can.

It’s now almost 3 years since I last rounded at a hospital, and I can’t say I miss it. While I usually have plenty to do on my breaks and weekends, and the occasional patient call to return, it’s nice to know that I can stay in my robe, PJs, and slippers through it all.

2022 certainly wasn’t bad for my family and me, though not as good as any of us hoped. The world, already battered by the pandemic, was thrown into greater uncertainty by the war in Europe and its ramifications across the globe. In comparison, I’m very grateful that higher prices are the extent of my suffering as compared with what the people of Ukraine are going through.

But, at the end of it all, my little practice and two wonderful staff are still here, just as we’ve been since 2000. My kids will (hopefully) all be through college by the end of 2023 and moving on with their lives. I love them, and will miss them if they move away, but part of being a parent is accepting that your kids are only visitors and have their own paths to follow.

For my staff I’m glad they’ve stuck with me through good and bad times, and that we still have fun together – even when we haven’t worked under the same roof in a while.

For my patients and their families we’ve seen a few glimmers of optimism in treatments and hopefully they’ll continue to grow and be built upon. Heaven knows my field – and many others – can use them.

And so, with my 2022 having quietly ended, I look forward to 2023 and, hopefully, good things for all.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

CHICAGO – Black patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) may receive more benefit from treatment with a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor than do White patients, according to a new report.

A secondary analysis of data collected from the pivotal trials that assessed the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin in patients with HFrEF, EMPEROR-Reduced, and in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), EMPEROR-Preserved, was presented by Subodh Verma, MD, PhD, at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The “hypothesis-generating” analysis of data from EMPEROR-Reduced showed “a suggestion of a greater benefit of empagliflozin” in Black, compared with White patients, for the study’s primary endpoint (cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure) as well as for first and total hospitalizations for heart failure, he reported.

However, a similar but separate analysis that compared Black and White patients with heart failure who received treatment with a second agent, dapagliflozin, from the same SGLT2-inhibitor class did not show any suggestion of heterogeneity in the drug’s effect based on race.
 

Race-linked heterogeneity in empagliflozin’s effect

In EMPEROR-Reduced, which randomized 3,730 patients with heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction of 40% or less, treatment of White patients with empagliflozin (Jardiance) produced a nonsignificant 16% relative reduction in the rate of the primary endpoint, compared with placebo, during a median 16-month follow-up.

By contrast, among Black patients, treatment with empagliflozin produced a significant 56% reduction in the primary endpoint, compared with placebo-treated patients, a significant heterogeneity (P = .02) in effect between the two race subgroups, said Dr. Verma, a cardiac surgeon and professor at the University of Toronto.

The analysis he reported used combined data from EMPEROR-Reduced and the companion trial EMPEROR-Preserved, which randomized 5,988 patients with heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction greater than 40% to treatment with either empagliflozin or placebo and followed them for a median of 26 months.

To assess the effects of the randomized treatments in the two racial subgroups, Dr. Verma and associates used pooled data from both trials, but only from the 3,502 patients enrolled in the Americas, which included 3,024 White patients and 478 Black patients. Analysis of the patients in this subgroup who were randomized to placebo showed a significantly excess rate of the primary outcome among Blacks, who tallied 49% more of the primary outcome events during follow-up than did White patients, Dr. Verma reported. The absolute rate of the primary outcome without empagliflozin treatment was 13.15 events/100 patient-years of follow-up in White patients and 20.83 events/100 patient-years in Black patients.

The impact of empagliflozin was not statistically heterogeneous in the total pool of patients that included both those with HFrEF and those with HFpEF. The drug reduced the primary outcome incidence by a significant 20% in White patients, and by a significant 44% among Black patients.

But this point-estimate difference in efficacy, when coupled with the underlying difference in risk for an event between the two racial groups, meant that the number-needed-to-treat to prevent one primary outcome event was 42 among White patients and 12 among Black patients.
 

Race-linked treatment responses only in HFrEF

This suggestion of an imbalance in treatment efficacy was especially apparent among patients with HFrEF. In addition to the heterogeneity for the primary outcome, the Black and White subgroups also showed significantly divergent results for the outcomes of first hospitalization for heart failure, with a nonsignificant 21% relative reduction with empagliflozin treatment in Whites but a significant 65% relative cut in this endpoint with empagliflozin in Blacks, and for total hospitalizations for heart failure, which showed a similar level of significant heterogeneity between the two race subgroups.

In contrast, the patients with HFpEF showed no signal at all for heterogeneous outcome rates between Black and White subgroups.

One other study outcome, change in symptom burden measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), also showed suggestion of a race-based imbalance. The adjusted mean difference from baseline in the KCCQ clinical summary score was 1.50 points higher with empagliflozin treatment, compared with placebo among all White patients (those with HFrEF and those with HFpEF), and compared with a 5.25-point increase with empagliflozin over placebo among all Black patients with heart failure in the pooled American EMPEROR dataset, a difference between White and Black patients that just missed significance (P = .06). Again, this difference was especially notable and significant among the patients with HFrEF, where the adjusted mean difference in KCCQ was a 0.77-point increase in White patients and a 6.71-point increase among Black patients (P = .043),

These results also appeared in a report published simultaneously with Dr. Verma’s talk.

But two other analyses that assessed a possible race-based difference in empagliflozin’s effect on renal protection and on functional status showed no suggestion of heterogeneity.

Dr. Verma stressed caution about the limitations of these analyses because they involved a relatively small number of Black patients, and were possibly subject to unadjusted confounding from differences in baseline characteristics between the Black and White patients.

Black patients also had a number-needed-to-treat advantage with dapagliflozin

The finding that Black patients with heart failure potentially get more bang for the buck from treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor by having a lower number needed to treat also showed up in a separate report at the meeting that assessed the treatment effect from dapagliflozin (Farxiga) in Black and White patients in a pooled analysis of the DAPA-HF pivotal trial of patients with HFrEF and the DELIVER pivotal trial of patients with HFpEF. The pooled cohort included a total of 11,007, but for the analysis by race the investigators also limited their focus to patients from the Americas with 2,626 White patients and 381 Black patients.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Assessment of the effect of dapagliflozin on the primary outcome of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure among all patients, both those with HFrEF and those with HFpEF, again showed that event rates among patients treated with placebo were significantly higher in Black, compared with White patients, and this led to a difference in the number needed to treat to prevent one primary outcome event of 12 in Blacks and 17 in Whites, Jawad H. Butt, MD said in a talk at the meeting.

Although treatment with dapagliflozin reduced the rate of the primary outcome in this subgroup of patients from the DAPA-HF trial and the DELIVER trial by similar rates in Black and White patients, event rates were higher in the Black patients resulting in “greater benefit in absolute terms” for Black patients, explained Dr. Butt, a cardiologist at Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen.

But in contrast to the empagliflozin findings reported by Dr. Verma, the combined data from the dapagliflozin trials showed no suggestion of heterogeneity in the beneficial effect of dapagliflozin based on left ventricular ejection fraction. In the Black patients, for example, the relative benefit from dapagliflozin on the primary outcome was consistent across the full spectrum of patients with HFrEF and HFpEF.

EMPEROR-Reduced and EMPEROR-Preserved were sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly, the companies that jointly market empagliflozin (Jardiance). The DAPA-HF and DELIVER trials were sponsored by AstraZeneca, the company that markets dapagliflozin (Farxiga). Dr. Verma has received honoraria, research support, or both from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Lilly, and from numerous other companies. Dr. Butt has been a consultant to and received travel grants from AstraZeneca, honoraria from Novartis, and has been an adviser to Bayer.




 

CHICAGO – Black patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) may receive more benefit from treatment with a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor than do White patients, according to a new report.

A secondary analysis of data collected from the pivotal trials that assessed the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin in patients with HFrEF, EMPEROR-Reduced, and in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), EMPEROR-Preserved, was presented by Subodh Verma, MD, PhD, at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The “hypothesis-generating” analysis of data from EMPEROR-Reduced showed “a suggestion of a greater benefit of empagliflozin” in Black, compared with White patients, for the study’s primary endpoint (cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure) as well as for first and total hospitalizations for heart failure, he reported.

However, a similar but separate analysis that compared Black and White patients with heart failure who received treatment with a second agent, dapagliflozin, from the same SGLT2-inhibitor class did not show any suggestion of heterogeneity in the drug’s effect based on race.
 

Race-linked heterogeneity in empagliflozin’s effect

In EMPEROR-Reduced, which randomized 3,730 patients with heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction of 40% or less, treatment of White patients with empagliflozin (Jardiance) produced a nonsignificant 16% relative reduction in the rate of the primary endpoint, compared with placebo, during a median 16-month follow-up.

By contrast, among Black patients, treatment with empagliflozin produced a significant 56% reduction in the primary endpoint, compared with placebo-treated patients, a significant heterogeneity (P = .02) in effect between the two race subgroups, said Dr. Verma, a cardiac surgeon and professor at the University of Toronto.

The analysis he reported used combined data from EMPEROR-Reduced and the companion trial EMPEROR-Preserved, which randomized 5,988 patients with heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction greater than 40% to treatment with either empagliflozin or placebo and followed them for a median of 26 months.

To assess the effects of the randomized treatments in the two racial subgroups, Dr. Verma and associates used pooled data from both trials, but only from the 3,502 patients enrolled in the Americas, which included 3,024 White patients and 478 Black patients. Analysis of the patients in this subgroup who were randomized to placebo showed a significantly excess rate of the primary outcome among Blacks, who tallied 49% more of the primary outcome events during follow-up than did White patients, Dr. Verma reported. The absolute rate of the primary outcome without empagliflozin treatment was 13.15 events/100 patient-years of follow-up in White patients and 20.83 events/100 patient-years in Black patients.

The impact of empagliflozin was not statistically heterogeneous in the total pool of patients that included both those with HFrEF and those with HFpEF. The drug reduced the primary outcome incidence by a significant 20% in White patients, and by a significant 44% among Black patients.

But this point-estimate difference in efficacy, when coupled with the underlying difference in risk for an event between the two racial groups, meant that the number-needed-to-treat to prevent one primary outcome event was 42 among White patients and 12 among Black patients.
 

Race-linked treatment responses only in HFrEF

This suggestion of an imbalance in treatment efficacy was especially apparent among patients with HFrEF. In addition to the heterogeneity for the primary outcome, the Black and White subgroups also showed significantly divergent results for the outcomes of first hospitalization for heart failure, with a nonsignificant 21% relative reduction with empagliflozin treatment in Whites but a significant 65% relative cut in this endpoint with empagliflozin in Blacks, and for total hospitalizations for heart failure, which showed a similar level of significant heterogeneity between the two race subgroups.

In contrast, the patients with HFpEF showed no signal at all for heterogeneous outcome rates between Black and White subgroups.

One other study outcome, change in symptom burden measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), also showed suggestion of a race-based imbalance. The adjusted mean difference from baseline in the KCCQ clinical summary score was 1.50 points higher with empagliflozin treatment, compared with placebo among all White patients (those with HFrEF and those with HFpEF), and compared with a 5.25-point increase with empagliflozin over placebo among all Black patients with heart failure in the pooled American EMPEROR dataset, a difference between White and Black patients that just missed significance (P = .06). Again, this difference was especially notable and significant among the patients with HFrEF, where the adjusted mean difference in KCCQ was a 0.77-point increase in White patients and a 6.71-point increase among Black patients (P = .043),

These results also appeared in a report published simultaneously with Dr. Verma’s talk.

But two other analyses that assessed a possible race-based difference in empagliflozin’s effect on renal protection and on functional status showed no suggestion of heterogeneity.

Dr. Verma stressed caution about the limitations of these analyses because they involved a relatively small number of Black patients, and were possibly subject to unadjusted confounding from differences in baseline characteristics between the Black and White patients.

Black patients also had a number-needed-to-treat advantage with dapagliflozin

The finding that Black patients with heart failure potentially get more bang for the buck from treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor by having a lower number needed to treat also showed up in a separate report at the meeting that assessed the treatment effect from dapagliflozin (Farxiga) in Black and White patients in a pooled analysis of the DAPA-HF pivotal trial of patients with HFrEF and the DELIVER pivotal trial of patients with HFpEF. The pooled cohort included a total of 11,007, but for the analysis by race the investigators also limited their focus to patients from the Americas with 2,626 White patients and 381 Black patients.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Assessment of the effect of dapagliflozin on the primary outcome of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure among all patients, both those with HFrEF and those with HFpEF, again showed that event rates among patients treated with placebo were significantly higher in Black, compared with White patients, and this led to a difference in the number needed to treat to prevent one primary outcome event of 12 in Blacks and 17 in Whites, Jawad H. Butt, MD said in a talk at the meeting.

Although treatment with dapagliflozin reduced the rate of the primary outcome in this subgroup of patients from the DAPA-HF trial and the DELIVER trial by similar rates in Black and White patients, event rates were higher in the Black patients resulting in “greater benefit in absolute terms” for Black patients, explained Dr. Butt, a cardiologist at Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen.

But in contrast to the empagliflozin findings reported by Dr. Verma, the combined data from the dapagliflozin trials showed no suggestion of heterogeneity in the beneficial effect of dapagliflozin based on left ventricular ejection fraction. In the Black patients, for example, the relative benefit from dapagliflozin on the primary outcome was consistent across the full spectrum of patients with HFrEF and HFpEF.

EMPEROR-Reduced and EMPEROR-Preserved were sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly, the companies that jointly market empagliflozin (Jardiance). The DAPA-HF and DELIVER trials were sponsored by AstraZeneca, the company that markets dapagliflozin (Farxiga). Dr. Verma has received honoraria, research support, or both from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Lilly, and from numerous other companies. Dr. Butt has been a consultant to and received travel grants from AstraZeneca, honoraria from Novartis, and has been an adviser to Bayer.




 

CHICAGO – Black patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) may receive more benefit from treatment with a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor than do White patients, according to a new report.

A secondary analysis of data collected from the pivotal trials that assessed the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin in patients with HFrEF, EMPEROR-Reduced, and in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), EMPEROR-Preserved, was presented by Subodh Verma, MD, PhD, at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The “hypothesis-generating” analysis of data from EMPEROR-Reduced showed “a suggestion of a greater benefit of empagliflozin” in Black, compared with White patients, for the study’s primary endpoint (cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure) as well as for first and total hospitalizations for heart failure, he reported.

However, a similar but separate analysis that compared Black and White patients with heart failure who received treatment with a second agent, dapagliflozin, from the same SGLT2-inhibitor class did not show any suggestion of heterogeneity in the drug’s effect based on race.
 

Race-linked heterogeneity in empagliflozin’s effect

In EMPEROR-Reduced, which randomized 3,730 patients with heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction of 40% or less, treatment of White patients with empagliflozin (Jardiance) produced a nonsignificant 16% relative reduction in the rate of the primary endpoint, compared with placebo, during a median 16-month follow-up.

By contrast, among Black patients, treatment with empagliflozin produced a significant 56% reduction in the primary endpoint, compared with placebo-treated patients, a significant heterogeneity (P = .02) in effect between the two race subgroups, said Dr. Verma, a cardiac surgeon and professor at the University of Toronto.

The analysis he reported used combined data from EMPEROR-Reduced and the companion trial EMPEROR-Preserved, which randomized 5,988 patients with heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction greater than 40% to treatment with either empagliflozin or placebo and followed them for a median of 26 months.

To assess the effects of the randomized treatments in the two racial subgroups, Dr. Verma and associates used pooled data from both trials, but only from the 3,502 patients enrolled in the Americas, which included 3,024 White patients and 478 Black patients. Analysis of the patients in this subgroup who were randomized to placebo showed a significantly excess rate of the primary outcome among Blacks, who tallied 49% more of the primary outcome events during follow-up than did White patients, Dr. Verma reported. The absolute rate of the primary outcome without empagliflozin treatment was 13.15 events/100 patient-years of follow-up in White patients and 20.83 events/100 patient-years in Black patients.

The impact of empagliflozin was not statistically heterogeneous in the total pool of patients that included both those with HFrEF and those with HFpEF. The drug reduced the primary outcome incidence by a significant 20% in White patients, and by a significant 44% among Black patients.

But this point-estimate difference in efficacy, when coupled with the underlying difference in risk for an event between the two racial groups, meant that the number-needed-to-treat to prevent one primary outcome event was 42 among White patients and 12 among Black patients.
 

Race-linked treatment responses only in HFrEF

This suggestion of an imbalance in treatment efficacy was especially apparent among patients with HFrEF. In addition to the heterogeneity for the primary outcome, the Black and White subgroups also showed significantly divergent results for the outcomes of first hospitalization for heart failure, with a nonsignificant 21% relative reduction with empagliflozin treatment in Whites but a significant 65% relative cut in this endpoint with empagliflozin in Blacks, and for total hospitalizations for heart failure, which showed a similar level of significant heterogeneity between the two race subgroups.

