Treatment strategies designed to improve or maintain efficacy while minimizing toxicity are desired by both patients and healthcare providers. Neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (NET) represents a therapeutic option for certain patients with luminal breast cancers who may not be candidates for chemotherapy because of comorbidities or preferences to avoid certain treatments. Furthermore, studies have demonstrated tumor or nodal downstaging with NET, as well as the ability of genomic assays to predict clinical response to NET and its association with breast-conserving therapy (BCT).^[4,5] The phase 2 ACOSOG Z1031 trial reported outcomes among 509 women with clinical stage II or III estrogen receptor (ER)–positive breast cancer who received an aromatase inhibitor (AI; exemestane, letrozole, or anastrozole) for 16-18 weeks before surgery. A total of 67.2% of patients had BCT, and of the patients thought to require mastectomy or have inoperable breast cancer at presentation (N = 226), 50.4% were able to have BCT. The pCR rate was low (1%); however, the 5-year cumulative incidence rate for local-regional recurrence was estimated at 1.53% (Hunt et al). This study supports the consideration of NET for select patients, demonstrating a favorable impact on surgery and local-regional recurrence rates. It is also thought-provoking in terms of identifying predictors of response to NET and other novel therapies that can be combined with endocrine therapy in the neoadjuvant space.

The CLEOPATRA trial has established a regimen of docetaxel/trastuzumab/pertuzumab as standard first-line treatment for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive metastatic breast cancer with superior progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared with a docetaxel/trastuzumab regimen. Crosstalk between HER2 and ER signaling pathways has been implicated in resistance to anti-HER2 and endocrine therapies. Real-world data have shown that the addition of endocrine therapy to first-line dual anti-HER2-targeted therapy post chemotherapy in HER+/hormone receptor positive (HR+) metastatic breast cancer was associated with benefits in PFS and OS.^[6] The phase 2 PERTAIN trial randomly assigned 258 patients with HER2+/HR+ metastatic breast cancer to receive pertuzumab/trastuzumab plus an AI or trastuzumab/AI, with induction chemotherapy given at the investigator’s discretion. At a median follow-up of > 6 years, the PFS benefit seen with the addition of pertuzumab was maintained (20.6 vs 15.8 months in the trastuzumab/AI arm; stratified hazard ratio 0.67; P = .006). Although there was not a statistically significant difference in median OS (60.2 months in the pertuzumab/trastuzumab/AI arm vs 57.2 months in the trastuzumab/AI arm; stratified hazard ratio 1.05; P = .78), the effect of pertuzumab was potentially amplified in those without induction chemotherapy (26.6 vs 12.5 months) (Arpino et al). These data provide further support for the addition of pertuzumab to trastuzumab in the first-line treatment setting for HER2+ metastatic breast cancer and suggest that some patients may benefit from dual HER2 blockade with endocrine therapy (without chemotherapy).

Additional References

1. Schmid P, Cortes J, Pusztai L, et al, for the KEYNOTE-522 Investigators. Pembrolizumab for early triple-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:810-821. Doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1910549
2. Schmid P, Cortes J, Dent R, et al, for the KEYNOTE-522 Investigators. Event-free survival with pembrolizumab in early triple-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2022;386:556-567. Doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2112651
3. Loibl S, Untch M, Burchardi N, et al. A randomised phase II study investigating durvalumab in addition to an anthracycline taxane-based neoadjuvant therapy in early triple-negative breast cancer: Clinical results and biomarker analysis of GeparNuevo study. Ann Oncol. 2019;30:1279-1288. Doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdz158
4. Cao L, Sugumar K, Keller E, et al. Neoadjuvant endocrine therapy as an alternative to neoadjuvant chemotherapy among hormone receptor-positive breast cancer patients: Pathologic and surgical outcomes. Ann Surg Oncol. 2021;28:5730-5741. Doi: 10.1245/s10434-021-10459-3
5. Iwata H, Masuda N, Yamamoto Y, et al. Validation of the 21-gene test as a predictor of clinical response to neoadjuvant hormonal therapy for ER+, HER2-negative breast cancer: The TransNEOS study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2019;173:123-133. Doi: 10.1007/s10549-018-4964-y
6. Loft M, Lok SW, De Boer R, et al. Addition of endocrine therapy to dual anti-HER2 targeted therapy in initial treatment of HER2+/HR+ metastatic breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2023;198:67-74. Doi: 10.1007/s10549-022-06856-1

Treatment strategies designed to improve or maintain efficacy while minimizing toxicity are desired by both patients and healthcare providers. Neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (NET) represents a therapeutic option for certain patients with luminal breast cancers who may not be candidates for chemotherapy because of comorbidities or preferences to avoid certain treatments. Furthermore, studies have demonstrated tumor or nodal downstaging with NET, as well as the ability of genomic assays to predict clinical response to NET and its association with breast-conserving therapy (BCT).^[4,5] The phase 2 ACOSOG Z1031 trial reported outcomes among 509 women with clinical stage II or III estrogen receptor (ER)–positive breast cancer who received an aromatase inhibitor (AI; exemestane, letrozole, or anastrozole) for 16-18 weeks before surgery. A total of 67.2% of patients had BCT, and of the patients thought to require mastectomy or have inoperable breast cancer at presentation (N = 226), 50.4% were able to have BCT. The pCR rate was low (1%); however, the 5-year cumulative incidence rate for local-regional recurrence was estimated at 1.53% (Hunt et al). This study supports the consideration of NET for select patients, demonstrating a favorable impact on surgery and local-regional recurrence rates. It is also thought-provoking in terms of identifying predictors of response to NET and other novel therapies that can be combined with endocrine therapy in the neoadjuvant space.

The CLEOPATRA trial has established a regimen of docetaxel/trastuzumab/pertuzumab as standard first-line treatment for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive metastatic breast cancer with superior progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared with a docetaxel/trastuzumab regimen. Crosstalk between HER2 and ER signaling pathways has been implicated in resistance to anti-HER2 and endocrine therapies. Real-world data have shown that the addition of endocrine therapy to first-line dual anti-HER2-targeted therapy post chemotherapy in HER+/hormone receptor positive (HR+) metastatic breast cancer was associated with benefits in PFS and OS.^[6] The phase 2 PERTAIN trial randomly assigned 258 patients with HER2+/HR+ metastatic breast cancer to receive pertuzumab/trastuzumab plus an AI or trastuzumab/AI, with induction chemotherapy given at the investigator’s discretion. At a median follow-up of > 6 years, the PFS benefit seen with the addition of pertuzumab was maintained (20.6 vs 15.8 months in the trastuzumab/AI arm; stratified hazard ratio 0.67; P = .006). Although there was not a statistically significant difference in median OS (60.2 months in the pertuzumab/trastuzumab/AI arm vs 57.2 months in the trastuzumab/AI arm; stratified hazard ratio 1.05; P = .78), the effect of pertuzumab was potentially amplified in those without induction chemotherapy (26.6 vs 12.5 months) (Arpino et al). These data provide further support for the addition of pertuzumab to trastuzumab in the first-line treatment setting for HER2+ metastatic breast cancer and suggest that some patients may benefit from dual HER2 blockade with endocrine therapy (without chemotherapy).

Additional References

1. Schmid P, Cortes J, Pusztai L, et al, for the KEYNOTE-522 Investigators. Pembrolizumab for early triple-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:810-821. Doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1910549
2. Schmid P, Cortes J, Dent R, et al, for the KEYNOTE-522 Investigators. Event-free survival with pembrolizumab in early triple-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2022;386:556-567. Doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2112651
3. Loibl S, Untch M, Burchardi N, et al. A randomised phase II study investigating durvalumab in addition to an anthracycline taxane-based neoadjuvant therapy in early triple-negative breast cancer: Clinical results and biomarker analysis of GeparNuevo study. Ann Oncol. 2019;30:1279-1288. Doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdz158
4. Cao L, Sugumar K, Keller E, et al. Neoadjuvant endocrine therapy as an alternative to neoadjuvant chemotherapy among hormone receptor-positive breast cancer patients: Pathologic and surgical outcomes. Ann Surg Oncol. 2021;28:5730-5741. Doi: 10.1245/s10434-021-10459-3
5. Iwata H, Masuda N, Yamamoto Y, et al. Validation of the 21-gene test as a predictor of clinical response to neoadjuvant hormonal therapy for ER+, HER2-negative breast cancer: The TransNEOS study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2019;173:123-133. Doi: 10.1007/s10549-018-4964-y
6. Loft M, Lok SW, De Boer R, et al. Addition of endocrine therapy to dual anti-HER2 targeted therapy in initial treatment of HER2+/HR+ metastatic breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2023;198:67-74. Doi: 10.1007/s10549-022-06856-1

Treatment strategies designed to improve or maintain efficacy while minimizing toxicity are desired by both patients and healthcare providers. Neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (NET) represents a therapeutic option for certain patients with luminal breast cancers who may not be candidates for chemotherapy because of comorbidities or preferences to avoid certain treatments. Furthermore, studies have demonstrated tumor or nodal downstaging with NET, as well as the ability of genomic assays to predict clinical response to NET and its association with breast-conserving therapy (BCT).^[4,5] The phase 2 ACOSOG Z1031 trial reported outcomes among 509 women with clinical stage II or III estrogen receptor (ER)–positive breast cancer who received an aromatase inhibitor (AI; exemestane, letrozole, or anastrozole) for 16-18 weeks before surgery. A total of 67.2% of patients had BCT, and of the patients thought to require mastectomy or have inoperable breast cancer at presentation (N = 226), 50.4% were able to have BCT. The pCR rate was low (1%); however, the 5-year cumulative incidence rate for local-regional recurrence was estimated at 1.53% (Hunt et al). This study supports the consideration of NET for select patients, demonstrating a favorable impact on surgery and local-regional recurrence rates. It is also thought-provoking in terms of identifying predictors of response to NET and other novel therapies that can be combined with endocrine therapy in the neoadjuvant space.

The CLEOPATRA trial has established a regimen of docetaxel/trastuzumab/pertuzumab as standard first-line treatment for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive metastatic breast cancer with superior progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared with a docetaxel/trastuzumab regimen. Crosstalk between HER2 and ER signaling pathways has been implicated in resistance to anti-HER2 and endocrine therapies. Real-world data have shown that the addition of endocrine therapy to first-line dual anti-HER2-targeted therapy post chemotherapy in HER+/hormone receptor positive (HR+) metastatic breast cancer was associated with benefits in PFS and OS.^[6] The phase 2 PERTAIN trial randomly assigned 258 patients with HER2+/HR+ metastatic breast cancer to receive pertuzumab/trastuzumab plus an AI or trastuzumab/AI, with induction chemotherapy given at the investigator’s discretion. At a median follow-up of > 6 years, the PFS benefit seen with the addition of pertuzumab was maintained (20.6 vs 15.8 months in the trastuzumab/AI arm; stratified hazard ratio 0.67; P = .006). Although there was not a statistically significant difference in median OS (60.2 months in the pertuzumab/trastuzumab/AI arm vs 57.2 months in the trastuzumab/AI arm; stratified hazard ratio 1.05; P = .78), the effect of pertuzumab was potentially amplified in those without induction chemotherapy (26.6 vs 12.5 months) (Arpino et al). These data provide further support for the addition of pertuzumab to trastuzumab in the first-line treatment setting for HER2+ metastatic breast cancer and suggest that some patients may benefit from dual HER2 blockade with endocrine therapy (without chemotherapy).

Additional References

1. Schmid P, Cortes J, Pusztai L, et al, for the KEYNOTE-522 Investigators. Pembrolizumab for early triple-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:810-821. Doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1910549
2. Schmid P, Cortes J, Dent R, et al, for the KEYNOTE-522 Investigators. Event-free survival with pembrolizumab in early triple-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2022;386:556-567. Doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2112651
3. Loibl S, Untch M, Burchardi N, et al. A randomised phase II study investigating durvalumab in addition to an anthracycline taxane-based neoadjuvant therapy in early triple-negative breast cancer: Clinical results and biomarker analysis of GeparNuevo study. Ann Oncol. 2019;30:1279-1288. Doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdz158
4. Cao L, Sugumar K, Keller E, et al. Neoadjuvant endocrine therapy as an alternative to neoadjuvant chemotherapy among hormone receptor-positive breast cancer patients: Pathologic and surgical outcomes. Ann Surg Oncol. 2021;28:5730-5741. Doi: 10.1245/s10434-021-10459-3
5. Iwata H, Masuda N, Yamamoto Y, et al. Validation of the 21-gene test as a predictor of clinical response to neoadjuvant hormonal therapy for ER+, HER2-negative breast cancer: The TransNEOS study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2019;173:123-133. Doi: 10.1007/s10549-018-4964-y
6. Loft M, Lok SW, De Boer R, et al. Addition of endocrine therapy to dual anti-HER2 targeted therapy in initial treatment of HER2+/HR+ metastatic breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2023;198:67-74. Doi: 10.1007/s10549-022-06856-1

Proinflammatory elements mediated through metabolic pathways related to obesity and increased cellular senescence in CD57 expression in CD8+ T cells are associated with postacute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC), according to a Mexican study. The researchers followed a Mexican cohort of 102 patients 3 months and 6 months after acute SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The study’s principal investigator was Diana Gómez-Martín, MD, PhD, of the department of immunology and rheumatology at the Salvador Zubirán National Institute of Medical Sciences and Nutrition, Mexico City. She told this news organization that follow-up of the patients began with the objective of understanding the determinative clinical, genetic, metabolic, and immunological factors in the progression of the acute disease. However, clinical aspects associated with PASC developed in the selected cohort. As a result, the study was extended, and the clinical, metabolic, and immunologic conditions in this single-center Mexican cohort were evaluated 3 months 6 months after the onset of infection.

Dr. Gómez-Martín explained that the immune senescence in CD57 of CD8+ T cells is one of the best-known findings of the present study. If it is confirmed in future studies, it could have important implications. “Its main implication is the possibility of better understanding the physiopathology of the clinical aspects associated with postacute sequelae of COVID-19, potentially being used for early detection and to provide follow-up aimed at patients, in addition to eventually developing targeted therapeutic strategies, such as immunometabolism regulation, in certain populations.”
 

Patients with PASC

The study was conducted from August 2020 to August 2021. Investigators recruited 102 patients (median age, 50.5 years; 55% were women) at the Mexico City Temporary Unit with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2. Of the patients, 44% had mild or moderate COVID-19, 30% had severe cases, and 26% of patients had critical cases. The most frequent comorbidities were obesity (44%), hypertension (24%), and type 2 diabetes (24%). The authors used a questionnaire to assess the presence of symptoms during follow-up. They analyzed immunologic variables at the time of recruitment, as well as levels of cytokines, immunoglobulin G against SARS-CoV-2, and neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs) at 1, 3, and 6 months. At 6 months’ follow-up, 12.7% of the cohort had symptoms compatible with PASC, which was defined for the study as the presence and report of three or more symptoms at 6 months’ follow-up.

As in similar studies, the authors found that female gender, remaining in intensive care, and having had more symptoms and greater titers of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies during the acute infection were associated with the development of clinical aspects associated with PASC. Patients who had the disease at 6 months had increased serum levels of interleukin-1 alpha (6.21 pg/mL vs. 2.21 pg/mL), granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (55.08 pg/mL vs. 14.68 pg/mL), and interferon gamma-induced protein 10 (2,309.40 pg/mL vs. 780 pg/mL). Also, there was a trend toward an increase in serum concentration of interleukin-1 beta, interleukin-6, and interferon-gamma.

Patients whose condition met the definition of persistent PASC had increased expression of CD57 in CD8+ T cells (42,714 arbitrary units vs. 28,506) 6 months after the acute infection. The authors reported that there was no association between the persistence of PASC and the baseline amount of NETs, TRIM63, and anticellular antibodies. Nor was there an association between PASC and the titers of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at baseline and 1 month after COVID-19 diagnosis. Nonetheless, patients with persistent PASC had higher titers of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgGs 3 months after the onset of COVID-19.

On the basis of previous data, the researchers aimed to construct a preliminary explanatory model to address the clinical and immunologic features associated with persistent PASC 6 months after SARS-CoV-2 infection. In the univariate analysis, the variables associated with the diagnosis of persistent PASC were the serum levels of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (odds ratio, 1.01), macrophage inflammatory protein-1 alpha (OR, 1.13), interferon gamma-induced protein 10 (OR, 1.00), interleukin-6 (OR, 1.03), the expression of CD57 in CD8+ T cells (OR, 1.00), and the titers of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG at 1 month (OR, 1.45).

Patients with a diagnosis of clinical aspects associated with PASC at 6 months were characterized by certain predisposing factors, such as obesity, greater levels of macrophage inflammatory protein-1 alpha and interferon gamma-induced protein 10 in peripheral blood, greater expression of the senescence CD57 marker in CD8+ T lymphocytes, and persistent symptoms at 3 months.