In contrast, the patients with HFpEF showed no signal at all for heterogeneous outcome rates between Black and White subgroups.

One other study outcome, change in symptom burden measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), also showed suggestion of a race-based imbalance. The adjusted mean difference from baseline in the KCCQ clinical summary score was 1.50 points higher with empagliflozin treatment, compared with placebo among all White patients (those with HFrEF and those with HFpEF), and compared with a 5.25-point increase with empagliflozin over placebo among all Black patients with heart failure in the pooled American EMPEROR dataset, a difference between White and Black patients that just missed significance (P = .06). Again, this difference was especially notable and significant among the patients with HFrEF, where the adjusted mean difference in KCCQ was a 0.77-point increase in White patients and a 6.71-point increase among Black patients (P = .043),

These results also appeared in a report published simultaneously with Dr. Verma’s talk.

But two other analyses that assessed a possible race-based difference in empagliflozin’s effect on renal protection and on functional status showed no suggestion of heterogeneity.

Dr. Verma stressed caution about the limitations of these analyses because they involved a relatively small number of Black patients, and were possibly subject to unadjusted confounding from differences in baseline characteristics between the Black and White patients.

Black patients also had a number-needed-to-treat advantage with dapagliflozin

The finding that Black patients with heart failure potentially get more bang for the buck from treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor by having a lower number needed to treat also showed up in a separate report at the meeting that assessed the treatment effect from dapagliflozin (Farxiga) in Black and White patients in a pooled analysis of the DAPA-HF pivotal trial of patients with HFrEF and the DELIVER pivotal trial of patients with HFpEF. The pooled cohort included a total of 11,007, but for the analysis by race the investigators also limited their focus to patients from the Americas with 2,626 White patients and 381 Black patients.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Assessment of the effect of dapagliflozin on the primary outcome of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure among all patients, both those with HFrEF and those with HFpEF, again showed that event rates among patients treated with placebo were significantly higher in Black, compared with White patients, and this led to a difference in the number needed to treat to prevent one primary outcome event of 12 in Blacks and 17 in Whites, Jawad H. Butt, MD said in a talk at the meeting.

Although treatment with dapagliflozin reduced the rate of the primary outcome in this subgroup of patients from the DAPA-HF trial and the DELIVER trial by similar rates in Black and White patients, event rates were higher in the Black patients resulting in “greater benefit in absolute terms” for Black patients, explained Dr. Butt, a cardiologist at Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen.

But in contrast to the empagliflozin findings reported by Dr. Verma, the combined data from the dapagliflozin trials showed no suggestion of heterogeneity in the beneficial effect of dapagliflozin based on left ventricular ejection fraction. In the Black patients, for example, the relative benefit from dapagliflozin on the primary outcome was consistent across the full spectrum of patients with HFrEF and HFpEF.

EMPEROR-Reduced and EMPEROR-Preserved were sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly, the companies that jointly market empagliflozin (Jardiance). The DAPA-HF and DELIVER trials were sponsored by AstraZeneca, the company that markets dapagliflozin (Farxiga). Dr. Verma has received honoraria, research support, or both from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Lilly, and from numerous other companies. Dr. Butt has been a consultant to and received travel grants from AstraZeneca, honoraria from Novartis, and has been an adviser to Bayer.




 

The Diagnosis: Sweet Syndrome (Acute Febrile Neutrophilic Dermatosis)

A skin biopsy of the right lower extremity demonstrated diffuse interstitial, perivascular, and periadnexal neutrophilic dermal infiltrate in the reticular dermis (Figure 1), consistent with a diagnosis of Sweet syndrome without evidence of leukemia cutis or infection. The firm erythematous papulonodules with follicular accentuation on the face (Figure 2) also were confirmed as Sweet syndrome on histopathology. Concern for leukemic transformation was confirmed with bone biopsy revealing acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Our patient began a short course of prednisone, and the cutaneous lesions improved during hospitalization; however, he was lost to follow-up.

Sweet syndrome (also known as acute febrile neutrophilic dermatosis) is a rare inflammatory skin condition typically characterized by asymmetric, painful, erythematous to violaceous papules, plaques, or nodules involving the arms, face, and neck.¹ It most commonly occurs in women and typically presents in patients aged 47 to 57 years. Although the pathogenesis of neutrophilic dermatoses is not completely understood, they are believed to be due to altered expression of inflammatory cytokines, irregular neutrophil function, and a genetic predisposition.² There are 3 main categories of Sweet syndrome: classical (or idiopathic), drug induced, and malignancy associated.¹ The lesions associated with Sweet syndrome vary from a few millimeters to several centimeters and may be annular or targetoid in the later stages. They also may form bullae and ulcerate. Fever, leukocytosis, and elevated acute-phase reactants also are common on presentation.1 Histopathologic analysis demonstrates an intense neutrophilic infiltrate within the reticular dermis with marked leukocytoclasia. Admixed within the neutrophil polymorphs are variable numbers of lymphocytes and histiocytes. Edema in the upper dermis also is characteristic.³ The exact pathogenesis of Sweet syndrome has yet to be elucidated but may involve a combination of cytokine dysregulation, hypersensitivity reactions, and genetics.⁴ Our case demonstrates 3 distinct morphologies of Sweet syndrome in a single patient, including classic edematous plaques, agminated targetoid plaques, and ulceration. Based on the clinical presentation, diagnostic workup for an undiagnosed malignancy was warranted, which confirmed AML. The malignancy-associated form of Sweet syndrome accounts for a substantial portion of cases, with approximately 21% of patients diagnosed with Sweet syndrome having an underlying malignancy, commonly a hematologic malignancy or myeloproliferative disorder with AML being the most common.¹

The differential diagnosis for Sweet syndrome includes cutaneous small vessel vasculitis, which commonly presents with symmetric palpable purpura of the legs. Lesions may be round, port wine–colored plaques and even may form ulcers, vesicles, and targetoid lesions. However, skin biopsy shows polymorphonuclear infiltrate affecting postcapillary venules, fibrinoid deposits, and extravasation of red blood cells.⁵ Leukemia cutis describes any type of leukemia that manifests in the skin. It typically presents as violaceous or red-brown papules, nodules, and plaques most commonly on the legs. Histopathology varies by immunophenotype but generally demonstrates perivascular or periadnexal involvement or a diffuse, interstitial, or nodular infiltrate of the dermis or subcutis.⁶ Neutrophilic eccrine hidradenitis describes an aseptic neutrophilic infiltration around eccrine coils and glands. It may present as papules or plaques that usually are erythematous but also may be pigmented. Lesions can be asymptomatic or painful as in Sweet syndrome and are distributed proximally or on the distal extremities. Histopathologic examination demonstrates the degeneration of the eccrine gland and neutrophilic inflammatory infiltrates.⁷ Lastly, necrotizing fasciitis is a life-threatening infection of the deep soft tissue and fascia, classically caused by group A Streptococcus. The infected site may have erythema, tenderness, fluctuance, necrosis, and bullae.8 Although our patient had a fever, he did not display the tachycardia, hypotension, tachypnea, and rapid deterioration that is common in necrotizing fasciitis.

Sweet syndrome may present with various morphologies within the same patient. Painful, erythematous to violaceous papules, plaques, nodules, bullae, and ulcers may be seen. A workup for an underlying malignancy may be warranted based on clinical presentation. Most patients have a rapid and dramatic response to systemic corticosteroids.

The Diagnosis: Sweet Syndrome (Acute Febrile Neutrophilic Dermatosis)

A skin biopsy of the right lower extremity demonstrated diffuse interstitial, perivascular, and periadnexal neutrophilic dermal infiltrate in the reticular dermis (Figure 1), consistent with a diagnosis of Sweet syndrome without evidence of leukemia cutis or infection. The firm erythematous papulonodules with follicular accentuation on the face (Figure 2) also were confirmed as Sweet syndrome on histopathology. Concern for leukemic transformation was confirmed with bone biopsy revealing acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Our patient began a short course of prednisone, and the cutaneous lesions improved during hospitalization; however, he was lost to follow-up.

Sweet syndrome (also known as acute febrile neutrophilic dermatosis) is a rare inflammatory skin condition typically characterized by asymmetric, painful, erythematous to violaceous papules, plaques, or nodules involving the arms, face, and neck.¹ It most commonly occurs in women and typically presents in patients aged 47 to 57 years. Although the pathogenesis of neutrophilic dermatoses is not completely understood, they are believed to be due to altered expression of inflammatory cytokines, irregular neutrophil function, and a genetic predisposition.² There are 3 main categories of Sweet syndrome: classical (or idiopathic), drug induced, and malignancy associated.¹ The lesions associated with Sweet syndrome vary from a few millimeters to several centimeters and may be annular or targetoid in the later stages. They also may form bullae and ulcerate. Fever, leukocytosis, and elevated acute-phase reactants also are common on presentation.1 Histopathologic analysis demonstrates an intense neutrophilic infiltrate within the reticular dermis with marked leukocytoclasia. Admixed within the neutrophil polymorphs are variable numbers of lymphocytes and histiocytes. Edema in the upper dermis also is characteristic.³ The exact pathogenesis of Sweet syndrome has yet to be elucidated but may involve a combination of cytokine dysregulation, hypersensitivity reactions, and genetics.⁴ Our case demonstrates 3 distinct morphologies of Sweet syndrome in a single patient, including classic edematous plaques, agminated targetoid plaques, and ulceration. Based on the clinical presentation, diagnostic workup for an undiagnosed malignancy was warranted, which confirmed AML. The malignancy-associated form of Sweet syndrome accounts for a substantial portion of cases, with approximately 21% of patients diagnosed with Sweet syndrome having an underlying malignancy, commonly a hematologic malignancy or myeloproliferative disorder with AML being the most common.¹

The differential diagnosis for Sweet syndrome includes cutaneous small vessel vasculitis, which commonly presents with symmetric palpable purpura of the legs. Lesions may be round, port wine–colored plaques and even may form ulcers, vesicles, and targetoid lesions. However, skin biopsy shows polymorphonuclear infiltrate affecting postcapillary venules, fibrinoid deposits, and extravasation of red blood cells.⁵ Leukemia cutis describes any type of leukemia that manifests in the skin. It typically presents as violaceous or red-brown papules, nodules, and plaques most commonly on the legs. Histopathology varies by immunophenotype but generally demonstrates perivascular or periadnexal involvement or a diffuse, interstitial, or nodular infiltrate of the dermis or subcutis.⁶ Neutrophilic eccrine hidradenitis describes an aseptic neutrophilic infiltration around eccrine coils and glands. It may present as papules or plaques that usually are erythematous but also may be pigmented. Lesions can be asymptomatic or painful as in Sweet syndrome and are distributed proximally or on the distal extremities. Histopathologic examination demonstrates the degeneration of the eccrine gland and neutrophilic inflammatory infiltrates.⁷ Lastly, necrotizing fasciitis is a life-threatening infection of the deep soft tissue and fascia, classically caused by group A Streptococcus. The infected site may have erythema, tenderness, fluctuance, necrosis, and bullae.8 Although our patient had a fever, he did not display the tachycardia, hypotension, tachypnea, and rapid deterioration that is common in necrotizing fasciitis.

Sweet syndrome may present with various morphologies within the same patient. Painful, erythematous to violaceous papules, plaques, nodules, bullae, and ulcers may be seen. A workup for an underlying malignancy may be warranted based on clinical presentation. Most patients have a rapid and dramatic response to systemic corticosteroids.

The Diagnosis: Sweet Syndrome (Acute Febrile Neutrophilic Dermatosis)

A skin biopsy of the right lower extremity demonstrated diffuse interstitial, perivascular, and periadnexal neutrophilic dermal infiltrate in the reticular dermis (Figure 1), consistent with a diagnosis of Sweet syndrome without evidence of leukemia cutis or infection. The firm erythematous papulonodules with follicular accentuation on the face (Figure 2) also were confirmed as Sweet syndrome on histopathology. Concern for leukemic transformation was confirmed with bone biopsy revealing acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Our patient began a short course of prednisone, and the cutaneous lesions improved during hospitalization; however, he was lost to follow-up.

Sweet syndrome (also known as acute febrile neutrophilic dermatosis) is a rare inflammatory skin condition typically characterized by asymmetric, painful, erythematous to violaceous papules, plaques, or nodules involving the arms, face, and neck.¹ It most commonly occurs in women and typically presents in patients aged 47 to 57 years. Although the pathogenesis of neutrophilic dermatoses is not completely understood, they are believed to be due to altered expression of inflammatory cytokines, irregular neutrophil function, and a genetic predisposition.² There are 3 main categories of Sweet syndrome: classical (or idiopathic), drug induced, and malignancy associated.¹ The lesions associated with Sweet syndrome vary from a few millimeters to several centimeters and may be annular or targetoid in the later stages. They also may form bullae and ulcerate. Fever, leukocytosis, and elevated acute-phase reactants also are common on presentation.1 Histopathologic analysis demonstrates an intense neutrophilic infiltrate within the reticular dermis with marked leukocytoclasia. Admixed within the neutrophil polymorphs are variable numbers of lymphocytes and histiocytes. Edema in the upper dermis also is characteristic.³ The exact pathogenesis of Sweet syndrome has yet to be elucidated but may involve a combination of cytokine dysregulation, hypersensitivity reactions, and genetics.⁴ Our case demonstrates 3 distinct morphologies of Sweet syndrome in a single patient, including classic edematous plaques, agminated targetoid plaques, and ulceration. Based on the clinical presentation, diagnostic workup for an undiagnosed malignancy was warranted, which confirmed AML. The malignancy-associated form of Sweet syndrome accounts for a substantial portion of cases, with approximately 21% of patients diagnosed with Sweet syndrome having an underlying malignancy, commonly a hematologic malignancy or myeloproliferative disorder with AML being the most common.¹

The differential diagnosis for Sweet syndrome includes cutaneous small vessel vasculitis, which commonly presents with symmetric palpable purpura of the legs. Lesions may be round, port wine–colored plaques and even may form ulcers, vesicles, and targetoid lesions. However, skin biopsy shows polymorphonuclear infiltrate affecting postcapillary venules, fibrinoid deposits, and extravasation of red blood cells.⁵ Leukemia cutis describes any type of leukemia that manifests in the skin. It typically presents as violaceous or red-brown papules, nodules, and plaques most commonly on the legs. Histopathology varies by immunophenotype but generally demonstrates perivascular or periadnexal involvement or a diffuse, interstitial, or nodular infiltrate of the dermis or subcutis.⁶ Neutrophilic eccrine hidradenitis describes an aseptic neutrophilic infiltration around eccrine coils and glands. It may present as papules or plaques that usually are erythematous but also may be pigmented. Lesions can be asymptomatic or painful as in Sweet syndrome and are distributed proximally or on the distal extremities. Histopathologic examination demonstrates the degeneration of the eccrine gland and neutrophilic inflammatory infiltrates.⁷ Lastly, necrotizing fasciitis is a life-threatening infection of the deep soft tissue and fascia, classically caused by group A Streptococcus. The infected site may have erythema, tenderness, fluctuance, necrosis, and bullae.8 Although our patient had a fever, he did not display the tachycardia, hypotension, tachypnea, and rapid deterioration that is common in necrotizing fasciitis.

Sweet syndrome may present with various morphologies within the same patient. Painful, erythematous to violaceous papules, plaques, nodules, bullae, and ulcers may be seen. A workup for an underlying malignancy may be warranted based on clinical presentation. Most patients have a rapid and dramatic response to systemic corticosteroids.

A re-evaluation of cardiovascular risk management guidelines intended for use by rheumatologists may be warranted based on findings from a recently published population-based study of the risks for 12 different cardiovascular disease outcomes in patients with autoimmune diseases.

“The notion that patients with rheumatic diseases are at increased risk of developing cardiovascular diseases has been ongoing for many years,” Nathalie Conrad, PhD, and coauthors wrote in a viewpoint article in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

This has “sparked much debate concerning whether and when to initiate cardiovascular prevention therapies,” they said.

Dr. Conrad was first author on the population-based study published in The Lancet in August 2022 that used linked primary and secondary care records from datasets in the U.K. Clinical Practice Research Datalink involving individuals who were recently diagnosed with any of 19 different autoimmune diseases during an 18-year period stretching from 2000 to 2017 but free of cardiovascular disease until at least 12 months after incident autoimmune disease. “Every single autoimmune disorder we looked at was associated with increased cardiovascular risk,” Dr. Conrad, of the department of public health and primary care at Catholic University Leuven (Belgium), said in an interview.

Not only was the risk for cardiovascular disease increased for people with rheumatic diseases by an average of 68%, compared with people without rheumatic diseases, but also the whole spectrum of cardiovascular disorders was seen.