Using these parameters to construct a predictive model after 3 months, the authors found a sensitivity of 97.7%, specificity of 53.8%, positive predictive value of 93.5%, and a negative predictive value of 77.7% for the diagnosis of clinical aspects associated with PASC at 6 months.
 

Interpreting CD57

One of the researchers who participated in the study was Luis Martínez-Juárez, MD, MPH, DrPH. He is on the operative solutions team at the Carlos Slim Foundation. Dr. Martínez-Juárez pointed out that one of the contributions of this study was that it specifically examined the Mexican population. He noted that “according to the findings, obesity is not only a comorbidity associated with more severe progressions during acute COVID-19 disease, but also, through inflammation parameters, such as interleukin-6, interferon gamma-induced protein 10, and macrophage inflammatory protein-1 alpha, it’s involved in the development of clinical aspects related to postacute sequelae of COVID-19.”

Dr. Gómez-Martín added that finding proinflammatory and obesity parameters in the patients could potentially support the hypothesis of the persistence of virus fragments in adipose tissue as possibly involved in clinical aspects associated with PASC, as some groups have reported in the medical literature.

Angélica Cuapio, MD, DrMed, an immunologist and senior investigator at the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, who did not participate in the study, said in an interview that the authors’ findings on the sustained increase of the CD57 marker in CD8+ lymphocytes are of notable interest. They may be associated with senescence states or cellular aging or with a stage of chronic viral infections. Therefore, Dr. Cuapio argued, it would have been valuable to include cellular markers of the innate system, such as natural killer cells, since in various infections, an increase in CD57 in lymphocytes is accompanied by an almost proportional increase of this marker in natural killer cells.

“This information would help to determine more accurately if we are talking about a cellular senescence or more about a chronic infection in persistent COVID-19.” The finding is important, but future research is needed in this developing field.

Dr. Cuapio pointed out that the authors found an interesting elevation in interleukin-1 alpha in patients with clinical aspects associated with PASC in a clinically well-characterized population in Mexico. “It is possible that this is a specific marker either of a specific population or location, or this could be an association with a humoral response. Despite the fact that this finding is new and unclear, it is worth investigating. This study is of great value for the scientific community because it’s one more piece in the complex puzzle of clinical aspects associated with postacute sequelae of COVID-19.”

Dr. Gómez-Martín noted that the main limitations of the study consist of its single-center design and the small patient sample. Dr. Martínez-Juárez added that the study did not consider reinfections. In future studies, it would be ideal to integrate other molecular assessments associated with various hypotheses of the physiopathology of clinical aspects associated with PASC, such as microbiota alteration, coagulation anomalies, endothelial damage, and dysfunctional neurologic signaling.

The study was supported and funded by the Carlos Slim Foundation. Dr. Gómez-Martín, Dr. Martínez-Juárez, and Dr. Cuapio have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Proinflammatory elements mediated through metabolic pathways related to obesity and increased cellular senescence in CD57 expression in CD8+ T cells are associated with postacute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC), according to a Mexican study. The researchers followed a Mexican cohort of 102 patients 3 months and 6 months after acute SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The study’s principal investigator was Diana Gómez-Martín, MD, PhD, of the department of immunology and rheumatology at the Salvador Zubirán National Institute of Medical Sciences and Nutrition, Mexico City. She told this news organization that follow-up of the patients began with the objective of understanding the determinative clinical, genetic, metabolic, and immunological factors in the progression of the acute disease. However, clinical aspects associated with PASC developed in the selected cohort. As a result, the study was extended, and the clinical, metabolic, and immunologic conditions in this single-center Mexican cohort were evaluated 3 months 6 months after the onset of infection.

Dr. Gómez-Martín explained that the immune senescence in CD57 of CD8+ T cells is one of the best-known findings of the present study. If it is confirmed in future studies, it could have important implications. “Its main implication is the possibility of better understanding the physiopathology of the clinical aspects associated with postacute sequelae of COVID-19, potentially being used for early detection and to provide follow-up aimed at patients, in addition to eventually developing targeted therapeutic strategies, such as immunometabolism regulation, in certain populations.”
 

Patients with PASC

The study was conducted from August 2020 to August 2021. Investigators recruited 102 patients (median age, 50.5 years; 55% were women) at the Mexico City Temporary Unit with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2. Of the patients, 44% had mild or moderate COVID-19, 30% had severe cases, and 26% of patients had critical cases. The most frequent comorbidities were obesity (44%), hypertension (24%), and type 2 diabetes (24%). The authors used a questionnaire to assess the presence of symptoms during follow-up. They analyzed immunologic variables at the time of recruitment, as well as levels of cytokines, immunoglobulin G against SARS-CoV-2, and neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs) at 1, 3, and 6 months. At 6 months’ follow-up, 12.7% of the cohort had symptoms compatible with PASC, which was defined for the study as the presence and report of three or more symptoms at 6 months’ follow-up.

As in similar studies, the authors found that female gender, remaining in intensive care, and having had more symptoms and greater titers of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies during the acute infection were associated with the development of clinical aspects associated with PASC. Patients who had the disease at 6 months had increased serum levels of interleukin-1 alpha (6.21 pg/mL vs. 2.21 pg/mL), granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (55.08 pg/mL vs. 14.68 pg/mL), and interferon gamma-induced protein 10 (2,309.40 pg/mL vs. 780 pg/mL). Also, there was a trend toward an increase in serum concentration of interleukin-1 beta, interleukin-6, and interferon-gamma.

Patients whose condition met the definition of persistent PASC had increased expression of CD57 in CD8+ T cells (42,714 arbitrary units vs. 28,506) 6 months after the acute infection. The authors reported that there was no association between the persistence of PASC and the baseline amount of NETs, TRIM63, and anticellular antibodies. Nor was there an association between PASC and the titers of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at baseline and 1 month after COVID-19 diagnosis. Nonetheless, patients with persistent PASC had higher titers of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgGs 3 months after the onset of COVID-19.

On the basis of previous data, the researchers aimed to construct a preliminary explanatory model to address the clinical and immunologic features associated with persistent PASC 6 months after SARS-CoV-2 infection. In the univariate analysis, the variables associated with the diagnosis of persistent PASC were the serum levels of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (odds ratio, 1.01), macrophage inflammatory protein-1 alpha (OR, 1.13), interferon gamma-induced protein 10 (OR, 1.00), interleukin-6 (OR, 1.03), the expression of CD57 in CD8+ T cells (OR, 1.00), and the titers of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG at 1 month (OR, 1.45).

Patients with a diagnosis of clinical aspects associated with PASC at 6 months were characterized by certain predisposing factors, such as obesity, greater levels of macrophage inflammatory protein-1 alpha and interferon gamma-induced protein 10 in peripheral blood, greater expression of the senescence CD57 marker in CD8+ T lymphocytes, and persistent symptoms at 3 months.

Using these parameters to construct a predictive model after 3 months, the authors found a sensitivity of 97.7%, specificity of 53.8%, positive predictive value of 93.5%, and a negative predictive value of 77.7% for the diagnosis of clinical aspects associated with PASC at 6 months.
 

Interpreting CD57

One of the researchers who participated in the study was Luis Martínez-Juárez, MD, MPH, DrPH. He is on the operative solutions team at the Carlos Slim Foundation. Dr. Martínez-Juárez pointed out that one of the contributions of this study was that it specifically examined the Mexican population. He noted that “according to the findings, obesity is not only a comorbidity associated with more severe progressions during acute COVID-19 disease, but also, through inflammation parameters, such as interleukin-6, interferon gamma-induced protein 10, and macrophage inflammatory protein-1 alpha, it’s involved in the development of clinical aspects related to postacute sequelae of COVID-19.”

Dr. Gómez-Martín added that finding proinflammatory and obesity parameters in the patients could potentially support the hypothesis of the persistence of virus fragments in adipose tissue as possibly involved in clinical aspects associated with PASC, as some groups have reported in the medical literature.

Angélica Cuapio, MD, DrMed, an immunologist and senior investigator at the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, who did not participate in the study, said in an interview that the authors’ findings on the sustained increase of the CD57 marker in CD8+ lymphocytes are of notable interest. They may be associated with senescence states or cellular aging or with a stage of chronic viral infections. Therefore, Dr. Cuapio argued, it would have been valuable to include cellular markers of the innate system, such as natural killer cells, since in various infections, an increase in CD57 in lymphocytes is accompanied by an almost proportional increase of this marker in natural killer cells.

“This information would help to determine more accurately if we are talking about a cellular senescence or more about a chronic infection in persistent COVID-19.” The finding is important, but future research is needed in this developing field.

Dr. Cuapio pointed out that the authors found an interesting elevation in interleukin-1 alpha in patients with clinical aspects associated with PASC in a clinically well-characterized population in Mexico. “It is possible that this is a specific marker either of a specific population or location, or this could be an association with a humoral response. Despite the fact that this finding is new and unclear, it is worth investigating. This study is of great value for the scientific community because it’s one more piece in the complex puzzle of clinical aspects associated with postacute sequelae of COVID-19.”

Dr. Gómez-Martín noted that the main limitations of the study consist of its single-center design and the small patient sample. Dr. Martínez-Juárez added that the study did not consider reinfections. In future studies, it would be ideal to integrate other molecular assessments associated with various hypotheses of the physiopathology of clinical aspects associated with PASC, such as microbiota alteration, coagulation anomalies, endothelial damage, and dysfunctional neurologic signaling.

The study was supported and funded by the Carlos Slim Foundation. Dr. Gómez-Martín, Dr. Martínez-Juárez, and Dr. Cuapio have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Proinflammatory elements mediated through metabolic pathways related to obesity and increased cellular senescence in CD57 expression in CD8+ T cells are associated with postacute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC), according to a Mexican study. The researchers followed a Mexican cohort of 102 patients 3 months and 6 months after acute SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The study’s principal investigator was Diana Gómez-Martín, MD, PhD, of the department of immunology and rheumatology at the Salvador Zubirán National Institute of Medical Sciences and Nutrition, Mexico City. She told this news organization that follow-up of the patients began with the objective of understanding the determinative clinical, genetic, metabolic, and immunological factors in the progression of the acute disease. However, clinical aspects associated with PASC developed in the selected cohort. As a result, the study was extended, and the clinical, metabolic, and immunologic conditions in this single-center Mexican cohort were evaluated 3 months 6 months after the onset of infection.

Dr. Gómez-Martín explained that the immune senescence in CD57 of CD8+ T cells is one of the best-known findings of the present study. If it is confirmed in future studies, it could have important implications. “Its main implication is the possibility of better understanding the physiopathology of the clinical aspects associated with postacute sequelae of COVID-19, potentially being used for early detection and to provide follow-up aimed at patients, in addition to eventually developing targeted therapeutic strategies, such as immunometabolism regulation, in certain populations.”
 

Patients with PASC

The study was conducted from August 2020 to August 2021. Investigators recruited 102 patients (median age, 50.5 years; 55% were women) at the Mexico City Temporary Unit with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2. Of the patients, 44% had mild or moderate COVID-19, 30% had severe cases, and 26% of patients had critical cases. The most frequent comorbidities were obesity (44%), hypertension (24%), and type 2 diabetes (24%). The authors used a questionnaire to assess the presence of symptoms during follow-up. They analyzed immunologic variables at the time of recruitment, as well as levels of cytokines, immunoglobulin G against SARS-CoV-2, and neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs) at 1, 3, and 6 months. At 6 months’ follow-up, 12.7% of the cohort had symptoms compatible with PASC, which was defined for the study as the presence and report of three or more symptoms at 6 months’ follow-up.

As in similar studies, the authors found that female gender, remaining in intensive care, and having had more symptoms and greater titers of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies during the acute infection were associated with the development of clinical aspects associated with PASC. Patients who had the disease at 6 months had increased serum levels of interleukin-1 alpha (6.21 pg/mL vs. 2.21 pg/mL), granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (55.08 pg/mL vs. 14.68 pg/mL), and interferon gamma-induced protein 10 (2,309.40 pg/mL vs. 780 pg/mL). Also, there was a trend toward an increase in serum concentration of interleukin-1 beta, interleukin-6, and interferon-gamma.

Patients whose condition met the definition of persistent PASC had increased expression of CD57 in CD8+ T cells (42,714 arbitrary units vs. 28,506) 6 months after the acute infection. The authors reported that there was no association between the persistence of PASC and the baseline amount of NETs, TRIM63, and anticellular antibodies. Nor was there an association between PASC and the titers of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at baseline and 1 month after COVID-19 diagnosis. Nonetheless, patients with persistent PASC had higher titers of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgGs 3 months after the onset of COVID-19.

On the basis of previous data, the researchers aimed to construct a preliminary explanatory model to address the clinical and immunologic features associated with persistent PASC 6 months after SARS-CoV-2 infection. In the univariate analysis, the variables associated with the diagnosis of persistent PASC were the serum levels of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (odds ratio, 1.01), macrophage inflammatory protein-1 alpha (OR, 1.13), interferon gamma-induced protein 10 (OR, 1.00), interleukin-6 (OR, 1.03), the expression of CD57 in CD8+ T cells (OR, 1.00), and the titers of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG at 1 month (OR, 1.45).

Patients with a diagnosis of clinical aspects associated with PASC at 6 months were characterized by certain predisposing factors, such as obesity, greater levels of macrophage inflammatory protein-1 alpha and interferon gamma-induced protein 10 in peripheral blood, greater expression of the senescence CD57 marker in CD8+ T lymphocytes, and persistent symptoms at 3 months.

Using these parameters to construct a predictive model after 3 months, the authors found a sensitivity of 97.7%, specificity of 53.8%, positive predictive value of 93.5%, and a negative predictive value of 77.7% for the diagnosis of clinical aspects associated with PASC at 6 months.
 

Interpreting CD57

One of the researchers who participated in the study was Luis Martínez-Juárez, MD, MPH, DrPH. He is on the operative solutions team at the Carlos Slim Foundation. Dr. Martínez-Juárez pointed out that one of the contributions of this study was that it specifically examined the Mexican population. He noted that “according to the findings, obesity is not only a comorbidity associated with more severe progressions during acute COVID-19 disease, but also, through inflammation parameters, such as interleukin-6, interferon gamma-induced protein 10, and macrophage inflammatory protein-1 alpha, it’s involved in the development of clinical aspects related to postacute sequelae of COVID-19.”

Dr. Gómez-Martín added that finding proinflammatory and obesity parameters in the patients could potentially support the hypothesis of the persistence of virus fragments in adipose tissue as possibly involved in clinical aspects associated with PASC, as some groups have reported in the medical literature.

Angélica Cuapio, MD, DrMed, an immunologist and senior investigator at the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, who did not participate in the study, said in an interview that the authors’ findings on the sustained increase of the CD57 marker in CD8+ lymphocytes are of notable interest. They may be associated with senescence states or cellular aging or with a stage of chronic viral infections. Therefore, Dr. Cuapio argued, it would have been valuable to include cellular markers of the innate system, such as natural killer cells, since in various infections, an increase in CD57 in lymphocytes is accompanied by an almost proportional increase of this marker in natural killer cells.

“This information would help to determine more accurately if we are talking about a cellular senescence or more about a chronic infection in persistent COVID-19.” The finding is important, but future research is needed in this developing field.

Dr. Cuapio pointed out that the authors found an interesting elevation in interleukin-1 alpha in patients with clinical aspects associated with PASC in a clinically well-characterized population in Mexico. “It is possible that this is a specific marker either of a specific population or location, or this could be an association with a humoral response. Despite the fact that this finding is new and unclear, it is worth investigating. This study is of great value for the scientific community because it’s one more piece in the complex puzzle of clinical aspects associated with postacute sequelae of COVID-19.”

Dr. Gómez-Martín noted that the main limitations of the study consist of its single-center design and the small patient sample. Dr. Martínez-Juárez added that the study did not consider reinfections. In future studies, it would be ideal to integrate other molecular assessments associated with various hypotheses of the physiopathology of clinical aspects associated with PASC, such as microbiota alteration, coagulation anomalies, endothelial damage, and dysfunctional neurologic signaling.

The study was supported and funded by the Carlos Slim Foundation. Dr. Gómez-Martín, Dr. Martínez-Juárez, and Dr. Cuapio have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A two-part research study suggests that frequent cannabis is a risk factor for coronary artery disease (CAD).

In the first part, in an observational study, daily cannabis use was associated with 34% higher odds for CAD, compared with never-users, in a large population-based U.S. cohort. Less frequent use was not associated with increased odds for CAD.

In the second part, people with a genetic susceptibility to cannabis use disorder or severe cannabis dependency had an increased risk for CAD, compared with other people.

Ishan Paranjpe, MD, the study’s lead author, reported these results in a press briefing and will present the study at the upcoming joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation 2023.