“We saw increases in thromboembolic diseases, degenerative heart diseases, and heart inflammation,” Dr. Conrad said.
 

Large datasets examined

The idea for the epidemiologic study came from mounting evidence for cardiovascular disease risk among people with autoimmune diseases but not enough to support the design of specific prevention measures.

Dr. Conrad’s Lancet study examined electronic health records of 446,449 individuals with autoimmune diseases and matched them to 2,102,830 individuals without autoimmune disease. This included 160,217 individuals with seven rheumatic diseases: rheumatoid arthritis, polymyalgia rheumatica, vasculitis, systemic lupus erythematosus, Sjögren’s syndrome, ankylosing spondylitis, and systemic sclerosis.

In addition to looking for any evidence of cardiovascular disease, Dr. Conrad and coauthors looked at 12 specific outcomes: atherosclerotic diseases, peripheral arterial disease, stroke or transient ischemic attack, heart failure, valve disorders, thromboembolic disease, atrial fibrillation or flutter, conduction system disease, supraventricular arrhythmias, aortic aneurysm, myocarditis and pericarditis, and infective endocarditis.
 

CV risk in rheumatic diseases

As might be expected, “greater magnitudes of risk” were seen for individuals with systemic lupus erythematosus and systemic sclerosis than for people in the general population, with the chances of cardiovascular disease being two to four times higher. But what perhaps wasn’t expected was that all rheumatic diseases carried an increased risk for heart or vascular-related problems.

Furthermore, the increased risk could not solely be accounted for by the presence of traditional risk factors, such as blood pressure, smoking, or obesity.

“The background here is that any context of systemic inflammation would be predicted to lead to an increased vascular risk,” Iain McInnes, MD, PhD, professor of medicine and rheumatology at the University of Glasgow, said in an interview. Dr. McInnes was a coauthor of the viewpoint article in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

“The implication is that there may well be increased vascular risk across the whole range of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases,” he added. “We should not, however, infer the magnitude of risk will be the same for each disease.”

What is more intriguing, Dr. McInnes said, is that “we don’t know yet whether there’s one final common pathway that leads to the blood vessel being damaged or whether different diseases might contribute different pathways.”

He added: “A question for the future is to see what are those mechanisms that drive risk across different diseases? And the reason that matters, of course, is that we might want to think about the effectiveness of different therapeutic interventions.”
 

Determining cardiovascular risk

Dr. Conrad and associates in their viewpoint article suggested that an update to the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology guidelines for cardiovascular risk management of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) could tailor cardiovascular risk scores to certain diseases.

They suggested that the guidelines could consider a risk multiplier of 2.5 for systemic sclerosis, 2.0 for lupus, and 1.5 for any other rheumatic disease.

“We argue that [EULAR] recommendations should consider this new evidence of poorer cardiovascular health in numerous RMDs and envisage cardiovascular screening and associated prevention measures,” Dr. Conrad said.

While they recognize that risk multipliers aren’t perfect, “they are the best available option until personalized risk prediction tools are developed specifically for patients with RMDs.”
 

Addressing cardiovascular risk

As a former president of EULAR, Dr. McInnes was keen to point out that “EULAR’s recommendations are evidence based and are rigorously built on [standard operating procedures] that work and have stood the test of time. I’m quite sure that the members of relevant EULAR task forces will be looking at these data, but they’ll be looking at the whole range of literature to see whether change is necessary.”

Good-quality inflammatory disease control will certainly contribute to reducing vascular risk, “but we should not make the assumption that it will be sufficient,” he cautioned. “We still have to be very careful in addressing so called conventional risk factors, but in particular thinking about obesity and cardiometabolic syndrome to be sure that when those are present, that we detect them and we treat them appropriately.”

As to who is best placed to manage a patient’s cardiovascular risk profile, Dr. McInnes said: “I think the rheumatologist has a responsibility to make sure that as much of the patient’s disease spectrum is being treated as possible.”

“As a rheumatologist, I would like to know that those elements of a patient’s disease presentation are being addressed,” whether that is by a primary care physician, cardiologist, diabetologist, or other specialist involved in the optimal management of the patient.

Dr. Conrad acknowledged receiving support from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Program, the European Society for Cardiology, and grant funding paid to her institution from the Belgian-based Research Foundation Flounders. She also acknowledged receipt of royalties in regard to the intellectual property of a home-monitoring system for heart failure paid to Oxford University Innovation. Dr. McInnes acknowledged financial relationships with many pharmaceutical companies.

*This article was updated 12/30/2022.

A re-evaluation of cardiovascular risk management guidelines intended for use by rheumatologists may be warranted based on findings from a recently published population-based study of the risks for 12 different cardiovascular disease outcomes in patients with autoimmune diseases.

“The notion that patients with rheumatic diseases are at increased risk of developing cardiovascular diseases has been ongoing for many years,” Nathalie Conrad, PhD, and coauthors wrote in a viewpoint article in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

This has “sparked much debate concerning whether and when to initiate cardiovascular prevention therapies,” they said.

Dr. Conrad was first author on the population-based study published in The Lancet in August 2022 that used linked primary and secondary care records from datasets in the U.K. Clinical Practice Research Datalink involving individuals who were recently diagnosed with any of 19 different autoimmune diseases during an 18-year period stretching from 2000 to 2017 but free of cardiovascular disease until at least 12 months after incident autoimmune disease. “Every single autoimmune disorder we looked at was associated with increased cardiovascular risk,” Dr. Conrad, of the department of public health and primary care at Catholic University Leuven (Belgium), said in an interview.

Not only was the risk for cardiovascular disease increased for people with rheumatic diseases by an average of 68%, compared with people without rheumatic diseases, but also the whole spectrum of cardiovascular disorders was seen.

“We saw increases in thromboembolic diseases, degenerative heart diseases, and heart inflammation,” Dr. Conrad said.
 

Large datasets examined

The idea for the epidemiologic study came from mounting evidence for cardiovascular disease risk among people with autoimmune diseases but not enough to support the design of specific prevention measures.

Dr. Conrad’s Lancet study examined electronic health records of 446,449 individuals with autoimmune diseases and matched them to 2,102,830 individuals without autoimmune disease. This included 160,217 individuals with seven rheumatic diseases: rheumatoid arthritis, polymyalgia rheumatica, vasculitis, systemic lupus erythematosus, Sjögren’s syndrome, ankylosing spondylitis, and systemic sclerosis.

In addition to looking for any evidence of cardiovascular disease, Dr. Conrad and coauthors looked at 12 specific outcomes: atherosclerotic diseases, peripheral arterial disease, stroke or transient ischemic attack, heart failure, valve disorders, thromboembolic disease, atrial fibrillation or flutter, conduction system disease, supraventricular arrhythmias, aortic aneurysm, myocarditis and pericarditis, and infective endocarditis.
 

CV risk in rheumatic diseases

As might be expected, “greater magnitudes of risk” were seen for individuals with systemic lupus erythematosus and systemic sclerosis than for people in the general population, with the chances of cardiovascular disease being two to four times higher. But what perhaps wasn’t expected was that all rheumatic diseases carried an increased risk for heart or vascular-related problems.

Furthermore, the increased risk could not solely be accounted for by the presence of traditional risk factors, such as blood pressure, smoking, or obesity.

“The background here is that any context of systemic inflammation would be predicted to lead to an increased vascular risk,” Iain McInnes, MD, PhD, professor of medicine and rheumatology at the University of Glasgow, said in an interview. Dr. McInnes was a coauthor of the viewpoint article in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

“The implication is that there may well be increased vascular risk across the whole range of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases,” he added. “We should not, however, infer the magnitude of risk will be the same for each disease.”

What is more intriguing, Dr. McInnes said, is that “we don’t know yet whether there’s one final common pathway that leads to the blood vessel being damaged or whether different diseases might contribute different pathways.”

He added: “A question for the future is to see what are those mechanisms that drive risk across different diseases? And the reason that matters, of course, is that we might want to think about the effectiveness of different therapeutic interventions.”
 

Determining cardiovascular risk

Dr. Conrad and associates in their viewpoint article suggested that an update to the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology guidelines for cardiovascular risk management of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) could tailor cardiovascular risk scores to certain diseases.

They suggested that the guidelines could consider a risk multiplier of 2.5 for systemic sclerosis, 2.0 for lupus, and 1.5 for any other rheumatic disease.

“We argue that [EULAR] recommendations should consider this new evidence of poorer cardiovascular health in numerous RMDs and envisage cardiovascular screening and associated prevention measures,” Dr. Conrad said.

While they recognize that risk multipliers aren’t perfect, “they are the best available option until personalized risk prediction tools are developed specifically for patients with RMDs.”
 

Addressing cardiovascular risk

As a former president of EULAR, Dr. McInnes was keen to point out that “EULAR’s recommendations are evidence based and are rigorously built on [standard operating procedures] that work and have stood the test of time. I’m quite sure that the members of relevant EULAR task forces will be looking at these data, but they’ll be looking at the whole range of literature to see whether change is necessary.”

Good-quality inflammatory disease control will certainly contribute to reducing vascular risk, “but we should not make the assumption that it will be sufficient,” he cautioned. “We still have to be very careful in addressing so called conventional risk factors, but in particular thinking about obesity and cardiometabolic syndrome to be sure that when those are present, that we detect them and we treat them appropriately.”

As to who is best placed to manage a patient’s cardiovascular risk profile, Dr. McInnes said: “I think the rheumatologist has a responsibility to make sure that as much of the patient’s disease spectrum is being treated as possible.”

“As a rheumatologist, I would like to know that those elements of a patient’s disease presentation are being addressed,” whether that is by a primary care physician, cardiologist, diabetologist, or other specialist involved in the optimal management of the patient.

Dr. Conrad acknowledged receiving support from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Program, the European Society for Cardiology, and grant funding paid to her institution from the Belgian-based Research Foundation Flounders. She also acknowledged receipt of royalties in regard to the intellectual property of a home-monitoring system for heart failure paid to Oxford University Innovation. Dr. McInnes acknowledged financial relationships with many pharmaceutical companies.

*This article was updated 12/30/2022.

A re-evaluation of cardiovascular risk management guidelines intended for use by rheumatologists may be warranted based on findings from a recently published population-based study of the risks for 12 different cardiovascular disease outcomes in patients with autoimmune diseases.

“The notion that patients with rheumatic diseases are at increased risk of developing cardiovascular diseases has been ongoing for many years,” Nathalie Conrad, PhD, and coauthors wrote in a viewpoint article in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

This has “sparked much debate concerning whether and when to initiate cardiovascular prevention therapies,” they said.

Dr. Conrad was first author on the population-based study published in The Lancet in August 2022 that used linked primary and secondary care records from datasets in the U.K. Clinical Practice Research Datalink involving individuals who were recently diagnosed with any of 19 different autoimmune diseases during an 18-year period stretching from 2000 to 2017 but free of cardiovascular disease until at least 12 months after incident autoimmune disease. “Every single autoimmune disorder we looked at was associated with increased cardiovascular risk,” Dr. Conrad, of the department of public health and primary care at Catholic University Leuven (Belgium), said in an interview.

Not only was the risk for cardiovascular disease increased for people with rheumatic diseases by an average of 68%, compared with people without rheumatic diseases, but also the whole spectrum of cardiovascular disorders was seen.

“We saw increases in thromboembolic diseases, degenerative heart diseases, and heart inflammation,” Dr. Conrad said.
 

Large datasets examined

The idea for the epidemiologic study came from mounting evidence for cardiovascular disease risk among people with autoimmune diseases but not enough to support the design of specific prevention measures.

Dr. Conrad’s Lancet study examined electronic health records of 446,449 individuals with autoimmune diseases and matched them to 2,102,830 individuals without autoimmune disease. This included 160,217 individuals with seven rheumatic diseases: rheumatoid arthritis, polymyalgia rheumatica, vasculitis, systemic lupus erythematosus, Sjögren’s syndrome, ankylosing spondylitis, and systemic sclerosis.

In addition to looking for any evidence of cardiovascular disease, Dr. Conrad and coauthors looked at 12 specific outcomes: atherosclerotic diseases, peripheral arterial disease, stroke or transient ischemic attack, heart failure, valve disorders, thromboembolic disease, atrial fibrillation or flutter, conduction system disease, supraventricular arrhythmias, aortic aneurysm, myocarditis and pericarditis, and infective endocarditis.
 

CV risk in rheumatic diseases

As might be expected, “greater magnitudes of risk” were seen for individuals with systemic lupus erythematosus and systemic sclerosis than for people in the general population, with the chances of cardiovascular disease being two to four times higher. But what perhaps wasn’t expected was that all rheumatic diseases carried an increased risk for heart or vascular-related problems.

Furthermore, the increased risk could not solely be accounted for by the presence of traditional risk factors, such as blood pressure, smoking, or obesity.

“The background here is that any context of systemic inflammation would be predicted to lead to an increased vascular risk,” Iain McInnes, MD, PhD, professor of medicine and rheumatology at the University of Glasgow, said in an interview. Dr. McInnes was a coauthor of the viewpoint article in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

“The implication is that there may well be increased vascular risk across the whole range of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases,” he added. “We should not, however, infer the magnitude of risk will be the same for each disease.”

What is more intriguing, Dr. McInnes said, is that “we don’t know yet whether there’s one final common pathway that leads to the blood vessel being damaged or whether different diseases might contribute different pathways.”

He added: “A question for the future is to see what are those mechanisms that drive risk across different diseases? And the reason that matters, of course, is that we might want to think about the effectiveness of different therapeutic interventions.”
 

Determining cardiovascular risk

Dr. Conrad and associates in their viewpoint article suggested that an update to the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology guidelines for cardiovascular risk management of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) could tailor cardiovascular risk scores to certain diseases.

They suggested that the guidelines could consider a risk multiplier of 2.5 for systemic sclerosis, 2.0 for lupus, and 1.5 for any other rheumatic disease.

“We argue that [EULAR] recommendations should consider this new evidence of poorer cardiovascular health in numerous RMDs and envisage cardiovascular screening and associated prevention measures,” Dr. Conrad said.

While they recognize that risk multipliers aren’t perfect, “they are the best available option until personalized risk prediction tools are developed specifically for patients with RMDs.”
 

Addressing cardiovascular risk

As a former president of EULAR, Dr. McInnes was keen to point out that “EULAR’s recommendations are evidence based and are rigorously built on [standard operating procedures] that work and have stood the test of time. I’m quite sure that the members of relevant EULAR task forces will be looking at these data, but they’ll be looking at the whole range of literature to see whether change is necessary.”

Good-quality inflammatory disease control will certainly contribute to reducing vascular risk, “but we should not make the assumption that it will be sufficient,” he cautioned. “We still have to be very careful in addressing so called conventional risk factors, but in particular thinking about obesity and cardiometabolic syndrome to be sure that when those are present, that we detect them and we treat them appropriately.”

As to who is best placed to manage a patient’s cardiovascular risk profile, Dr. McInnes said: “I think the rheumatologist has a responsibility to make sure that as much of the patient’s disease spectrum is being treated as possible.”

“As a rheumatologist, I would like to know that those elements of a patient’s disease presentation are being addressed,” whether that is by a primary care physician, cardiologist, diabetologist, or other specialist involved in the optimal management of the patient.

Dr. Conrad acknowledged receiving support from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Program, the European Society for Cardiology, and grant funding paid to her institution from the Belgian-based Research Foundation Flounders. She also acknowledged receipt of royalties in regard to the intellectual property of a home-monitoring system for heart failure paid to Oxford University Innovation. Dr. McInnes acknowledged financial relationships with many pharmaceutical companies.

*This article was updated 12/30/2022.

NEW ORLEANS – The immunotherapy drug blinatumomab improves survival as a first-line treatment in certain younger adult patients with B-lineage acute lymphoblastic leukemia, investigators have found. The extremely expensive drug is currently Food and Drug Administration approved for B-lineage ALL in relapsed/refractory cases.

“We feel that this represents a new standard of care for these patients and should be incorporated into their standard therapy,” said lead author and hematologist Mark R. Litzow, MD, of Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., in a news briefing at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

B-lineage ALL, also known as B-cell ALL, represents 75% of cases of the blood cancer in adults according to the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society. It occurs when there’s an overgrowth of immature white blood cells known as B-cell lymphoblasts. “These are the blast cells that don’t function well and cause these patients to develop infections and bleeding,” Dr. Litzow said.

Treatments include chemotherapy and stem-cell transplants. Blinatumomab, a bispecific T-cell engager molecule, is FDA approved for patients with relapsed/refractory B-lineage ALL and those with morphologic complete remission who still have measurable residual disease (MRD).

As the new study notes, some patients who undergo chemotherapy and reach remission have poor survival outcomes even when there’s no sign of MRD. “Even though we can’t find leukemia in the patients’ bone marrow, it’s still hiding there,” Dr. Litzow said.