“A couple of takeaway points are that daily cannabis use, but not less frequent cannabis use, was associated with CAD” in the large population-based cohort, said Dr. Paranjpe, a resident physician at Stanford (Calif.) University, during the press conference.

“This analysis was adjusted for several possible confounders including age, sex at birth, [body mass index (BMI)], race, education, cigarette use, hypertension, high cholesterol, and diabetes,” he noted, and even after accounting for these risk factors, the association with heart disease remained.

“And the next thing, using Mendelian randomization, we sort of implied that there might be a causal relationship between cannabis and heart disease. Importantly this effect is independent of alcohol and cigarette use.

“The notion that cannabis is completely benign is probably wrong, and there might be certain risk of certain cardiovascular effects of cannabis we should be more on the lookout for,” Dr. Paranjpe said in an interview.

“Our main conclusion was that prevalent CAD is associated with cannabis consumption,” he added. “Other mechanistic work published in Cell has also shown that cannabis causes vascular inflammation that may lead to CAD.

“Thus, there is growing evidence from both laboratory and population studies that cannabis consumption may be harmful for cardiovascular health,” he said. “However, we still need more work on whether it affects the risk of incident cardiovascular events (i.e., stroke, heart attack) in patient[s] with existing CAD.”
 

ASCVD risk

Invited to comment, Robert L. Page II, PharmD, chair of the writing group for the American Heart Association’s scientific statement Medical Marijuana, Recreational Cannabis, and Cardiovascular Health, published in 2020, said, “This adds to our hypothesis that if you are using marijuana over a longer period, greater exposure, you’re going to see an increase in the risk” for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).

“We’re seeing this increased risk for ASCVD in young adults between ages 18 to 40 – people who think that they’re invincible,” Dr. Page, a professor at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, who was not involved with this research, told this news organization in an interview.

“The bottom line is that the risk that they are seeing is what has also been documented in other observational studies, and it adds fuel to the fire. We need to be paying close attention to this,” he said.

“Primary care [clinicians], cardiologists, need to address this, particularly in younger adults – because that’s where you’re seeing the highest amount of use.”
 

‘All of Us’ observational study

In the first part of the study, the researchers analyzed data from the “All of Us” cohort comprising adults age 18 and older from 340 inpatient and outpatient sites across the United States.

They identified 57,958 individuals who replied to a questionnaire asking about cannabis use (medicinal or recreational and whether it was edible or used by smoking or vaping) over the past 3 months.

There were 39,678 never-users, 8,749 who used it once or twice, 2,075 who used it monthly, 2,720 who used it weekly, and 4,736 who used it daily.

Of these, 3,506 individuals had CAD, based on medical records.

Only daily users had a significantly higher risk for CAD, compared with never-users (odds ratio, 1.34; P = .001) after adjusting for age, sex, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, type 2 diabetes, BMI, education, insurance status, and cigarette use.

The median age for daily users was 41, whereas the median age for never-users was 59.
 

GWAS analyses

The researchers then performed a Mendelian randomization analysis based on genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of cannabis use disorder and of CAD.

“Cannabis use disorder is a psychiatric diagnosis of severe cannabis dependency, equivalent to ‘alcohol use disorder’ for alcohol consumption,” Dr. Paranjpe explained. “The exact definition involves frequent use leading to significant dependence (but does not specify how often it is used).”

The GWAS data for cannabis use disorder came from a recent meta-analysis of three cohorts: the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium Substance Use Disorders working group, iPSYCH, and deCODE.

The GWAS statistics for CAD were obtained from the CARDIoGRAMplusC4D Consortium.

Cannabis use disorder was associated with significantly increased odds for CAD (OR, 1.05; P = .001), which remained after adjusting for both cigarette and alcohol use (OR, 1.04).

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

A two-part research study suggests that frequent cannabis is a risk factor for coronary artery disease (CAD).

In the first part, in an observational study, daily cannabis use was associated with 34% higher odds for CAD, compared with never-users, in a large population-based U.S. cohort. Less frequent use was not associated with increased odds for CAD.

In the second part, people with a genetic susceptibility to cannabis use disorder or severe cannabis dependency had an increased risk for CAD, compared with other people.

Ishan Paranjpe, MD, the study’s lead author, reported these results in a press briefing and will present the study at the upcoming joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation 2023.

“A couple of takeaway points are that daily cannabis use, but not less frequent cannabis use, was associated with CAD” in the large population-based cohort, said Dr. Paranjpe, a resident physician at Stanford (Calif.) University, during the press conference.

“This analysis was adjusted for several possible confounders including age, sex at birth, [body mass index (BMI)], race, education, cigarette use, hypertension, high cholesterol, and diabetes,” he noted, and even after accounting for these risk factors, the association with heart disease remained.

“And the next thing, using Mendelian randomization, we sort of implied that there might be a causal relationship between cannabis and heart disease. Importantly this effect is independent of alcohol and cigarette use.

“The notion that cannabis is completely benign is probably wrong, and there might be certain risk of certain cardiovascular effects of cannabis we should be more on the lookout for,” Dr. Paranjpe said in an interview.

“Our main conclusion was that prevalent CAD is associated with cannabis consumption,” he added. “Other mechanistic work published in Cell has also shown that cannabis causes vascular inflammation that may lead to CAD.

“Thus, there is growing evidence from both laboratory and population studies that cannabis consumption may be harmful for cardiovascular health,” he said. “However, we still need more work on whether it affects the risk of incident cardiovascular events (i.e., stroke, heart attack) in patient[s] with existing CAD.”
 

ASCVD risk

Invited to comment, Robert L. Page II, PharmD, chair of the writing group for the American Heart Association’s scientific statement Medical Marijuana, Recreational Cannabis, and Cardiovascular Health, published in 2020, said, “This adds to our hypothesis that if you are using marijuana over a longer period, greater exposure, you’re going to see an increase in the risk” for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).

“We’re seeing this increased risk for ASCVD in young adults between ages 18 to 40 – people who think that they’re invincible,” Dr. Page, a professor at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, who was not involved with this research, told this news organization in an interview.

“The bottom line is that the risk that they are seeing is what has also been documented in other observational studies, and it adds fuel to the fire. We need to be paying close attention to this,” he said.

“Primary care [clinicians], cardiologists, need to address this, particularly in younger adults – because that’s where you’re seeing the highest amount of use.”
 

‘All of Us’ observational study

In the first part of the study, the researchers analyzed data from the “All of Us” cohort comprising adults age 18 and older from 340 inpatient and outpatient sites across the United States.

They identified 57,958 individuals who replied to a questionnaire asking about cannabis use (medicinal or recreational and whether it was edible or used by smoking or vaping) over the past 3 months.

There were 39,678 never-users, 8,749 who used it once or twice, 2,075 who used it monthly, 2,720 who used it weekly, and 4,736 who used it daily.

Of these, 3,506 individuals had CAD, based on medical records.

Only daily users had a significantly higher risk for CAD, compared with never-users (odds ratio, 1.34; P = .001) after adjusting for age, sex, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, type 2 diabetes, BMI, education, insurance status, and cigarette use.

The median age for daily users was 41, whereas the median age for never-users was 59.
 

GWAS analyses

The researchers then performed a Mendelian randomization analysis based on genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of cannabis use disorder and of CAD.

“Cannabis use disorder is a psychiatric diagnosis of severe cannabis dependency, equivalent to ‘alcohol use disorder’ for alcohol consumption,” Dr. Paranjpe explained. “The exact definition involves frequent use leading to significant dependence (but does not specify how often it is used).”

The GWAS data for cannabis use disorder came from a recent meta-analysis of three cohorts: the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium Substance Use Disorders working group, iPSYCH, and deCODE.

The GWAS statistics for CAD were obtained from the CARDIoGRAMplusC4D Consortium.

Cannabis use disorder was associated with significantly increased odds for CAD (OR, 1.05; P = .001), which remained after adjusting for both cigarette and alcohol use (OR, 1.04).

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

A two-part research study suggests that frequent cannabis is a risk factor for coronary artery disease (CAD).

In the first part, in an observational study, daily cannabis use was associated with 34% higher odds for CAD, compared with never-users, in a large population-based U.S. cohort. Less frequent use was not associated with increased odds for CAD.

In the second part, people with a genetic susceptibility to cannabis use disorder or severe cannabis dependency had an increased risk for CAD, compared with other people.

Ishan Paranjpe, MD, the study’s lead author, reported these results in a press briefing and will present the study at the upcoming joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation 2023.

“A couple of takeaway points are that daily cannabis use, but not less frequent cannabis use, was associated with CAD” in the large population-based cohort, said Dr. Paranjpe, a resident physician at Stanford (Calif.) University, during the press conference.

“This analysis was adjusted for several possible confounders including age, sex at birth, [body mass index (BMI)], race, education, cigarette use, hypertension, high cholesterol, and diabetes,” he noted, and even after accounting for these risk factors, the association with heart disease remained.

“And the next thing, using Mendelian randomization, we sort of implied that there might be a causal relationship between cannabis and heart disease. Importantly this effect is independent of alcohol and cigarette use.

“The notion that cannabis is completely benign is probably wrong, and there might be certain risk of certain cardiovascular effects of cannabis we should be more on the lookout for,” Dr. Paranjpe said in an interview.

“Our main conclusion was that prevalent CAD is associated with cannabis consumption,” he added. “Other mechanistic work published in Cell has also shown that cannabis causes vascular inflammation that may lead to CAD.

“Thus, there is growing evidence from both laboratory and population studies that cannabis consumption may be harmful for cardiovascular health,” he said. “However, we still need more work on whether it affects the risk of incident cardiovascular events (i.e., stroke, heart attack) in patient[s] with existing CAD.”
 

ASCVD risk

Invited to comment, Robert L. Page II, PharmD, chair of the writing group for the American Heart Association’s scientific statement Medical Marijuana, Recreational Cannabis, and Cardiovascular Health, published in 2020, said, “This adds to our hypothesis that if you are using marijuana over a longer period, greater exposure, you’re going to see an increase in the risk” for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).

“We’re seeing this increased risk for ASCVD in young adults between ages 18 to 40 – people who think that they’re invincible,” Dr. Page, a professor at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, who was not involved with this research, told this news organization in an interview.

“The bottom line is that the risk that they are seeing is what has also been documented in other observational studies, and it adds fuel to the fire. We need to be paying close attention to this,” he said.

“Primary care [clinicians], cardiologists, need to address this, particularly in younger adults – because that’s where you’re seeing the highest amount of use.”
 

‘All of Us’ observational study

In the first part of the study, the researchers analyzed data from the “All of Us” cohort comprising adults age 18 and older from 340 inpatient and outpatient sites across the United States.

They identified 57,958 individuals who replied to a questionnaire asking about cannabis use (medicinal or recreational and whether it was edible or used by smoking or vaping) over the past 3 months.

There were 39,678 never-users, 8,749 who used it once or twice, 2,075 who used it monthly, 2,720 who used it weekly, and 4,736 who used it daily.

Of these, 3,506 individuals had CAD, based on medical records.

Only daily users had a significantly higher risk for CAD, compared with never-users (odds ratio, 1.34; P = .001) after adjusting for age, sex, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, type 2 diabetes, BMI, education, insurance status, and cigarette use.

The median age for daily users was 41, whereas the median age for never-users was 59.
 

GWAS analyses

The researchers then performed a Mendelian randomization analysis based on genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of cannabis use disorder and of CAD.

“Cannabis use disorder is a psychiatric diagnosis of severe cannabis dependency, equivalent to ‘alcohol use disorder’ for alcohol consumption,” Dr. Paranjpe explained. “The exact definition involves frequent use leading to significant dependence (but does not specify how often it is used).”

The GWAS data for cannabis use disorder came from a recent meta-analysis of three cohorts: the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium Substance Use Disorders working group, iPSYCH, and deCODE.

The GWAS statistics for CAD were obtained from the CARDIoGRAMplusC4D Consortium.

Cannabis use disorder was associated with significantly increased odds for CAD (OR, 1.05; P = .001), which remained after adjusting for both cigarette and alcohol use (OR, 1.04).

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

Health officials are warning that an increase in the drug-resistant form of the bacteria Shigella is a “serious public health threat.”

The CDC issued the warning Feb. 24 about the rise in the problematic infections. Most of them have been seen in men who have sex with men, but a small number have also occurred in women and in young children.

The bacteria can be spread in a variety of ways, including changing the diaper of an infected baby, touching your mouth when the bacteria are on your hands, eating or drinking contaminated food or water, or through sexual contact. It’s easily transmitted because just a tiny amount of the bacteria is enough to make someone sick.

Shigella infection causes diarrhea that can be bloody. Other symptoms are a fever, belly cramping, and the feeling that you have to poop but your bowels are already empty. Most people recover on their own with rest and fluids, and severe cases can need antibiotic treatment. But strains of the bacteria that are resistant to treatment are on the rise.

Between 2015 and 2022, cases of antibiotic-resistant Shigella infection rose from 0% to 5% of all Shigella cases in the United States. One analysis showed that 82% of cases were in men, 13% in women, and 5% in children. A small sample of affected people provided information about their sexual activity, and 88% of them reported male-to-male sexual contact.

People at increased risk of infections are young children, people who are homeless, international travelers, people who have weakened immune systems, people living with HIV, and men who have sex with men.

The CDC asked health care workers to be on the lookout for these infections and report them.

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

Health officials are warning that an increase in the drug-resistant form of the bacteria Shigella is a “serious public health threat.”

The CDC issued the warning Feb. 24 about the rise in the problematic infections. Most of them have been seen in men who have sex with men, but a small number have also occurred in women and in young children.

The bacteria can be spread in a variety of ways, including changing the diaper of an infected baby, touching your mouth when the bacteria are on your hands, eating or drinking contaminated food or water, or through sexual contact. It’s easily transmitted because just a tiny amount of the bacteria is enough to make someone sick.

Shigella infection causes diarrhea that can be bloody. Other symptoms are a fever, belly cramping, and the feeling that you have to poop but your bowels are already empty. Most people recover on their own with rest and fluids, and severe cases can need antibiotic treatment. But strains of the bacteria that are resistant to treatment are on the rise.

Between 2015 and 2022, cases of antibiotic-resistant Shigella infection rose from 0% to 5% of all Shigella cases in the United States. One analysis showed that 82% of cases were in men, 13% in women, and 5% in children. A small sample of affected people provided information about their sexual activity, and 88% of them reported male-to-male sexual contact.

People at increased risk of infections are young children, people who are homeless, international travelers, people who have weakened immune systems, people living with HIV, and men who have sex with men.

The CDC asked health care workers to be on the lookout for these infections and report them.

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

Health officials are warning that an increase in the drug-resistant form of the bacteria Shigella is a “serious public health threat.”

The CDC issued the warning Feb. 24 about the rise in the problematic infections. Most of them have been seen in men who have sex with men, but a small number have also occurred in women and in young children.

The bacteria can be spread in a variety of ways, including changing the diaper of an infected baby, touching your mouth when the bacteria are on your hands, eating or drinking contaminated food or water, or through sexual contact. It’s easily transmitted because just a tiny amount of the bacteria is enough to make someone sick.

Shigella infection causes diarrhea that can be bloody. Other symptoms are a fever, belly cramping, and the feeling that you have to poop but your bowels are already empty. Most people recover on their own with rest and fluids, and severe cases can need antibiotic treatment. But strains of the bacteria that are resistant to treatment are on the rise.

Between 2015 and 2022, cases of antibiotic-resistant Shigella infection rose from 0% to 5% of all Shigella cases in the United States. One analysis showed that 82% of cases were in men, 13% in women, and 5% in children. A small sample of affected people provided information about their sexual activity, and 88% of them reported male-to-male sexual contact.

People at increased risk of infections are young children, people who are homeless, international travelers, people who have weakened immune systems, people living with HIV, and men who have sex with men.

The CDC asked health care workers to be on the lookout for these infections and report them.

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

Considered fringe just a few years ago, oral immunotherapy (OIT) has entered mainstream conversation about treating food allergies – particularly in younger children.

The buzz surrounding OIT – which involves ingesting daily doses of the culprit food to raise the threshold that would trigger a reaction – grew with the approval, by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration of Palforzia, of the peanut OIT pill in January 2020. Yet many allergists remained wary about the treatment, a monthslong regimen that can itself trigger allergic reactions.

Now, accumulating research points to “a possible window of opportunity early in life, less than 3 years of age, for more successful disease remission,” Justin Schwartz, MD, PhD, an allergist at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, told a crowd at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology.

His presentation about OIT in toddlers kicked off a 3-hour clinical practice course, one of several dozen conference offerings highlighting this emerging approach.

Several AAAAI posters add to prior studies (for example, DEVIL and IMPACT) suggesting that OIT proceeds more smoothly and faster during a child’s earliest years – a season fraught with accidental exposures and reactions.