The new phase 3, randomized trial aims to determine if adding blinatumomab (Blincyto) to first-line chemotherapy improves outcomes. The drug “brings a normal T cell, part of the immune system, in proximity to a leukemia plasma cell and kills it.”

For the study, researchers from 2013 to 2019 recruited 488 patients aged 30-70 years with newly diagnosed BCR::ABL1 negative B-lineage ALL (median age = 51). The subjects underwent chemotherapy, and then were “randomized to receive an additional four cycles of consolidation chemo or two cycles of blin [blinatumomab] for 28 days each cycle followed by three cycles of consolidation chemo, another 4-week cycle of blinatumomab (third cycle of blinatumomab) followed by an additional cycle of chemo and then a fourth cycle of blinatumomab (step 3),” the researchers reported. “Following completion of consolidation chemo +/– blin, patients were given 2.5 years of POMP [prednisone, vincristine, 6-mercaptopurine, and methotrexate] maintenance therapy timed from the start of the intensification cycle (step 4).”

There were 112 patients in each group. Among MRD-negative patients, 56 patients died – 17 in the blinatumomab arm and 39 in the control arm at the third interim efficacy analysis. At a mean follow-up of 43 months, median overall survival for patients in the blinatumomab arm was not reached vs. 71.4 months in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.42, 95% confidence interval, 0.24-0.75; P = .003).

“The patients that got blinatumomab plus chemotherapy had an improved survival over those that got the standard chemotherapy,” Dr. Litzow said.

Dr. Litzow didn’t discuss the drug’s expense in his presentation. According to a 2019 report, when a daily vial of blinatumomab cost $3,464-$3,815, a treatment course of five month-long cycles could run to $535,000. According to drugs.com, the cost now is $4,740 per vial – more than $660,000 for five cycles.

In an interview, Cleveland Clinic hematologist/oncologist Anjali Advani, MD, said the study is “groundbreaking and one of the most exciting studies to come along in the acute lymphoblastic leukemia field.”

The trial “is one of the first studies to show improvement in outcome in a randomized manner with the addition of a novel agent,” she added. “This will change our standard of care for these patients.”

The National Cancer Institute funded the trial and drug manufacturer Amgen provided the medication and support through a cooperative research and development agreement.

Dr. Litzow discloses relationships with Actinium, Jazz, Syndax, Novartis, Astellas, Amgen, Abbvie, Pluristem and Biosight. Other authors have various disclosures with multiple drugmakers. Dr. Advani discloses relationships with Amgen, Jazz, Nkarta, Taiho, Beam, GMI, Kura, Pfizer, OBI, Incyte, Kite, ImmunoGen, GlycoMimetics, SGN, MacroGenics, and Servier.

NEW ORLEANS – The immunotherapy drug blinatumomab improves survival as a first-line treatment in certain younger adult patients with B-lineage acute lymphoblastic leukemia, investigators have found. The extremely expensive drug is currently Food and Drug Administration approved for B-lineage ALL in relapsed/refractory cases.

“We feel that this represents a new standard of care for these patients and should be incorporated into their standard therapy,” said lead author and hematologist Mark R. Litzow, MD, of Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., in a news briefing at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

B-lineage ALL, also known as B-cell ALL, represents 75% of cases of the blood cancer in adults according to the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society. It occurs when there’s an overgrowth of immature white blood cells known as B-cell lymphoblasts. “These are the blast cells that don’t function well and cause these patients to develop infections and bleeding,” Dr. Litzow said.

Treatments include chemotherapy and stem-cell transplants. Blinatumomab, a bispecific T-cell engager molecule, is FDA approved for patients with relapsed/refractory B-lineage ALL and those with morphologic complete remission who still have measurable residual disease (MRD).

As the new study notes, some patients who undergo chemotherapy and reach remission have poor survival outcomes even when there’s no sign of MRD. “Even though we can’t find leukemia in the patients’ bone marrow, it’s still hiding there,” Dr. Litzow said.

The new phase 3, randomized trial aims to determine if adding blinatumomab (Blincyto) to first-line chemotherapy improves outcomes. The drug “brings a normal T cell, part of the immune system, in proximity to a leukemia plasma cell and kills it.”

For the study, researchers from 2013 to 2019 recruited 488 patients aged 30-70 years with newly diagnosed BCR::ABL1 negative B-lineage ALL (median age = 51). The subjects underwent chemotherapy, and then were “randomized to receive an additional four cycles of consolidation chemo or two cycles of blin [blinatumomab] for 28 days each cycle followed by three cycles of consolidation chemo, another 4-week cycle of blinatumomab (third cycle of blinatumomab) followed by an additional cycle of chemo and then a fourth cycle of blinatumomab (step 3),” the researchers reported. “Following completion of consolidation chemo +/– blin, patients were given 2.5 years of POMP [prednisone, vincristine, 6-mercaptopurine, and methotrexate] maintenance therapy timed from the start of the intensification cycle (step 4).”

There were 112 patients in each group. Among MRD-negative patients, 56 patients died – 17 in the blinatumomab arm and 39 in the control arm at the third interim efficacy analysis. At a mean follow-up of 43 months, median overall survival for patients in the blinatumomab arm was not reached vs. 71.4 months in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.42, 95% confidence interval, 0.24-0.75; P = .003).

“The patients that got blinatumomab plus chemotherapy had an improved survival over those that got the standard chemotherapy,” Dr. Litzow said.

Dr. Litzow didn’t discuss the drug’s expense in his presentation. According to a 2019 report, when a daily vial of blinatumomab cost $3,464-$3,815, a treatment course of five month-long cycles could run to $535,000. According to drugs.com, the cost now is $4,740 per vial – more than $660,000 for five cycles.

In an interview, Cleveland Clinic hematologist/oncologist Anjali Advani, MD, said the study is “groundbreaking and one of the most exciting studies to come along in the acute lymphoblastic leukemia field.”

The trial “is one of the first studies to show improvement in outcome in a randomized manner with the addition of a novel agent,” she added. “This will change our standard of care for these patients.”

The National Cancer Institute funded the trial and drug manufacturer Amgen provided the medication and support through a cooperative research and development agreement.

Dr. Litzow discloses relationships with Actinium, Jazz, Syndax, Novartis, Astellas, Amgen, Abbvie, Pluristem and Biosight. Other authors have various disclosures with multiple drugmakers. Dr. Advani discloses relationships with Amgen, Jazz, Nkarta, Taiho, Beam, GMI, Kura, Pfizer, OBI, Incyte, Kite, ImmunoGen, GlycoMimetics, SGN, MacroGenics, and Servier.

NEW ORLEANS – The immunotherapy drug blinatumomab improves survival as a first-line treatment in certain younger adult patients with B-lineage acute lymphoblastic leukemia, investigators have found. The extremely expensive drug is currently Food and Drug Administration approved for B-lineage ALL in relapsed/refractory cases.

“We feel that this represents a new standard of care for these patients and should be incorporated into their standard therapy,” said lead author and hematologist Mark R. Litzow, MD, of Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., in a news briefing at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

B-lineage ALL, also known as B-cell ALL, represents 75% of cases of the blood cancer in adults according to the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society. It occurs when there’s an overgrowth of immature white blood cells known as B-cell lymphoblasts. “These are the blast cells that don’t function well and cause these patients to develop infections and bleeding,” Dr. Litzow said.

Treatments include chemotherapy and stem-cell transplants. Blinatumomab, a bispecific T-cell engager molecule, is FDA approved for patients with relapsed/refractory B-lineage ALL and those with morphologic complete remission who still have measurable residual disease (MRD).

As the new study notes, some patients who undergo chemotherapy and reach remission have poor survival outcomes even when there’s no sign of MRD. “Even though we can’t find leukemia in the patients’ bone marrow, it’s still hiding there,” Dr. Litzow said.

The new phase 3, randomized trial aims to determine if adding blinatumomab (Blincyto) to first-line chemotherapy improves outcomes. The drug “brings a normal T cell, part of the immune system, in proximity to a leukemia plasma cell and kills it.”

For the study, researchers from 2013 to 2019 recruited 488 patients aged 30-70 years with newly diagnosed BCR::ABL1 negative B-lineage ALL (median age = 51). The subjects underwent chemotherapy, and then were “randomized to receive an additional four cycles of consolidation chemo or two cycles of blin [blinatumomab] for 28 days each cycle followed by three cycles of consolidation chemo, another 4-week cycle of blinatumomab (third cycle of blinatumomab) followed by an additional cycle of chemo and then a fourth cycle of blinatumomab (step 3),” the researchers reported. “Following completion of consolidation chemo +/– blin, patients were given 2.5 years of POMP [prednisone, vincristine, 6-mercaptopurine, and methotrexate] maintenance therapy timed from the start of the intensification cycle (step 4).”

There were 112 patients in each group. Among MRD-negative patients, 56 patients died – 17 in the blinatumomab arm and 39 in the control arm at the third interim efficacy analysis. At a mean follow-up of 43 months, median overall survival for patients in the blinatumomab arm was not reached vs. 71.4 months in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.42, 95% confidence interval, 0.24-0.75; P = .003).

“The patients that got blinatumomab plus chemotherapy had an improved survival over those that got the standard chemotherapy,” Dr. Litzow said.

Dr. Litzow didn’t discuss the drug’s expense in his presentation. According to a 2019 report, when a daily vial of blinatumomab cost $3,464-$3,815, a treatment course of five month-long cycles could run to $535,000. According to drugs.com, the cost now is $4,740 per vial – more than $660,000 for five cycles.

In an interview, Cleveland Clinic hematologist/oncologist Anjali Advani, MD, said the study is “groundbreaking and one of the most exciting studies to come along in the acute lymphoblastic leukemia field.”

The trial “is one of the first studies to show improvement in outcome in a randomized manner with the addition of a novel agent,” she added. “This will change our standard of care for these patients.”

The National Cancer Institute funded the trial and drug manufacturer Amgen provided the medication and support through a cooperative research and development agreement.

Dr. Litzow discloses relationships with Actinium, Jazz, Syndax, Novartis, Astellas, Amgen, Abbvie, Pluristem and Biosight. Other authors have various disclosures with multiple drugmakers. Dr. Advani discloses relationships with Amgen, Jazz, Nkarta, Taiho, Beam, GMI, Kura, Pfizer, OBI, Incyte, Kite, ImmunoGen, GlycoMimetics, SGN, MacroGenics, and Servier.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE: Hello, and thank you for joining us today for what promises to be a lively discussion about screening for colon cancer.

My name is Perry Wilson. I’m an associate professor of medicine and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at the Yale School of Medicine. My new book, “How Medicine Works and When It Doesn’t: Learning Who to Trust to Get and Stay Healthy,” is available for pre-order now anywhere that books are sold.

I’m joined by two wonderful experts. Dr. David Johnson is a professor of medicine and the chief of gastroenterology at the Eastern Virginia School of Medicine. He is the past president of the American College of Gastroenterology. And I’m very encouraged to see that he’s won a Distinguished Educator Award for his efforts in gastroenterology.

I’m also joined by Dr Kenny Lin. He’s a frequent contributor to Medscape and WebMD. He’s a family physician and public health consultant from Lancaster, Pa., and deputy editor of the American Family Physician journal. He’s also a teacher of residents and students at Lancaster General Health and the Penn Medicine Family Medicine Residency program.

So, we have two great educators with us today to hopefully help teach us something about colon cancer and colon cancer screening. Thank you for joining me today.

David A. Johnson, MD: Thanks for having us.

Kenneth W. Lin, MD, MPH: Good to be here.

Dr. Wilson: Colon cancer is the second leading cause of cancer mortality in the United States. A little over 50,000 people die every year in the United States due to colon cancer.

A month ago, I would have said that there was a pretty broad consensus, at least from my perspective, that people should be getting colonoscopies. That’s certainly what we tell our patients.

Then a paper came out in the New England Journal of Medicine, a very prestigious journal, that has caused a lot of consternation online and led to my receiving a lot questions from patients and their family members. Today, I’d like to talk about this randomized trial of screening colonoscopy for colon cancer, and why it has caused so much – perhaps – confusion, calls for change, and concern out there.

Dr Johnson, can you give us a brief overview of what this trial was about?

Dr. Johnson: This was a randomized trial looking at screening colonoscopy versus no screening test whatsoever. They looked at the outcomes of prevention of cancer and the prevention of colon cancer–related death.

The short answer was that it was disappointing as it relates to colonoscopy. The study looked at patients from four European countries, with data from three of them (Norway, Poland, and Sweden) ultimately analyzed in this report in NEJM. It got a lot of attention because it surprised a lot of people by saying maybe colonoscopy wasn’t quite as good as we thought it was.

They tried to correct that by only looking at the numbers of patients who got their colonoscopy screening, which still showed value, but it was less than that we’ve seen before. There’s lots of reasons for that, which we’ll discuss shortly.
 

An invitation to a screening

Dr. Wilson: This was a bit of an interesting trial design. I think I’m correct, Dr Lin, that this was the first randomized trial of screening colonoscopy. But they didn’t really randomize people to get a colonoscopy versus not get a colonoscopy. Can you tell us why this differed from that study design, which I’d have thought would be simpler way of assessing this?

Dr. Lin: It’s definitely an important point to highlight about the study. What investigators did was randomize patients to receive an invitation to get a screening colonoscopy. When the trial was set up, they randomized people before they were asked whether they wanted to participate in the study. If you did it the other way around, by first asking them whether they wanted to be in the study and then randomizing them, you would have been assured that more of them probably would have gotten the colonoscopy.

But in this case, they were more interested in figuring out the real-life results of having a national program that invited patients to receive screening colonoscopy. Because we know that everyone that you recommend to get a colonoscopy doesn’t necessarily want to do that, forgets to do it, or something happens that prevents their actually getting it.

When it comes to measuring the effectiveness of the colonoscopy, it perhaps wasn’t the greatest type of study to do that. But I think it did provide some information about what would happen if you invited people to get colonoscopy, in terms of how many would do it and the results overall for that population.
 

Lower participation numbers than expected

Dr. Wilson: Dr. Johnson, the data show that 42% of people who were in that invitation arm followed through and got their colonoscopy. You’re a gastroenterologist. Does that seem low or about right? Do about half of people who should get a colonoscopy end up getting one?

Dr. Johnson: No, it’s low. In the United States, those numbers are probably in the 70% range. Certainly, the test doesn’t work for people who don’t get the test performed. So, if 42% of those randomized to receive an invitation to get the colonoscopy got one, that really means the majority of patients never got the test.

Dr. Wilson: Certainly, we wouldn’t expect impressive results if they don’t get the test. But on the other hand, I imagine that people who choose to get the test when they’re invited are sort of a different breed. Perhaps they’re more health conscious or living in other healthy ways. Is that something we should worry about when we look at these results?

Dr. Johnson: I don’t think you can stratify based on this study. Factors like ethnicities and diet weren’t really explained. The key element that will hopefully have the major take-home impact is quality. It’s not just the test. It’s how the test is done.

The key results

Dr. Wilson: Let’s start with the big picture. This was a study looking at everyone invited; not the subgroup of people who got the colonoscopy, but the real randomized study population.

Dr. Lin, the study did show that the invited group had a lower risk of colon cancer over the next 10 years. That’s a good thing, I imagine.

Dr. Lin: I think that’s a significant benefit. Initially in the first few years, they had more colon cancers diagnosed. But that’s probably because those were cancers that were already existing and couldn’t be prevented by the test.

But then over the years the curves crossed, and by the end of the average follow-up of 10 years, there was a significantly lower rate of colon cancers being detected. That’s as you would expect, because you’re finding polyps and removing them before they became colon cancer.

Dr. Wilson: Dr. Johnson, is that the natural history of colon cancer? It starts out as a polyp that maybe can be easily removed and doesn’t require more therapy. Is that why screening colonoscopy is helpful?

Dr. Johnson: The ultimate goal of screening is prevention of cancer, rather than detection of cancer. That occurs by identification and complete removal of the polyps that we find that are precancerous. The key is, first, detection, and second, resection. Adequate resection comes down to some very significant issues of quality, which are questions that I’d raised about this study, and we can talk about momentarily.

Dr. Wilson: Absolutely. Let me first go through the two other big findings in this study.

The fact that there were fewer cases of colon cancer over 10 years seems good. But colon cancer mortality was not significantly different in the two groups. Now, of course, we know that not everyone got a colonoscopy. I would have expected though, if you had less colon cancer, you’d have less death from colon cancer.

Dr. Lin, what might explain this disconnect?

Dr. Lin: I think there are a couple of possible explanations.

One explanation is that they just didn’t follow the people long enough. Colon cancer takes a long time to go from an adenoma to cancer, and from cancer to something that would cause the patient’s death. You may need to follow them for longer than the 10 years that most of these patients were followed to see that benefit. I think there probably will be benefit after a while, because if you are removing colon cancers that otherwise would have progressed and metastasized, you often see a benefit.

We also have to consider the other possibility that not all the polyps removed necessarily were going to progress to advanced cancer. Therefore, you weren’t seeing the death benefit because not every polyp that was removed was necessarily going to cause health consequences.

In colonoscopy, quality is key to success

Dr. Wilson: You’re removing things and have no way of knowing in advance which are the bad ones and which aren’t.

Dr. Johnson, you’ve mentioned several times now that the quality of colonoscopy matters here. So, I’m intuiting that it’s not one-size-fits-all, that it’s not all the same. What do you mean by quality of colonoscopy, and what was it in the NEJM study?

Dr. Johnson: Quality colonoscopy is the quality of the whole process. It starts with the warm-up, if you will, and the clean out for the procedure. That allows the colonoscopist to be able to identify precancerous polyps, which we call adenomas (there are other precancerous polyps called sessile serrated lesions).

The identification of adenomas is extremely important. Even a small increase in the detection of those precancerous polyps has benefits. Well-performed studies looking at large databases show that a small, 1% increase in the adenoma detection leads to a 3% decrease in colon cancer and a 5% decrease in colon cancer–related death. There’s a huge array of effect when we talk about small increases in the adenoma detection rate.

Now, let’s go back to this study in NEJM.

If we base quality on the physician performing the colonoscopy, and say that the colonoscopy is achieving the act of getting all the way around the colon, but not all physicians in the study were able to do that, it starts to raise the question about quality, because adenoma detection is so important. Earlier reports from this group [Nordic-European Initiative on Colorectal Cancer Study Group] have shown that the adenoma detection rates have been way below the national thresholds. So, this raises the question of whether they found the polyp, and then whether they resected the polyp. They also don’t tell us where these cancers were. It is about the colonoscopy quality. It’s not the instrument. It’s the process.
 

An overview of other screening tools

Dr. Wilson: Dr. Lin, colonoscopy, which requires prep and anesthesia, is not the only colon cancer screening method we have. In fact, there are a bunch. I think we’re on board saying it’s probably better to detect colon cancer early than not detect it. But what are our other options aside from colonoscopy that can allow for early detection of colon cancer?

Dr. Lin: For most of my career, there were three options that I presented patients with. The first was the fecal test, which used to be in the form of initial hemoccult tests. These have been mostly replaced by fecal immunochemical testing. But they’re both just basically looking for the presence of blood in the stool. Anyone who has a positive test would be referred for a diagnostic colonoscopy.

The other test besides colonoscopy, which has been largely phased out in the United States, although it is still very much used in Canada and much of Europe, is flexible sigmoidoscopy. Until this study, the tests supported by randomized controlled trials were the fecal tests and flexible sigmoidoscopy.

Interestingly, there was a recent systematic review of flexible sigmoidoscopy looking at four trials and their effects over 15 years. They showed not only a reduction in colon cancer, but also a reduction in colon cancer mortality, and even a small reduction in all-cause mortality.

I believe three out of the four trials were done where the patients were consented and then randomized, so they had a higher uptake of the procedure.

But when you compare this with the colonoscopy trial, it really isn’t that impressive. You would expect a much larger benefit, because obviously you’re looking at the entire colon. But you really didn’t see that. It was, at best, maybe equivalent to sigmoidoscopy, but not a whole lot better.

Dr. Johnson: Perry, you mentioned sedation. It’s important to understand that this particular cohort of patients are from Norway, Sweden, and Poland, where it’s very much the norm to not get sedation for your colonoscopy. Any of the [audience] who have had colonoscopy will tell you that they are not ones to say, “Don’t give me sedation.” The rate of sedation is around 11% in Norway, maybe 23% in Sweden, and around 45% in Poland. So, the examiner and the patient were never really super comfortable.

I’ve done 50,000 colonoscopies in my career, and many nonsedated. We know that taking time increases the finding of polyps and the adequate identification and resection. So, that ability to perform at a high quality is very much impacted when the patients aren’t comfortable.

Dr. Wilson: Dr. Johnson, we brought up flexible sigmoidoscopy. For the patients watching whose doctors are talking to them about screening colonoscopy, what’s the difference?

Dr. Johnson: Flexible sigmoidoscopy is just a short scope examination, in which you see about one-third of the colon. I’ve been in the field for 45 years, and during that time we’ve seen that there’s a progressive increase in the development of cancers above that bottom third of the colon to the higher end, the two-thirds of the colon that you would miss without doing a full colonoscopy. Also, flexible sigmoidoscopy typically does not get covered for sedation.

Again, if you do the exam and find something, then you’re going to have to come back and do an adequate resection with a colonoscopy. So, one-stop-shopping colon cancer screening is not about detection of cancer, it’s about prevention of cancer, and that’s what colonoscopy does.

Patients want convenience, but at what cost?

Dr. Wilson: Dr. Lin, how are your patients in your family practice handling this study? Have conversations changed around colon cancer screening? What are people asking about these days?

Dr. Lin: I don’t think the conversations have changed in my practice that much. When patients ask about this study, we do discuss the limitations, that it wasn’t designed to assess the maximum benefit of getting a colonoscopy because the majority of people assigned to that group didn’t get colonoscopy.

But I think it is an opportunity in primary care to consider the way we present the options to patients. Because I would guess that a majority of primary care physicians, when they present the options, would say colonoscopy is the gold standard and recommend their patients get it. And they only offer fecal testing to patients who don’t want the colonoscopy or really refuse.

That hasn’t been my practice. I’m usually more agnostic, because there are both harms and benefits. If you get a fecal test, the chance of you having a complication from colonoscopy is automatically lower because most of those people will not get colonoscopy. Now obviously, the complications with colonoscopy are pretty rare and usually self-limited, but they do exist. If you’re doing lots and lots of these, eventually you’ll see them. Probably all primary care physicians have patients who’ve had a complication from colonoscopy and may or may not have regretted it depending on how information was presented.

But I feel like this study reinforces my feeling that we ought to be presenting these, and not saying one is superior or inferior to the other. Instead, I’d base it on what the patient’s priorities are. But I feel like this study reinforces my feeling that we ought to be presenting these, and not saying one is superior or inferior to the other. Instead, I’d base it on what the patient’s priorities are. Is your priority finding every single cancer? Do you want to know exactly what the benefit is? I think with colonoscopy, we’re still trying to figure out exactly what the benefit is. Whereas we can say it pretty confidently for fecal tests because we have those randomized trials.

Dr. Wilson: Dr. Johnson, I think patients who are watching need to know, first of all, that if they do the fecal test route, a positive fecal test does lead to colonoscopy. In some sense, all roads lead to colonoscopy once you have a positive screening test. So, I can certainly see the value of just sort of skipping to that point. But what about this risk-versus-benefit relationship? Colonoscopy, albeit a relatively safe procedure, is still a procedure. There is some risk associated with it. If we can get the same benefit from yearly fecal immunochemical testing, is that a better choice potentially, at least for patients at average risk?

Dr. Johnson: The stool-based testing is really more effective for detection of cancer. That’s not screening, where the entire goal is the prevention of cancer. The fecal-based testing, including the stool-based DNA testing, misses the majority of precancerous polyps. And the fecal immunochemical tests, which Dr. Lin just mentioned, misses virtually all of them. We really want to get to the prevention of cancer, meaning identification and removal of polyps, not just screening for cancer.

Dr. Wilson: Do you see anything on the horizon that could unseat colonoscopy as, to quote Dr. Lin, the potential gold standard for screening for colon cancer?

Dr. Johnson: I think not on the horizon for identification and removal of polyps. That’s really the gold standard. Technology continues to advance. We’ll see what happens. But on the short and intermediate horizon, colonoscopy is going to be needed.

We are finding that some patients are starting to acquiesce to stool-based testing because they can do it at home. Maybe they don’t have to do a prep. We’re talking about screening only here, not about the follow-up of patients who have a family history, patients who have colitis, patients who have had colon polyps, or other reasons. Stool-based testing is not an option for the follow-up of those patients.

Convenience testing, in the face of COVID, also has thrown a wrench into things. Patients may have wanted to stay home and do these tests. Again, we need to be proactive, not reactive. We want to prevent cancer, not detect it.
 

Changing advice in the face of younger screening thresholds

Dr. Wilson: Dr. Lin, I’m 42 years old. I don’t believe I’m at any increased risk of colon cancer based on my family history or other risk factors. I’m 3 years away from when the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force tells me I should potentially consider starting to screen for colon cancer. That recommendation has recently been moved down from 50 years old to 45 years old. So, it’s on my mind as I approach that age. What do you advise younger patients approaching 45 right now in terms of screening for colon cancer?

Dr. Lin: For patients with the risk factors that Dr. Johnson mentioned, I would recommend screening colonoscopy as the initial test.

Assuming you don’t have those risk factors, I present it as we have a couple of different fecal tests. There’s the traditional one that just looks for blood. Then there’s the newer one that also adds DNA, which is more sensitive for colorectal cancer, but a little less specific, which is a problem just because there are more false positives.

But you need to compare that with colonoscopy, which you only need to get done ideally every 10 years if there are no findings. That is more complete. And theoretically, as we’ve been talking about, it would also prevent as well as detect early cancers.

So, I think it’s really down to your preference in terms of how the various factors that come into play, such as convenience of the test and your level of concern about cancer. I do tell patients that family history of cancer is not terribly predictive of whether you get it or not. A lot of people unfortunately who develop colorectal cancer have no previous family history. Diet will come into play to some extent. There are some things that point to increased risk for colorectal cancer if you have a diet high in red meat and things like that. But ultimately, it really is up to the patient. I lay out the options, and whatever they choose, I’m happy to pursue.

But the most important thing is that they do some test, because doing no test is not going to help anyone. I do agree with the notion that the best test is the test that gets done.

Dr. Wilson: Absolutely. I think the NEJM study supports that, even when we’re talking about colonoscopy.

Dr. Johnson, you’ve had some criticisms about the NEJM study, and I think they make sense. At the same time, as this is the first randomized trial of colonoscopy, it’s kind of the only data we have. Are we going to get better data? Are there other studies going on out there that might help shed some light on what’s turning out to be a complicated issue?

Dr. Johnson: Yes, there are ongoing studies. They’re not taking place within the United States, because you couldn’t get through a no-screening option trial. There are comparative studies that are probably still 5 years away looking at stool-based testing.

But again, we have to recognize that if you do these alternative tests that were eloquently discussed by Dr. Lin, and not the colonoscopy, which would be every 10 years with high-quality performance, that you have to annualize or do them in sequence. It’s important that you follow up on those with regularity. It’s not just a one-time test every 10 years for these individual tests.

And any of the time that those tests are ordered, the patient should be instructed that if it’s positive you need a colonoscopy. We’re seeing a lot of slippage on that front for the stool-based testing. Convenience is not the answer. It’s getting the job done.

Dr. Wilson: Would you agree, Dr. Johnson, that for patients that really don’t want to do the colonoscopy for one reason or another, and you’ve done your best in explaining what you think the risks and benefits are, that you’d rather have them get something than nothing?

Dr. Johnson: Absolutely. It comes down to what I recommend and then what you decide. But I still make the point explicit: If we’ve gone through those checkpoints and it’s positive, we agree that you understand that colonoscopy is the next step.

Final take-home messages

Dr. Wilson: Dr. Lin, I’ll turn the last word over to you, as the person who is probably discussing the choice of screening modalities more than any of us, before someone would get referred to someone like Dr. Johnson. What’s your final take-home message about the NEJM study and the state of colon cancer screening in the United States?

Dr. Lin: My take-home points about the study are that there were some limitations, but it is good to finally have a randomized trial of colonoscopy screening 2 decades after we really started doing that in the United States. It won’t immediately change – nor do I think it should – the way we practice and discuss different options. I think that some of Dr. Johnson’s points about making sure that whoever’s doing the colonoscopies for your practices is doing it in a high-quality way are really important. Just as it’s important, if you’re doing the fecal tests, to make sure that all patients who have positives get expeditiously referred for colonoscopy.

Dr. Johnson: Perry, I’d like to make one concluding comment as the gastroenterology expert in this discussion. I’ve had countless questions about this study from my patients and my peers. I tell them the following: Don’t let the headlines mislead you.

When you look at this study, the instrument is not so much the question. We know that getting the test is the first step in colon cancer screening. But we also know that getting the test done, with the highest-quality providers and the best-quality performance, is really the key to optimizing the true value of colonoscopy for colon cancer prevention.

So please don’t lose sight of this when reading the headlines in the media around this study. We really need to analyze the true characteristics of what we call a quality performance, because that’s what drives success and that’s what prevents colon cancer.

Dr. Wilson: Dr. Johnson and Dr. Lin, thank you very much. I appreciate you spending time with me here today and wish you all the best.

I guess I’ll sum up by saying that if you’re getting a colonoscopy, make sure it’s a good one. But do get screened.

This video originally appeared on WebMD. A transcript appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE: Hello, and thank you for joining us today for what promises to be a lively discussion about screening for colon cancer.

My name is Perry Wilson. I’m an associate professor of medicine and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at the Yale School of Medicine. My new book, “How Medicine Works and When It Doesn’t: Learning Who to Trust to Get and Stay Healthy,” is available for pre-order now anywhere that books are sold.

I’m joined by two wonderful experts. Dr. David Johnson is a professor of medicine and the chief of gastroenterology at the Eastern Virginia School of Medicine. He is the past president of the American College of Gastroenterology. And I’m very encouraged to see that he’s won a Distinguished Educator Award for his efforts in gastroenterology.

I’m also joined by Dr Kenny Lin. He’s a frequent contributor to Medscape and WebMD. He’s a family physician and public health consultant from Lancaster, Pa., and deputy editor of the American Family Physician journal. He’s also a teacher of residents and students at Lancaster General Health and the Penn Medicine Family Medicine Residency program.

So, we have two great educators with us today to hopefully help teach us something about colon cancer and colon cancer screening. Thank you for joining me today.

David A. Johnson, MD: Thanks for having us.

Kenneth W. Lin, MD, MPH: Good to be here.

Dr. Wilson: Colon cancer is the second leading cause of cancer mortality in the United States. A little over 50,000 people die every year in the United States due to colon cancer.

A month ago, I would have said that there was a pretty broad consensus, at least from my perspective, that people should be getting colonoscopies. That’s certainly what we tell our patients.

Then a paper came out in the New England Journal of Medicine, a very prestigious journal, that has caused a lot of consternation online and led to my receiving a lot questions from patients and their family members. Today, I’d like to talk about this randomized trial of screening colonoscopy for colon cancer, and why it has caused so much – perhaps – confusion, calls for change, and concern out there.

Dr Johnson, can you give us a brief overview of what this trial was about?

Dr. Johnson: This was a randomized trial looking at screening colonoscopy versus no screening test whatsoever. They looked at the outcomes of prevention of cancer and the prevention of colon cancer–related death.

The short answer was that it was disappointing as it relates to colonoscopy. The study looked at patients from four European countries, with data from three of them (Norway, Poland, and Sweden) ultimately analyzed in this report in NEJM. It got a lot of attention because it surprised a lot of people by saying maybe colonoscopy wasn’t quite as good as we thought it was.

They tried to correct that by only looking at the numbers of patients who got their colonoscopy screening, which still showed value, but it was less than that we’ve seen before. There’s lots of reasons for that, which we’ll discuss shortly.
 

An invitation to a screening

Dr. Wilson: This was a bit of an interesting trial design. I think I’m correct, Dr Lin, that this was the first randomized trial of screening colonoscopy. But they didn’t really randomize people to get a colonoscopy versus not get a colonoscopy. Can you tell us why this differed from that study design, which I’d have thought would be simpler way of assessing this?

Dr. Lin: It’s definitely an important point to highlight about the study. What investigators did was randomize patients to receive an invitation to get a screening colonoscopy. When the trial was set up, they randomized people before they were asked whether they wanted to participate in the study. If you did it the other way around, by first asking them whether they wanted to be in the study and then randomizing them, you would have been assured that more of them probably would have gotten the colonoscopy.

But in this case, they were more interested in figuring out the real-life results of having a national program that invited patients to receive screening colonoscopy. Because we know that everyone that you recommend to get a colonoscopy doesn’t necessarily want to do that, forgets to do it, or something happens that prevents their actually getting it.

When it comes to measuring the effectiveness of the colonoscopy, it perhaps wasn’t the greatest type of study to do that. But I think it did provide some information about what would happen if you invited people to get colonoscopy, in terms of how many would do it and the results overall for that population.
 

Lower participation numbers than expected

Dr. Wilson: Dr. Johnson, the data show that 42% of people who were in that invitation arm followed through and got their colonoscopy. You’re a gastroenterologist. Does that seem low or about right? Do about half of people who should get a colonoscopy end up getting one?