One poster described a retrospective study of 73 children younger than 4 years who underwent OIT at the Cleveland Clinic Food Allergy Center. Sixty-four were treated for peanut allergies, and seven patients received OIT for multiple foods, including tree nuts, milk, wheat, and sesame.

Of the 80 total OIT courses, 76 (95%) reached maintenance – meaning the child tolerated a small amount (for example, 1-2 peanuts) without reacting – in a median of 104 days (~3.4 months).

That is “quite impressive,” said allergist Hugh Windom, MD, whose clinic in Sarasota, Fla., has offered OIT since 2012.

Older children typically have 80%-90% success and take longer (6-8 months) to reach maintenance because of busier schedules and reactions that slow them down, he said. In his clinic’s larger retrospective analysis of preschool-aged OIT patients, presented at the 2022 AAAAI meeting, 89% of patients with peanut allergies and 72% of children with multiple food allergies achieved maintenance.

In the Cleveland Clinic study, children with favorable lab test results after receiving the maintenance dose for 6 months were offered an oral food challenge. Of 24 patients who completed the challenge, 75% “passed with a normal serving size of the treated food (for example, two tablespoons of peanut butter),” Sarah Johnson, MD, lead author and Cleveland Clinic allergy/immunology fellow, said in an interview.

Plus, OIT seemed safer for toddlers. Although 41% of the children had reactions during clinic updosing and 48% had reactions at home, only ~3% of toddler OIT courses required epinephrine. By comparison, ~11% of treatments required epinephrine in a large OIT study of older children.

When a child reacts, “you might keep them on the dose or go a little slower,” said Johnson, who worked with allergist Jaclyn Bjelac, MD, on the study. These setbacks occurred less frequently in toddlers, allowing their OIT to “go a lot faster” than in older children. And so far, Dr. Johnson said, none of the toddlers have shown signs of eosinophilic esophagitis, a rare complication that can develop during OIT.

A smaller analysis of real-world outcomes in an academic clinical setting also found that OIT was well tolerated at very young ages. Since 2020, this ongoing study at UVA Children’s Hospital in Charlottesville has enrolled 22 peanut-allergic children (aged 6 months to 3 years) for OIT. Three patients have dropped out, four are in the buildup phrase, and 15 have reached maintenance dosing. None have reported having to use epinephrine.

Three patients have completed 1 year of maintenance therapy, and another patient accidentally consumed ~3,000 mg of peanut protein (equivalent to ~10 peanuts) after 5 months of maintenance. All four “now incorporate peanut into their diets ad lib,” according to lead author and allergist Jonathan Hemler, MD, who directs the UVA pediatric food allergy program.

These findings are “really reassuring – because even if you may not offer OIT, you’re still going to get questions about it,” said Ama Alexis, MD, an allergist/immunologist in private practice in New York and a clinical assistant professor at NYU Grossmann School of Medicine, commenting on the Cleveland Clinic study.

“It’s great that we’re hearing and seeing so much about OIT,” she added. While training as an allergy/immunology fellow 15 years ago, many saw the treatment as dangerous – “an absolute no-no,” she said.

The AAAAI still considers OIT “investigational,” yet this year’s annual meeting featured 22 posters – plus a course, workshop, seminar, and oral abstract session – on the approach.

The “thought process has shifted,” Dr. Alexis said. “It’s good to see all these numbers, these results. I think once you’re comfortable, you should embrace new therapies.”

Dr. Schwartz has consulted for Shire/Takeda and has received research funding from Knopp Biosciences. Dr. Alexis consults for AbbVie, serves on advisory boards for Jansen and Eli Lilli, and is a member of Pfizer’s advisory board and speaker’s bureau. Dr. Johnson, Dr. Windom, and Dr. Hemler report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Considered fringe just a few years ago, oral immunotherapy (OIT) has entered mainstream conversation about treating food allergies – particularly in younger children.

The buzz surrounding OIT – which involves ingesting daily doses of the culprit food to raise the threshold that would trigger a reaction – grew with the approval, by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration of Palforzia, of the peanut OIT pill in January 2020. Yet many allergists remained wary about the treatment, a monthslong regimen that can itself trigger allergic reactions.

Now, accumulating research points to “a possible window of opportunity early in life, less than 3 years of age, for more successful disease remission,” Justin Schwartz, MD, PhD, an allergist at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, told a crowd at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology.

His presentation about OIT in toddlers kicked off a 3-hour clinical practice course, one of several dozen conference offerings highlighting this emerging approach.

Several AAAAI posters add to prior studies (for example, DEVIL and IMPACT) suggesting that OIT proceeds more smoothly and faster during a child’s earliest years – a season fraught with accidental exposures and reactions.

One poster described a retrospective study of 73 children younger than 4 years who underwent OIT at the Cleveland Clinic Food Allergy Center. Sixty-four were treated for peanut allergies, and seven patients received OIT for multiple foods, including tree nuts, milk, wheat, and sesame.

Of the 80 total OIT courses, 76 (95%) reached maintenance – meaning the child tolerated a small amount (for example, 1-2 peanuts) without reacting – in a median of 104 days (~3.4 months).

That is “quite impressive,” said allergist Hugh Windom, MD, whose clinic in Sarasota, Fla., has offered OIT since 2012.

Older children typically have 80%-90% success and take longer (6-8 months) to reach maintenance because of busier schedules and reactions that slow them down, he said. In his clinic’s larger retrospective analysis of preschool-aged OIT patients, presented at the 2022 AAAAI meeting, 89% of patients with peanut allergies and 72% of children with multiple food allergies achieved maintenance.

In the Cleveland Clinic study, children with favorable lab test results after receiving the maintenance dose for 6 months were offered an oral food challenge. Of 24 patients who completed the challenge, 75% “passed with a normal serving size of the treated food (for example, two tablespoons of peanut butter),” Sarah Johnson, MD, lead author and Cleveland Clinic allergy/immunology fellow, said in an interview.

Plus, OIT seemed safer for toddlers. Although 41% of the children had reactions during clinic updosing and 48% had reactions at home, only ~3% of toddler OIT courses required epinephrine. By comparison, ~11% of treatments required epinephrine in a large OIT study of older children.

When a child reacts, “you might keep them on the dose or go a little slower,” said Johnson, who worked with allergist Jaclyn Bjelac, MD, on the study. These setbacks occurred less frequently in toddlers, allowing their OIT to “go a lot faster” than in older children. And so far, Dr. Johnson said, none of the toddlers have shown signs of eosinophilic esophagitis, a rare complication that can develop during OIT.

A smaller analysis of real-world outcomes in an academic clinical setting also found that OIT was well tolerated at very young ages. Since 2020, this ongoing study at UVA Children’s Hospital in Charlottesville has enrolled 22 peanut-allergic children (aged 6 months to 3 years) for OIT. Three patients have dropped out, four are in the buildup phrase, and 15 have reached maintenance dosing. None have reported having to use epinephrine.

Three patients have completed 1 year of maintenance therapy, and another patient accidentally consumed ~3,000 mg of peanut protein (equivalent to ~10 peanuts) after 5 months of maintenance. All four “now incorporate peanut into their diets ad lib,” according to lead author and allergist Jonathan Hemler, MD, who directs the UVA pediatric food allergy program.

These findings are “really reassuring – because even if you may not offer OIT, you’re still going to get questions about it,” said Ama Alexis, MD, an allergist/immunologist in private practice in New York and a clinical assistant professor at NYU Grossmann School of Medicine, commenting on the Cleveland Clinic study.

“It’s great that we’re hearing and seeing so much about OIT,” she added. While training as an allergy/immunology fellow 15 years ago, many saw the treatment as dangerous – “an absolute no-no,” she said.

The AAAAI still considers OIT “investigational,” yet this year’s annual meeting featured 22 posters – plus a course, workshop, seminar, and oral abstract session – on the approach.

The “thought process has shifted,” Dr. Alexis said. “It’s good to see all these numbers, these results. I think once you’re comfortable, you should embrace new therapies.”

Dr. Schwartz has consulted for Shire/Takeda and has received research funding from Knopp Biosciences. Dr. Alexis consults for AbbVie, serves on advisory boards for Jansen and Eli Lilli, and is a member of Pfizer’s advisory board and speaker’s bureau. Dr. Johnson, Dr. Windom, and Dr. Hemler report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Considered fringe just a few years ago, oral immunotherapy (OIT) has entered mainstream conversation about treating food allergies – particularly in younger children.

The buzz surrounding OIT – which involves ingesting daily doses of the culprit food to raise the threshold that would trigger a reaction – grew with the approval, by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration of Palforzia, of the peanut OIT pill in January 2020. Yet many allergists remained wary about the treatment, a monthslong regimen that can itself trigger allergic reactions.