Dr. Johnson: No, it’s low. In the United States, those numbers are probably in the 70% range. Certainly, the test doesn’t work for people who don’t get the test performed. So, if 42% of those randomized to receive an invitation to get the colonoscopy got one, that really means the majority of patients never got the test.

Dr. Wilson: Certainly, we wouldn’t expect impressive results if they don’t get the test. But on the other hand, I imagine that people who choose to get the test when they’re invited are sort of a different breed. Perhaps they’re more health conscious or living in other healthy ways. Is that something we should worry about when we look at these results?

Dr. Johnson: I don’t think you can stratify based on this study. Factors like ethnicities and diet weren’t really explained. The key element that will hopefully have the major take-home impact is quality. It’s not just the test. It’s how the test is done.

The key results

Dr. Wilson: Let’s start with the big picture. This was a study looking at everyone invited; not the subgroup of people who got the colonoscopy, but the real randomized study population.

Dr. Lin, the study did show that the invited group had a lower risk of colon cancer over the next 10 years. That’s a good thing, I imagine.

Dr. Lin: I think that’s a significant benefit. Initially in the first few years, they had more colon cancers diagnosed. But that’s probably because those were cancers that were already existing and couldn’t be prevented by the test.

But then over the years the curves crossed, and by the end of the average follow-up of 10 years, there was a significantly lower rate of colon cancers being detected. That’s as you would expect, because you’re finding polyps and removing them before they became colon cancer.

Dr. Wilson: Dr. Johnson, is that the natural history of colon cancer? It starts out as a polyp that maybe can be easily removed and doesn’t require more therapy. Is that why screening colonoscopy is helpful?

Dr. Johnson: The ultimate goal of screening is prevention of cancer, rather than detection of cancer. That occurs by identification and complete removal of the polyps that we find that are precancerous. The key is, first, detection, and second, resection. Adequate resection comes down to some very significant issues of quality, which are questions that I’d raised about this study, and we can talk about momentarily.

Dr. Wilson: Absolutely. Let me first go through the two other big findings in this study.

The fact that there were fewer cases of colon cancer over 10 years seems good. But colon cancer mortality was not significantly different in the two groups. Now, of course, we know that not everyone got a colonoscopy. I would have expected though, if you had less colon cancer, you’d have less death from colon cancer.

Dr. Lin, what might explain this disconnect?

Dr. Lin: I think there are a couple of possible explanations.

One explanation is that they just didn’t follow the people long enough. Colon cancer takes a long time to go from an adenoma to cancer, and from cancer to something that would cause the patient’s death. You may need to follow them for longer than the 10 years that most of these patients were followed to see that benefit. I think there probably will be benefit after a while, because if you are removing colon cancers that otherwise would have progressed and metastasized, you often see a benefit.

We also have to consider the other possibility that not all the polyps removed necessarily were going to progress to advanced cancer. Therefore, you weren’t seeing the death benefit because not every polyp that was removed was necessarily going to cause health consequences.

In colonoscopy, quality is key to success

Dr. Wilson: You’re removing things and have no way of knowing in advance which are the bad ones and which aren’t.

Dr. Johnson, you’ve mentioned several times now that the quality of colonoscopy matters here. So, I’m intuiting that it’s not one-size-fits-all, that it’s not all the same. What do you mean by quality of colonoscopy, and what was it in the NEJM study?

Dr. Johnson: Quality colonoscopy is the quality of the whole process. It starts with the warm-up, if you will, and the clean out for the procedure. That allows the colonoscopist to be able to identify precancerous polyps, which we call adenomas (there are other precancerous polyps called sessile serrated lesions).

The identification of adenomas is extremely important. Even a small increase in the detection of those precancerous polyps has benefits. Well-performed studies looking at large databases show that a small, 1% increase in the adenoma detection leads to a 3% decrease in colon cancer and a 5% decrease in colon cancer–related death. There’s a huge array of effect when we talk about small increases in the adenoma detection rate.

Now, let’s go back to this study in NEJM.

If we base quality on the physician performing the colonoscopy, and say that the colonoscopy is achieving the act of getting all the way around the colon, but not all physicians in the study were able to do that, it starts to raise the question about quality, because adenoma detection is so important. Earlier reports from this group [Nordic-European Initiative on Colorectal Cancer Study Group] have shown that the adenoma detection rates have been way below the national thresholds. So, this raises the question of whether they found the polyp, and then whether they resected the polyp. They also don’t tell us where these cancers were. It is about the colonoscopy quality. It’s not the instrument. It’s the process.
 

An overview of other screening tools

Dr. Wilson: Dr. Lin, colonoscopy, which requires prep and anesthesia, is not the only colon cancer screening method we have. In fact, there are a bunch. I think we’re on board saying it’s probably better to detect colon cancer early than not detect it. But what are our other options aside from colonoscopy that can allow for early detection of colon cancer?

Dr. Lin: For most of my career, there were three options that I presented patients with. The first was the fecal test, which used to be in the form of initial hemoccult tests. These have been mostly replaced by fecal immunochemical testing. But they’re both just basically looking for the presence of blood in the stool. Anyone who has a positive test would be referred for a diagnostic colonoscopy.

The other test besides colonoscopy, which has been largely phased out in the United States, although it is still very much used in Canada and much of Europe, is flexible sigmoidoscopy. Until this study, the tests supported by randomized controlled trials were the fecal tests and flexible sigmoidoscopy.

Interestingly, there was a recent systematic review of flexible sigmoidoscopy looking at four trials and their effects over 15 years. They showed not only a reduction in colon cancer, but also a reduction in colon cancer mortality, and even a small reduction in all-cause mortality.

I believe three out of the four trials were done where the patients were consented and then randomized, so they had a higher uptake of the procedure.

But when you compare this with the colonoscopy trial, it really isn’t that impressive. You would expect a much larger benefit, because obviously you’re looking at the entire colon. But you really didn’t see that. It was, at best, maybe equivalent to sigmoidoscopy, but not a whole lot better.

Dr. Johnson: Perry, you mentioned sedation. It’s important to understand that this particular cohort of patients are from Norway, Sweden, and Poland, where it’s very much the norm to not get sedation for your colonoscopy. Any of the [audience] who have had colonoscopy will tell you that they are not ones to say, “Don’t give me sedation.” The rate of sedation is around 11% in Norway, maybe 23% in Sweden, and around 45% in Poland. So, the examiner and the patient were never really super comfortable.

I’ve done 50,000 colonoscopies in my career, and many nonsedated. We know that taking time increases the finding of polyps and the adequate identification and resection. So, that ability to perform at a high quality is very much impacted when the patients aren’t comfortable.

Dr. Wilson: Dr. Johnson, we brought up flexible sigmoidoscopy. For the patients watching whose doctors are talking to them about screening colonoscopy, what’s the difference?

Dr. Johnson: Flexible sigmoidoscopy is just a short scope examination, in which you see about one-third of the colon. I’ve been in the field for 45 years, and during that time we’ve seen that there’s a progressive increase in the development of cancers above that bottom third of the colon to the higher end, the two-thirds of the colon that you would miss without doing a full colonoscopy. Also, flexible sigmoidoscopy typically does not get covered for sedation.

Again, if you do the exam and find something, then you’re going to have to come back and do an adequate resection with a colonoscopy. So, one-stop-shopping colon cancer screening is not about detection of cancer, it’s about prevention of cancer, and that’s what colonoscopy does.

Patients want convenience, but at what cost?

Dr. Wilson: Dr. Lin, how are your patients in your family practice handling this study? Have conversations changed around colon cancer screening? What are people asking about these days?

Dr. Lin: I don’t think the conversations have changed in my practice that much. When patients ask about this study, we do discuss the limitations, that it wasn’t designed to assess the maximum benefit of getting a colonoscopy because the majority of people assigned to that group didn’t get colonoscopy.

But I think it is an opportunity in primary care to consider the way we present the options to patients. Because I would guess that a majority of primary care physicians, when they present the options, would say colonoscopy is the gold standard and recommend their patients get it. And they only offer fecal testing to patients who don’t want the colonoscopy or really refuse.

That hasn’t been my practice. I’m usually more agnostic, because there are both harms and benefits. If you get a fecal test, the chance of you having a complication from colonoscopy is automatically lower because most of those people will not get colonoscopy. Now obviously, the complications with colonoscopy are pretty rare and usually self-limited, but they do exist. If you’re doing lots and lots of these, eventually you’ll see them. Probably all primary care physicians have patients who’ve had a complication from colonoscopy and may or may not have regretted it depending on how information was presented.

But I feel like this study reinforces my feeling that we ought to be presenting these, and not saying one is superior or inferior to the other. Instead, I’d base it on what the patient’s priorities are. But I feel like this study reinforces my feeling that we ought to be presenting these, and not saying one is superior or inferior to the other. Instead, I’d base it on what the patient’s priorities are. Is your priority finding every single cancer? Do you want to know exactly what the benefit is? I think with colonoscopy, we’re still trying to figure out exactly what the benefit is. Whereas we can say it pretty confidently for fecal tests because we have those randomized trials.

Dr. Wilson: Dr. Johnson, I think patients who are watching need to know, first of all, that if they do the fecal test route, a positive fecal test does lead to colonoscopy. In some sense, all roads lead to colonoscopy once you have a positive screening test. So, I can certainly see the value of just sort of skipping to that point. But what about this risk-versus-benefit relationship? Colonoscopy, albeit a relatively safe procedure, is still a procedure. There is some risk associated with it. If we can get the same benefit from yearly fecal immunochemical testing, is that a better choice potentially, at least for patients at average risk?

Dr. Johnson: The stool-based testing is really more effective for detection of cancer. That’s not screening, where the entire goal is the prevention of cancer. The fecal-based testing, including the stool-based DNA testing, misses the majority of precancerous polyps. And the fecal immunochemical tests, which Dr. Lin just mentioned, misses virtually all of them. We really want to get to the prevention of cancer, meaning identification and removal of polyps, not just screening for cancer.

Dr. Wilson: Do you see anything on the horizon that could unseat colonoscopy as, to quote Dr. Lin, the potential gold standard for screening for colon cancer?

Dr. Johnson: I think not on the horizon for identification and removal of polyps. That’s really the gold standard. Technology continues to advance. We’ll see what happens. But on the short and intermediate horizon, colonoscopy is going to be needed.

We are finding that some patients are starting to acquiesce to stool-based testing because they can do it at home. Maybe they don’t have to do a prep. We’re talking about screening only here, not about the follow-up of patients who have a family history, patients who have colitis, patients who have had colon polyps, or other reasons. Stool-based testing is not an option for the follow-up of those patients.

Convenience testing, in the face of COVID, also has thrown a wrench into things. Patients may have wanted to stay home and do these tests. Again, we need to be proactive, not reactive. We want to prevent cancer, not detect it.
 

Changing advice in the face of younger screening thresholds

Dr. Wilson: Dr. Lin, I’m 42 years old. I don’t believe I’m at any increased risk of colon cancer based on my family history or other risk factors. I’m 3 years away from when the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force tells me I should potentially consider starting to screen for colon cancer. That recommendation has recently been moved down from 50 years old to 45 years old. So, it’s on my mind as I approach that age. What do you advise younger patients approaching 45 right now in terms of screening for colon cancer?

Dr. Lin: For patients with the risk factors that Dr. Johnson mentioned, I would recommend screening colonoscopy as the initial test.

Assuming you don’t have those risk factors, I present it as we have a couple of different fecal tests. There’s the traditional one that just looks for blood. Then there’s the newer one that also adds DNA, which is more sensitive for colorectal cancer, but a little less specific, which is a problem just because there are more false positives.

But you need to compare that with colonoscopy, which you only need to get done ideally every 10 years if there are no findings. That is more complete. And theoretically, as we’ve been talking about, it would also prevent as well as detect early cancers.

So, I think it’s really down to your preference in terms of how the various factors that come into play, such as convenience of the test and your level of concern about cancer. I do tell patients that family history of cancer is not terribly predictive of whether you get it or not. A lot of people unfortunately who develop colorectal cancer have no previous family history. Diet will come into play to some extent. There are some things that point to increased risk for colorectal cancer if you have a diet high in red meat and things like that. But ultimately, it really is up to the patient. I lay out the options, and whatever they choose, I’m happy to pursue.

But the most important thing is that they do some test, because doing no test is not going to help anyone. I do agree with the notion that the best test is the test that gets done.

Dr. Wilson: Absolutely. I think the NEJM study supports that, even when we’re talking about colonoscopy.

Dr. Johnson, you’ve had some criticisms about the NEJM study, and I think they make sense. At the same time, as this is the first randomized trial of colonoscopy, it’s kind of the only data we have. Are we going to get better data? Are there other studies going on out there that might help shed some light on what’s turning out to be a complicated issue?

Dr. Johnson: Yes, there are ongoing studies. They’re not taking place within the United States, because you couldn’t get through a no-screening option trial. There are comparative studies that are probably still 5 years away looking at stool-based testing.

But again, we have to recognize that if you do these alternative tests that were eloquently discussed by Dr. Lin, and not the colonoscopy, which would be every 10 years with high-quality performance, that you have to annualize or do them in sequence. It’s important that you follow up on those with regularity. It’s not just a one-time test every 10 years for these individual tests.

And any of the time that those tests are ordered, the patient should be instructed that if it’s positive you need a colonoscopy. We’re seeing a lot of slippage on that front for the stool-based testing. Convenience is not the answer. It’s getting the job done.

Dr. Wilson: Would you agree, Dr. Johnson, that for patients that really don’t want to do the colonoscopy for one reason or another, and you’ve done your best in explaining what you think the risks and benefits are, that you’d rather have them get something than nothing?

Dr. Johnson: Absolutely. It comes down to what I recommend and then what you decide. But I still make the point explicit: If we’ve gone through those checkpoints and it’s positive, we agree that you understand that colonoscopy is the next step.

Final take-home messages

Dr. Wilson: Dr. Lin, I’ll turn the last word over to you, as the person who is probably discussing the choice of screening modalities more than any of us, before someone would get referred to someone like Dr. Johnson. What’s your final take-home message about the NEJM study and the state of colon cancer screening in the United States?

Dr. Lin: My take-home points about the study are that there were some limitations, but it is good to finally have a randomized trial of colonoscopy screening 2 decades after we really started doing that in the United States. It won’t immediately change – nor do I think it should – the way we practice and discuss different options. I think that some of Dr. Johnson’s points about making sure that whoever’s doing the colonoscopies for your practices is doing it in a high-quality way are really important. Just as it’s important, if you’re doing the fecal tests, to make sure that all patients who have positives get expeditiously referred for colonoscopy.

Dr. Johnson: Perry, I’d like to make one concluding comment as the gastroenterology expert in this discussion. I’ve had countless questions about this study from my patients and my peers. I tell them the following: Don’t let the headlines mislead you.

When you look at this study, the instrument is not so much the question. We know that getting the test is the first step in colon cancer screening. But we also know that getting the test done, with the highest-quality providers and the best-quality performance, is really the key to optimizing the true value of colonoscopy for colon cancer prevention.

So please don’t lose sight of this when reading the headlines in the media around this study. We really need to analyze the true characteristics of what we call a quality performance, because that’s what drives success and that’s what prevents colon cancer.

Dr. Wilson: Dr. Johnson and Dr. Lin, thank you very much. I appreciate you spending time with me here today and wish you all the best.

I guess I’ll sum up by saying that if you’re getting a colonoscopy, make sure it’s a good one. But do get screened.

This video originally appeared on WebMD. A transcript appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE: Hello, and thank you for joining us today for what promises to be a lively discussion about screening for colon cancer.

My name is Perry Wilson. I’m an associate professor of medicine and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at the Yale School of Medicine. My new book, “How Medicine Works and When It Doesn’t: Learning Who to Trust to Get and Stay Healthy,” is available for pre-order now anywhere that books are sold.

I’m joined by two wonderful experts. Dr. David Johnson is a professor of medicine and the chief of gastroenterology at the Eastern Virginia School of Medicine. He is the past president of the American College of Gastroenterology. And I’m very encouraged to see that he’s won a Distinguished Educator Award for his efforts in gastroenterology.

I’m also joined by Dr Kenny Lin. He’s a frequent contributor to Medscape and WebMD. He’s a family physician and public health consultant from Lancaster, Pa., and deputy editor of the American Family Physician journal. He’s also a teacher of residents and students at Lancaster General Health and the Penn Medicine Family Medicine Residency program.

So, we have two great educators with us today to hopefully help teach us something about colon cancer and colon cancer screening. Thank you for joining me today.

David A. Johnson, MD: Thanks for having us.

Kenneth W. Lin, MD, MPH: Good to be here.

Dr. Wilson: Colon cancer is the second leading cause of cancer mortality in the United States. A little over 50,000 people die every year in the United States due to colon cancer.

A month ago, I would have said that there was a pretty broad consensus, at least from my perspective, that people should be getting colonoscopies. That’s certainly what we tell our patients.

Then a paper came out in the New England Journal of Medicine, a very prestigious journal, that has caused a lot of consternation online and led to my receiving a lot questions from patients and their family members. Today, I’d like to talk about this randomized trial of screening colonoscopy for colon cancer, and why it has caused so much – perhaps – confusion, calls for change, and concern out there.

Dr Johnson, can you give us a brief overview of what this trial was about?

Dr. Johnson: This was a randomized trial looking at screening colonoscopy versus no screening test whatsoever. They looked at the outcomes of prevention of cancer and the prevention of colon cancer–related death.

The short answer was that it was disappointing as it relates to colonoscopy. The study looked at patients from four European countries, with data from three of them (Norway, Poland, and Sweden) ultimately analyzed in this report in NEJM. It got a lot of attention because it surprised a lot of people by saying maybe colonoscopy wasn’t quite as good as we thought it was.

They tried to correct that by only looking at the numbers of patients who got their colonoscopy screening, which still showed value, but it was less than that we’ve seen before. There’s lots of reasons for that, which we’ll discuss shortly.
 

An invitation to a screening

Dr. Wilson: This was a bit of an interesting trial design. I think I’m correct, Dr Lin, that this was the first randomized trial of screening colonoscopy. But they didn’t really randomize people to get a colonoscopy versus not get a colonoscopy. Can you tell us why this differed from that study design, which I’d have thought would be simpler way of assessing this?

Dr. Lin: It’s definitely an important point to highlight about the study. What investigators did was randomize patients to receive an invitation to get a screening colonoscopy. When the trial was set up, they randomized people before they were asked whether they wanted to participate in the study. If you did it the other way around, by first asking them whether they wanted to be in the study and then randomizing them, you would have been assured that more of them probably would have gotten the colonoscopy.

But in this case, they were more interested in figuring out the real-life results of having a national program that invited patients to receive screening colonoscopy. Because we know that everyone that you recommend to get a colonoscopy doesn’t necessarily want to do that, forgets to do it, or something happens that prevents their actually getting it.

When it comes to measuring the effectiveness of the colonoscopy, it perhaps wasn’t the greatest type of study to do that. But I think it did provide some information about what would happen if you invited people to get colonoscopy, in terms of how many would do it and the results overall for that population.
 

Lower participation numbers than expected

Dr. Wilson: Dr. Johnson, the data show that 42% of people who were in that invitation arm followed through and got their colonoscopy. You’re a gastroenterologist. Does that seem low or about right? Do about half of people who should get a colonoscopy end up getting one?

Dr. Johnson: No, it’s low. In the United States, those numbers are probably in the 70% range. Certainly, the test doesn’t work for people who don’t get the test performed. So, if 42% of those randomized to receive an invitation to get the colonoscopy got one, that really means the majority of patients never got the test.

Dr. Wilson: Certainly, we wouldn’t expect impressive results if they don’t get the test. But on the other hand, I imagine that people who choose to get the test when they’re invited are sort of a different breed. Perhaps they’re more health conscious or living in other healthy ways. Is that something we should worry about when we look at these results?

Dr. Johnson: I don’t think you can stratify based on this study. Factors like ethnicities and diet weren’t really explained. The key element that will hopefully have the major take-home impact is quality. It’s not just the test. It’s how the test is done.

The key results

Dr. Wilson: Let’s start with the big picture. This was a study looking at everyone invited; not the subgroup of people who got the colonoscopy, but the real randomized study population.

Dr. Lin, the study did show that the invited group had a lower risk of colon cancer over the next 10 years. That’s a good thing, I imagine.

Dr. Lin: I think that’s a significant benefit. Initially in the first few years, they had more colon cancers diagnosed. But that’s probably because those were cancers that were already existing and couldn’t be prevented by the test.

But then over the years the curves crossed, and by the end of the average follow-up of 10 years, there was a significantly lower rate of colon cancers being detected. That’s as you would expect, because you’re finding polyps and removing them before they became colon cancer.

Dr. Wilson: Dr. Johnson, is that the natural history of colon cancer? It starts out as a polyp that maybe can be easily removed and doesn’t require more therapy. Is that why screening colonoscopy is helpful?

Dr. Johnson: The ultimate goal of screening is prevention of cancer, rather than detection of cancer. That occurs by identification and complete removal of the polyps that we find that are precancerous. The key is, first, detection, and second, resection. Adequate resection comes down to some very significant issues of quality, which are questions that I’d raised about this study, and we can talk about momentarily.

Dr. Wilson: Absolutely. Let me first go through the two other big findings in this study.

The fact that there were fewer cases of colon cancer over 10 years seems good. But colon cancer mortality was not significantly different in the two groups. Now, of course, we know that not everyone got a colonoscopy. I would have expected though, if you had less colon cancer, you’d have less death from colon cancer.

Dr. Lin, what might explain this disconnect?

Dr. Lin: I think there are a couple of possible explanations.

One explanation is that they just didn’t follow the people long enough. Colon cancer takes a long time to go from an adenoma to cancer, and from cancer to something that would cause the patient’s death. You may need to follow them for longer than the 10 years that most of these patients were followed to see that benefit. I think there probably will be benefit after a while, because if you are removing colon cancers that otherwise would have progressed and metastasized, you often see a benefit.

We also have to consider the other possibility that not all the polyps removed necessarily were going to progress to advanced cancer. Therefore, you weren’t seeing the death benefit because not every polyp that was removed was necessarily going to cause health consequences.

In colonoscopy, quality is key to success

Dr. Wilson: You’re removing things and have no way of knowing in advance which are the bad ones and which aren’t.

Dr. Johnson, you’ve mentioned several times now that the quality of colonoscopy matters here. So, I’m intuiting that it’s not one-size-fits-all, that it’s not all the same. What do you mean by quality of colonoscopy, and what was it in the NEJM study?

Dr. Johnson: Quality colonoscopy is the quality of the whole process. It starts with the warm-up, if you will, and the clean out for the procedure. That allows the colonoscopist to be able to identify precancerous polyps, which we call adenomas (there are other precancerous polyps called sessile serrated lesions).

The identification of adenomas is extremely important. Even a small increase in the detection of those precancerous polyps has benefits. Well-performed studies looking at large databases show that a small, 1% increase in the adenoma detection leads to a 3% decrease in colon cancer and a 5% decrease in colon cancer–related death. There’s a huge array of effect when we talk about small increases in the adenoma detection rate.

Now, let’s go back to this study in NEJM.

If we base quality on the physician performing the colonoscopy, and say that the colonoscopy is achieving the act of getting all the way around the colon, but not all physicians in the study were able to do that, it starts to raise the question about quality, because adenoma detection is so important. Earlier reports from this group [Nordic-European Initiative on Colorectal Cancer Study Group] have shown that the adenoma detection rates have been way below the national thresholds. So, this raises the question of whether they found the polyp, and then whether they resected the polyp. They also don’t tell us where these cancers were. It is about the colonoscopy quality. It’s not the instrument. It’s the process.
 

An overview of other screening tools

Dr. Wilson: Dr. Lin, colonoscopy, which requires prep and anesthesia, is not the only colon cancer screening method we have. In fact, there are a bunch. I think we’re on board saying it’s probably better to detect colon cancer early than not detect it. But what are our other options aside from colonoscopy that can allow for early detection of colon cancer?

Dr. Lin: For most of my career, there were three options that I presented patients with. The first was the fecal test, which used to be in the form of initial hemoccult tests. These have been mostly replaced by fecal immunochemical testing. But they’re both just basically looking for the presence of blood in the stool. Anyone who has a positive test would be referred for a diagnostic colonoscopy.

The other test besides colonoscopy, which has been largely phased out in the United States, although it is still very much used in Canada and much of Europe, is flexible sigmoidoscopy. Until this study, the tests supported by randomized controlled trials were the fecal tests and flexible sigmoidoscopy.

Interestingly, there was a recent systematic review of flexible sigmoidoscopy looking at four trials and their effects over 15 years. They showed not only a reduction in colon cancer, but also a reduction in colon cancer mortality, and even a small reduction in all-cause mortality.

I believe three out of the four trials were done where the patients were consented and then randomized, so they had a higher uptake of the procedure.

But when you compare this with the colonoscopy trial, it really isn’t that impressive. You would expect a much larger benefit, because obviously you’re looking at the entire colon. But you really didn’t see that. It was, at best, maybe equivalent to sigmoidoscopy, but not a whole lot better.

Dr. Johnson: Perry, you mentioned sedation. It’s important to understand that this particular cohort of patients are from Norway, Sweden, and Poland, where it’s very much the norm to not get sedation for your colonoscopy. Any of the [audience] who have had colonoscopy will tell you that they are not ones to say, “Don’t give me sedation.” The rate of sedation is around 11% in Norway, maybe 23% in Sweden, and around 45% in Poland. So, the examiner and the patient were never really super comfortable.

I’ve done 50,000 colonoscopies in my career, and many nonsedated. We know that taking time increases the finding of polyps and the adequate identification and resection. So, that ability to perform at a high quality is very much impacted when the patients aren’t comfortable.

Dr. Wilson: Dr. Johnson, we brought up flexible sigmoidoscopy. For the patients watching whose doctors are talking to them about screening colonoscopy, what’s the difference?

Dr. Johnson: Flexible sigmoidoscopy is just a short scope examination, in which you see about one-third of the colon. I’ve been in the field for 45 years, and during that time we’ve seen that there’s a progressive increase in the development of cancers above that bottom third of the colon to the higher end, the two-thirds of the colon that you would miss without doing a full colonoscopy. Also, flexible sigmoidoscopy typically does not get covered for sedation.

Again, if you do the exam and find something, then you’re going to have to come back and do an adequate resection with a colonoscopy. So, one-stop-shopping colon cancer screening is not about detection of cancer, it’s about prevention of cancer, and that’s what colonoscopy does.

Patients want convenience, but at what cost?

Dr. Wilson: Dr. Lin, how are your patients in your family practice handling this study? Have conversations changed around colon cancer screening? What are people asking about these days?

Dr. Lin: I don’t think the conversations have changed in my practice that much. When patients ask about this study, we do discuss the limitations, that it wasn’t designed to assess the maximum benefit of getting a colonoscopy because the majority of people assigned to that group didn’t get colonoscopy.

But I think it is an opportunity in primary care to consider the way we present the options to patients. Because I would guess that a majority of primary care physicians, when they present the options, would say colonoscopy is the gold standard and recommend their patients get it. And they only offer fecal testing to patients who don’t want the colonoscopy or really refuse.

That hasn’t been my practice. I’m usually more agnostic, because there are both harms and benefits. If you get a fecal test, the chance of you having a complication from colonoscopy is automatically lower because most of those people will not get colonoscopy. Now obviously, the complications with colonoscopy are pretty rare and usually self-limited, but they do exist. If you’re doing lots and lots of these, eventually you’ll see them. Probably all primary care physicians have patients who’ve had a complication from colonoscopy and may or may not have regretted it depending on how information was presented.

But I feel like this study reinforces my feeling that we ought to be presenting these, and not saying one is superior or inferior to the other. Instead, I’d base it on what the patient’s priorities are. But I feel like this study reinforces my feeling that we ought to be presenting these, and not saying one is superior or inferior to the other. Instead, I’d base it on what the patient’s priorities are. Is your priority finding every single cancer? Do you want to know exactly what the benefit is? I think with colonoscopy, we’re still trying to figure out exactly what the benefit is. Whereas we can say it pretty confidently for fecal tests because we have those randomized trials.

Dr. Wilson: Dr. Johnson, I think patients who are watching need to know, first of all, that if they do the fecal test route, a positive fecal test does lead to colonoscopy. In some sense, all roads lead to colonoscopy once you have a positive screening test. So, I can certainly see the value of just sort of skipping to that point. But what about this risk-versus-benefit relationship? Colonoscopy, albeit a relatively safe procedure, is still a procedure. There is some risk associated with it. If we can get the same benefit from yearly fecal immunochemical testing, is that a better choice potentially, at least for patients at average risk?

Dr. Johnson: The stool-based testing is really more effective for detection of cancer. That’s not screening, where the entire goal is the prevention of cancer. The fecal-based testing, including the stool-based DNA testing, misses the majority of precancerous polyps. And the fecal immunochemical tests, which Dr. Lin just mentioned, misses virtually all of them. We really want to get to the prevention of cancer, meaning identification and removal of polyps, not just screening for cancer.

Dr. Wilson: Do you see anything on the horizon that could unseat colonoscopy as, to quote Dr. Lin, the potential gold standard for screening for colon cancer?

Dr. Johnson: I think not on the horizon for identification and removal of polyps. That’s really the gold standard. Technology continues to advance. We’ll see what happens. But on the short and intermediate horizon, colonoscopy is going to be needed.

We are finding that some patients are starting to acquiesce to stool-based testing because they can do it at home. Maybe they don’t have to do a prep. We’re talking about screening only here, not about the follow-up of patients who have a family history, patients who have colitis, patients who have had colon polyps, or other reasons. Stool-based testing is not an option for the follow-up of those patients.

Convenience testing, in the face of COVID, also has thrown a wrench into things. Patients may have wanted to stay home and do these tests. Again, we need to be proactive, not reactive. We want to prevent cancer, not detect it.
 

Changing advice in the face of younger screening thresholds

Dr. Wilson: Dr. Lin, I’m 42 years old. I don’t believe I’m at any increased risk of colon cancer based on my family history or other risk factors. I’m 3 years away from when the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force tells me I should potentially consider starting to screen for colon cancer. That recommendation has recently been moved down from 50 years old to 45 years old. So, it’s on my mind as I approach that age. What do you advise younger patients approaching 45 right now in terms of screening for colon cancer?

Dr. Lin: For patients with the risk factors that Dr. Johnson mentioned, I would recommend screening colonoscopy as the initial test.

Assuming you don’t have those risk factors, I present it as we have a couple of different fecal tests. There’s the traditional one that just looks for blood. Then there’s the newer one that also adds DNA, which is more sensitive for colorectal cancer, but a little less specific, which is a problem just because there are more false positives.

But you need to compare that with colonoscopy, which you only need to get done ideally every 10 years if there are no findings. That is more complete. And theoretically, as we’ve been talking about, it would also prevent as well as detect early cancers.

So, I think it’s really down to your preference in terms of how the various factors that come into play, such as convenience of the test and your level of concern about cancer. I do tell patients that family history of cancer is not terribly predictive of whether you get it or not. A lot of people unfortunately who develop colorectal cancer have no previous family history. Diet will come into play to some extent. There are some things that point to increased risk for colorectal cancer if you have a diet high in red meat and things like that. But ultimately, it really is up to the patient. I lay out the options, and whatever they choose, I’m happy to pursue.

But the most important thing is that they do some test, because doing no test is not going to help anyone. I do agree with the notion that the best test is the test that gets done.

Dr. Wilson: Absolutely. I think the NEJM study supports that, even when we’re talking about colonoscopy.

Dr. Johnson, you’ve had some criticisms about the NEJM study, and I think they make sense. At the same time, as this is the first randomized trial of colonoscopy, it’s kind of the only data we have. Are we going to get better data? Are there other studies going on out there that might help shed some light on what’s turning out to be a complicated issue?

Dr. Johnson: Yes, there are ongoing studies. They’re not taking place within the United States, because you couldn’t get through a no-screening option trial. There are comparative studies that are probably still 5 years away looking at stool-based testing.

But again, we have to recognize that if you do these alternative tests that were eloquently discussed by Dr. Lin, and not the colonoscopy, which would be every 10 years with high-quality performance, that you have to annualize or do them in sequence. It’s important that you follow up on those with regularity. It’s not just a one-time test every 10 years for these individual tests.

And any of the time that those tests are ordered, the patient should be instructed that if it’s positive you need a colonoscopy. We’re seeing a lot of slippage on that front for the stool-based testing. Convenience is not the answer. It’s getting the job done.

Dr. Wilson: Would you agree, Dr. Johnson, that for patients that really don’t want to do the colonoscopy for one reason or another, and you’ve done your best in explaining what you think the risks and benefits are, that you’d rather have them get something than nothing?

Dr. Johnson: Absolutely. It comes down to what I recommend and then what you decide. But I still make the point explicit: If we’ve gone through those checkpoints and it’s positive, we agree that you understand that colonoscopy is the next step.

Final take-home messages

Dr. Wilson: Dr. Lin, I’ll turn the last word over to you, as the person who is probably discussing the choice of screening modalities more than any of us, before someone would get referred to someone like Dr. Johnson. What’s your final take-home message about the NEJM study and the state of colon cancer screening in the United States?

Dr. Lin: My take-home points about the study are that there were some limitations, but it is good to finally have a randomized trial of colonoscopy screening 2 decades after we really started doing that in the United States. It won’t immediately change – nor do I think it should – the way we practice and discuss different options. I think that some of Dr. Johnson’s points about making sure that whoever’s doing the colonoscopies for your practices is doing it in a high-quality way are really important. Just as it’s important, if you’re doing the fecal tests, to make sure that all patients who have positives get expeditiously referred for colonoscopy.

Dr. Johnson: Perry, I’d like to make one concluding comment as the gastroenterology expert in this discussion. I’ve had countless questions about this study from my patients and my peers. I tell them the following: Don’t let the headlines mislead you.

When you look at this study, the instrument is not so much the question. We know that getting the test is the first step in colon cancer screening. But we also know that getting the test done, with the highest-quality providers and the best-quality performance, is really the key to optimizing the true value of colonoscopy for colon cancer prevention.

So please don’t lose sight of this when reading the headlines in the media around this study. We really need to analyze the true characteristics of what we call a quality performance, because that’s what drives success and that’s what prevents colon cancer.

Dr. Wilson: Dr. Johnson and Dr. Lin, thank you very much. I appreciate you spending time with me here today and wish you all the best.

I guess I’ll sum up by saying that if you’re getting a colonoscopy, make sure it’s a good one. But do get screened.

This video originally appeared on WebMD. A transcript appeared on Medscape.com.

To the Editor:

Juvenile dermatomyositis (JDM) is an autoimmune disorder with childhood onset that predominantly affects the muscles and skin, among other organs. Since the recognition of dermatomyositis (DM) more than 100 years ago, a variety of clinical diagnostic criteria have been utilized. Classically, DM presents with muscle weakness and a pathognomonic cutaneous macular, violaceous, erythematous eruption. The juvenile variant is defined by onset prior to 16 years of age. Histologically, these entities are indistinguishable and demonstrate an interface dermatitis with epidermal atrophy. Clinically, JDM has a higher incidence of calcinosis cutis and is not associated with an increased risk for malignancy in contrast to the adult-onset variant.¹ Panniculitis is a rare but serious complication in a subset of patients with DM and may represent a precursor to calcinosis cutis.² We describe a case of JDM-associated panniculitis that was difficult to control with prednisone and rituximab.

A 21-year-old woman with fever, fatigue, muscle pain, and new-onset swelling of 2 weeks’ duration was admitted to the hospital. She had a 5-year history of intermittent muscle weakness and concomitant rash. Prior to presentation, she had been hospitalized twice for fever of unknown origin, and the source remained undetermined. Physical examination revealed prominent facial and periorbital edema. There was tender nonpitting edema present on all 4 extremities and hyperpigmented indurated nodules on the shins (Figure 1). A full laboratory and imaging workup was performed for autoantibodies and infectious etiologies. The complete blood cell count was notable for pancytopenia, and a thorough infectious workup was negative. Creatine kinase level was within reference range. A biopsy of the right shin was performed, and histopathology revealed a lobular panniculitis with fat necrosis and mixed inflammation with neutrophils with perieccrine involvement as well as an interface dermatitis (Figure 2). Periodic acid–Schiff, Grocott methenamine-silver, and Gram stains were negative. Myositis-specific antibody testing revealed anti-p155/140 autoantibodies, and magnetic resonance imaging did not reveal active myositis within the visualized muscles, consistent with stable nonprogressing DM. A diagnosis of JDM with panniculitis was made. The patient was started on oral prednisone. Subsequently, a trial of rituximab was initiated. Although the patient’s symptoms initially improved, the response was not sustained on rituximab, and the patient was continued on systemic steroids with initiation of cyclosporine.

Juvenile dermatomyositis is an autoimmune disorder with childhood onset that involves systemic inflammation of the muscles, skin, and internal organs. It often can present diagnostic and therapeutic challenges.^2,3 Bohan and Peter^4,5 clinical criteria may help identify potential patients with JDM, but magnetic resonance imaging, electromyography, and muscle biopsy often are required to confirm the diagnosis.⁶ Skin manifestations include heliotrope rash; V sign; shawl sign; Gottron papules; periorbital edema; and infrequently panniculitis, the subcutaneous inflammation of adipose tissue.^3,7

Although panniculitis is found in approximately 10% of skin biopsies in patients with DM, our patient presented with anti-p155/140 antibodies.^8-10 Fat involvement in these patients traditionally manifests as lipodystrophy. Panniculitis also may precede calcinosis cutis, a debilitating skin change that may occur in approximately 46% of patients with JDM and can cause severe morbidity.^2,6,9

Subcutaneous edema rarely is described in DM-panniculitis, present in only 6% of 86 DM patients in one study.⁷ The pathophysiology of DM may be due to antibodies that target endothelial cells and activate complement, resulting in the membranolytic attack complex. This leads to microischemia, and microinfarction of the muscle fibers has been suggested to result in edema of the subcutaneous tissue in severe cases.^7,11 Microinfarction has been found to be present 2.3 times more often in edematous DM compared with nonedematous DM.⁷ Subcutaneous edema may be an isolated presentation of DM that arises more quickly with severe disease activity. As such, recommendations have been made to consider edema in future classification schemes.⁷

Because of the severity of edematous and/or subcutaneous DM, aggressive therapy may be required. First-line therapy consists of corticosteroids with additional immunosuppressants and immunomodulatory agents if adequate response is not achieved.^3,12 The effectiveness of rituximab in DM has been suggested.^2,12,13 The Rituximab in Myositis (RIM) trial (N=200) was the first double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 clinical trial to assess rituximab’s efficacy in refractory compared with early-onset inflammatory myopathies. Although outcomes were similar in both groups, 83% of patients overall, including the JDM subset, met the definition of improvement.¹² In re-examining the RIM trial data and other cases using rituximab to treat inflammatory myopathies, an overall response rate of 78.3% was observed, with 52.1% of patients with DM reporting improvement in skin lesions (N=458, pooled from 48 studies).¹³ Further analysis of the RIM data revealed that panniculitis affected 10.4% of patients with JDM at baseline, which decreased to 6.8% at 36 weeks of rituximab therapy (N=48).¹²

As exhibited in our patient, subcutaneous tissue involvement, including calcinosis cutis and panniculitis, is seen more often in JDM than adult DM.^2,6 However, panniculitis in anti-p155/140 patients is rare. Our patient also had antibody positivity, which likely predisposed her to a more severe course. Despite not having sustained improvement on rituximab, initiating aggressive therapy earlier in the disease course may be beneficial, and our patient continues with alternative therapies.

To the Editor:

Juvenile dermatomyositis (JDM) is an autoimmune disorder with childhood onset that predominantly affects the muscles and skin, among other organs. Since the recognition of dermatomyositis (DM) more than 100 years ago, a variety of clinical diagnostic criteria have been utilized. Classically, DM presents with muscle weakness and a pathognomonic cutaneous macular, violaceous, erythematous eruption. The juvenile variant is defined by onset prior to 16 years of age. Histologically, these entities are indistinguishable and demonstrate an interface dermatitis with epidermal atrophy. Clinically, JDM has a higher incidence of calcinosis cutis and is not associated with an increased risk for malignancy in contrast to the adult-onset variant.¹ Panniculitis is a rare but serious complication in a subset of patients with DM and may represent a precursor to calcinosis cutis.² We describe a case of JDM-associated panniculitis that was difficult to control with prednisone and rituximab.

A 21-year-old woman with fever, fatigue, muscle pain, and new-onset swelling of 2 weeks’ duration was admitted to the hospital. She had a 5-year history of intermittent muscle weakness and concomitant rash. Prior to presentation, she had been hospitalized twice for fever of unknown origin, and the source remained undetermined. Physical examination revealed prominent facial and periorbital edema. There was tender nonpitting edema present on all 4 extremities and hyperpigmented indurated nodules on the shins (Figure 1). A full laboratory and imaging workup was performed for autoantibodies and infectious etiologies. The complete blood cell count was notable for pancytopenia, and a thorough infectious workup was negative. Creatine kinase level was within reference range. A biopsy of the right shin was performed, and histopathology revealed a lobular panniculitis with fat necrosis and mixed inflammation with neutrophils with perieccrine involvement as well as an interface dermatitis (Figure 2). Periodic acid–Schiff, Grocott methenamine-silver, and Gram stains were negative. Myositis-specific antibody testing revealed anti-p155/140 autoantibodies, and magnetic resonance imaging did not reveal active myositis within the visualized muscles, consistent with stable nonprogressing DM. A diagnosis of JDM with panniculitis was made. The patient was started on oral prednisone. Subsequently, a trial of rituximab was initiated. Although the patient’s symptoms initially improved, the response was not sustained on rituximab, and the patient was continued on systemic steroids with initiation of cyclosporine.

Juvenile dermatomyositis is an autoimmune disorder with childhood onset that involves systemic inflammation of the muscles, skin, and internal organs. It often can present diagnostic and therapeutic challenges.^2,3 Bohan and Peter^4,5 clinical criteria may help identify potential patients with JDM, but magnetic resonance imaging, electromyography, and muscle biopsy often are required to confirm the diagnosis.⁶ Skin manifestations include heliotrope rash; V sign; shawl sign; Gottron papules; periorbital edema; and infrequently panniculitis, the subcutaneous inflammation of adipose tissue.^3,7

Although panniculitis is found in approximately 10% of skin biopsies in patients with DM, our patient presented with anti-p155/140 antibodies.^8-10 Fat involvement in these patients traditionally manifests as lipodystrophy. Panniculitis also may precede calcinosis cutis, a debilitating skin change that may occur in approximately 46% of patients with JDM and can cause severe morbidity.^2,6,9

Subcutaneous edema rarely is described in DM-panniculitis, present in only 6% of 86 DM patients in one study.⁷ The pathophysiology of DM may be due to antibodies that target endothelial cells and activate complement, resulting in the membranolytic attack complex. This leads to microischemia, and microinfarction of the muscle fibers has been suggested to result in edema of the subcutaneous tissue in severe cases.^7,11 Microinfarction has been found to be present 2.3 times more often in edematous DM compared with nonedematous DM.⁷ Subcutaneous edema may be an isolated presentation of DM that arises more quickly with severe disease activity. As such, recommendations have been made to consider edema in future classification schemes.⁷

Because of the severity of edematous and/or subcutaneous DM, aggressive therapy may be required. First-line therapy consists of corticosteroids with additional immunosuppressants and immunomodulatory agents if adequate response is not achieved.^3,12 The effectiveness of rituximab in DM has been suggested.^2,12,13 The Rituximab in Myositis (RIM) trial (N=200) was the first double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 clinical trial to assess rituximab’s efficacy in refractory compared with early-onset inflammatory myopathies. Although outcomes were similar in both groups, 83% of patients overall, including the JDM subset, met the definition of improvement.¹² In re-examining the RIM trial data and other cases using rituximab to treat inflammatory myopathies, an overall response rate of 78.3% was observed, with 52.1% of patients with DM reporting improvement in skin lesions (N=458, pooled from 48 studies).¹³ Further analysis of the RIM data revealed that panniculitis affected 10.4% of patients with JDM at baseline, which decreased to 6.8% at 36 weeks of rituximab therapy (N=48).¹²

As exhibited in our patient, subcutaneous tissue involvement, including calcinosis cutis and panniculitis, is seen more often in JDM than adult DM.^2,6 However, panniculitis in anti-p155/140 patients is rare. Our patient also had antibody positivity, which likely predisposed her to a more severe course. Despite not having sustained improvement on rituximab, initiating aggressive therapy earlier in the disease course may be beneficial, and our patient continues with alternative therapies.

To the Editor:

Juvenile dermatomyositis (JDM) is an autoimmune disorder with childhood onset that predominantly affects the muscles and skin, among other organs. Since the recognition of dermatomyositis (DM) more than 100 years ago, a variety of clinical diagnostic criteria have been utilized. Classically, DM presents with muscle weakness and a pathognomonic cutaneous macular, violaceous, erythematous eruption. The juvenile variant is defined by onset prior to 16 years of age. Histologically, these entities are indistinguishable and demonstrate an interface dermatitis with epidermal atrophy. Clinically, JDM has a higher incidence of calcinosis cutis and is not associated with an increased risk for malignancy in contrast to the adult-onset variant.¹ Panniculitis is a rare but serious complication in a subset of patients with DM and may represent a precursor to calcinosis cutis.² We describe a case of JDM-associated panniculitis that was difficult to control with prednisone and rituximab.

A 21-year-old woman with fever, fatigue, muscle pain, and new-onset swelling of 2 weeks’ duration was admitted to the hospital. She had a 5-year history of intermittent muscle weakness and concomitant rash. Prior to presentation, she had been hospitalized twice for fever of unknown origin, and the source remained undetermined. Physical examination revealed prominent facial and periorbital edema. There was tender nonpitting edema present on all 4 extremities and hyperpigmented indurated nodules on the shins (Figure 1). A full laboratory and imaging workup was performed for autoantibodies and infectious etiologies. The complete blood cell count was notable for pancytopenia, and a thorough infectious workup was negative. Creatine kinase level was within reference range. A biopsy of the right shin was performed, and histopathology revealed a lobular panniculitis with fat necrosis and mixed inflammation with neutrophils with perieccrine involvement as well as an interface dermatitis (Figure 2). Periodic acid–Schiff, Grocott methenamine-silver, and Gram stains were negative. Myositis-specific antibody testing revealed anti-p155/140 autoantibodies, and magnetic resonance imaging did not reveal active myositis within the visualized muscles, consistent with stable nonprogressing DM. A diagnosis of JDM with panniculitis was made. The patient was started on oral prednisone. Subsequently, a trial of rituximab was initiated. Although the patient’s symptoms initially improved, the response was not sustained on rituximab, and the patient was continued on systemic steroids with initiation of cyclosporine.

Juvenile dermatomyositis is an autoimmune disorder with childhood onset that involves systemic inflammation of the muscles, skin, and internal organs. It often can present diagnostic and therapeutic challenges.^2,3 Bohan and Peter^4,5 clinical criteria may help identify potential patients with JDM, but magnetic resonance imaging, electromyography, and muscle biopsy often are required to confirm the diagnosis.⁶ Skin manifestations include heliotrope rash; V sign; shawl sign; Gottron papules; periorbital edema; and infrequently panniculitis, the subcutaneous inflammation of adipose tissue.^3,7

Although panniculitis is found in approximately 10% of skin biopsies in patients with DM, our patient presented with anti-p155/140 antibodies.^8-10 Fat involvement in these patients traditionally manifests as lipodystrophy. Panniculitis also may precede calcinosis cutis, a debilitating skin change that may occur in approximately 46% of patients with JDM and can cause severe morbidity.^2,6,9

Subcutaneous edema rarely is described in DM-panniculitis, present in only 6% of 86 DM patients in one study.⁷ The pathophysiology of DM may be due to antibodies that target endothelial cells and activate complement, resulting in the membranolytic attack complex. This leads to microischemia, and microinfarction of the muscle fibers has been suggested to result in edema of the subcutaneous tissue in severe cases.^7,11 Microinfarction has been found to be present 2.3 times more often in edematous DM compared with nonedematous DM.⁷ Subcutaneous edema may be an isolated presentation of DM that arises more quickly with severe disease activity. As such, recommendations have been made to consider edema in future classification schemes.⁷

Because of the severity of edematous and/or subcutaneous DM, aggressive therapy may be required. First-line therapy consists of corticosteroids with additional immunosuppressants and immunomodulatory agents if adequate response is not achieved.^3,12 The effectiveness of rituximab in DM has been suggested.^2,12,13 The Rituximab in Myositis (RIM) trial (N=200) was the first double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 clinical trial to assess rituximab’s efficacy in refractory compared with early-onset inflammatory myopathies. Although outcomes were similar in both groups, 83% of patients overall, including the JDM subset, met the definition of improvement.¹² In re-examining the RIM trial data and other cases using rituximab to treat inflammatory myopathies, an overall response rate of 78.3% was observed, with 52.1% of patients with DM reporting improvement in skin lesions (N=458, pooled from 48 studies).¹³ Further analysis of the RIM data revealed that panniculitis affected 10.4% of patients with JDM at baseline, which decreased to 6.8% at 36 weeks of rituximab therapy (N=48).¹²

As exhibited in our patient, subcutaneous tissue involvement, including calcinosis cutis and panniculitis, is seen more often in JDM than adult DM.^2,6 However, panniculitis in anti-p155/140 patients is rare. Our patient also had antibody positivity, which likely predisposed her to a more severe course. Despite not having sustained improvement on rituximab, initiating aggressive therapy earlier in the disease course may be beneficial, and our patient continues with alternative therapies.