Now, accumulating research points to “a possible window of opportunity early in life, less than 3 years of age, for more successful disease remission,” Justin Schwartz, MD, PhD, an allergist at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, told a crowd at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology.

His presentation about OIT in toddlers kicked off a 3-hour clinical practice course, one of several dozen conference offerings highlighting this emerging approach.

Several AAAAI posters add to prior studies (for example, DEVIL and IMPACT) suggesting that OIT proceeds more smoothly and faster during a child’s earliest years – a season fraught with accidental exposures and reactions.

One poster described a retrospective study of 73 children younger than 4 years who underwent OIT at the Cleveland Clinic Food Allergy Center. Sixty-four were treated for peanut allergies, and seven patients received OIT for multiple foods, including tree nuts, milk, wheat, and sesame.

Of the 80 total OIT courses, 76 (95%) reached maintenance – meaning the child tolerated a small amount (for example, 1-2 peanuts) without reacting – in a median of 104 days (~3.4 months).

That is “quite impressive,” said allergist Hugh Windom, MD, whose clinic in Sarasota, Fla., has offered OIT since 2012.

Older children typically have 80%-90% success and take longer (6-8 months) to reach maintenance because of busier schedules and reactions that slow them down, he said. In his clinic’s larger retrospective analysis of preschool-aged OIT patients, presented at the 2022 AAAAI meeting, 89% of patients with peanut allergies and 72% of children with multiple food allergies achieved maintenance.

In the Cleveland Clinic study, children with favorable lab test results after receiving the maintenance dose for 6 months were offered an oral food challenge. Of 24 patients who completed the challenge, 75% “passed with a normal serving size of the treated food (for example, two tablespoons of peanut butter),” Sarah Johnson, MD, lead author and Cleveland Clinic allergy/immunology fellow, said in an interview.

Plus, OIT seemed safer for toddlers. Although 41% of the children had reactions during clinic updosing and 48% had reactions at home, only ~3% of toddler OIT courses required epinephrine. By comparison, ~11% of treatments required epinephrine in a large OIT study of older children.

When a child reacts, “you might keep them on the dose or go a little slower,” said Johnson, who worked with allergist Jaclyn Bjelac, MD, on the study. These setbacks occurred less frequently in toddlers, allowing their OIT to “go a lot faster” than in older children. And so far, Dr. Johnson said, none of the toddlers have shown signs of eosinophilic esophagitis, a rare complication that can develop during OIT.

A smaller analysis of real-world outcomes in an academic clinical setting also found that OIT was well tolerated at very young ages. Since 2020, this ongoing study at UVA Children’s Hospital in Charlottesville has enrolled 22 peanut-allergic children (aged 6 months to 3 years) for OIT. Three patients have dropped out, four are in the buildup phrase, and 15 have reached maintenance dosing. None have reported having to use epinephrine.

Three patients have completed 1 year of maintenance therapy, and another patient accidentally consumed ~3,000 mg of peanut protein (equivalent to ~10 peanuts) after 5 months of maintenance. All four “now incorporate peanut into their diets ad lib,” according to lead author and allergist Jonathan Hemler, MD, who directs the UVA pediatric food allergy program.

These findings are “really reassuring – because even if you may not offer OIT, you’re still going to get questions about it,” said Ama Alexis, MD, an allergist/immunologist in private practice in New York and a clinical assistant professor at NYU Grossmann School of Medicine, commenting on the Cleveland Clinic study.

“It’s great that we’re hearing and seeing so much about OIT,” she added. While training as an allergy/immunology fellow 15 years ago, many saw the treatment as dangerous – “an absolute no-no,” she said.

The AAAAI still considers OIT “investigational,” yet this year’s annual meeting featured 22 posters – plus a course, workshop, seminar, and oral abstract session – on the approach.

The “thought process has shifted,” Dr. Alexis said. “It’s good to see all these numbers, these results. I think once you’re comfortable, you should embrace new therapies.”

Dr. Schwartz has consulted for Shire/Takeda and has received research funding from Knopp Biosciences. Dr. Alexis consults for AbbVie, serves on advisory boards for Jansen and Eli Lilli, and is a member of Pfizer’s advisory board and speaker’s bureau. Dr. Johnson, Dr. Windom, and Dr. Hemler report no relevant financial relationships.

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

SAN FRANCISCO – For patients with prostate cancer who have unfavorable features and a detectable PSA following a radical prostatectomy, the standard of care is treatment with 6 months of a gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist with salvage radiation therapy (SRT), as established by the GETUG-AFU 16 trial.

A new trial, dubbed FORMULA-509, explored whether outcomes could be improved by intensifying the drug treatment by adding 6 months of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone as well as apalutamide on top of the GnRH agonist alongside the salvage radiotherapy.

This approach did not provide a significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) or metastasis-free survival (MFS) in the overall study population.

However, the combination did significantly improve PFS and MFS in a subset of men with PSA levels greater than 0.5 ng/mL.

“Although this primary analysis did not meet the prespecified threshold for statistical significance, it does strongly suggest that the addition of abiraterone acetate/prednisone/apalutamide to salvage radiotherapy plus 6 months of ADT [androgen deprivation therapy] may improve progression-free survival and metastasis-free survival,” said lead author Paul L. Nguyen, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, and professor of radiation oncology at Harvard Medical School.

“This may be particularly evident in the subgroup of patients with PSA greater that 0.5 ng/mL where a preplanned subgroup analysis by stratification factors observed a statistically significant benefit for both progression-free survival and metastasis-free survival,” he said. “Six months of intensified ADT with next generation anti-androgens may provide an attractive alternative to lengthening ADT for patients with rising PSA and unfavorable features after radical prostatectomy.”

The study results were presented at the ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.
 

Benefit in subset

The FORMULA-509 trial included 305 patients with PSA ≥ 0.1 ng/mL who had undergone a radical prostatectomy, and who had one or more unfavorable risk features (Gleason 8-10 disease, PSA > 0.5 ng/mL, pT3/T4, pN1 or radiographic N1, PSA doubling time < 10 months, negative margins, persistent PSA, gross local/regional disease).

“This was a pretty high-risk population,” Dr. Nguyen emphasized, as 35% had Gleason score of 9, about a third (31%) a PSA >0.5, and 29% were pathologic node positive.

All patients received salvage radiotherapy plus 6 months of GnRH agonist (bicalutamide 50 mg), and half were randomly assigned to also receive abiraterone acetate/prednisone 1,000 mg/5 mg + apalutamide 240 mg daily.

At a median follow-up of 34 months, the 3-year PFS rate was 74.9% in the AAP-apalutamide arm vs. 68.5% for the control group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.71; P = .06), and the 3-year MFS rate was 90.6% vs. 87.2%, respectively (HR, 0.57; P = .05).

In the subset of patients with a PSA greater than 0.5 ng/mL, the 3-year PFS and MFS rates were significantly higher with in the AAP-apalutamide group: the 3-year PFS rate was 67.2% vs. 46.8% (HR, 0.50; P = .03), and the 3-year MFS rate was 84.3% vs. 66.1% (HR, 0.32; P = .02).

Adverse events were consistent with the known safety profiles of the agents being studied, Dr. Nguyen noted. The most common toxicities for AAP-apalutamide vs. controls were hypertension (21.8% vs. 13.3%), maculopapular rash (11.5% vs. 0.6%), diarrhea (8.5% vs. 4.8%), and fatigue (7.9% vs. 6.1%).

Dr. Nguyen noted that even though “we’re not supposed to compare clinical trials,” the results of this study appeared to compare favorably with those of another trial, RADICALS-HD, which was presented at the 2022 European Society of Medical Oncology Congress. That study showed that in patients undergoing postoperative radiation therapy, 24 months of ADT was superior to 6 months of ADT in improving both time to salvage ADT and MFS.

However, Dr. Nguyen emphasized that it would have to be formally tested, to see if “FORMULA-509 is performing in the ballpark of what 24 months of ADT would do.

“And I think that compared to 6 months of ADT, we can say it is certainly performing in the ballpark,” he said. “So, for patients with higher risk features, intensifying 6 months of ADT, I think, may be an appealing alternative to lengthening the ADT duration to 24 months.”

He added that this concept would be formally tested in the upcoming PROSTATE IQ study.
 

Strong evidence, standardization needed

In a discussion of the paper, Tyler Seibert, MD, PhD, of the University of California San Diego, said that “escalation by 24 months has the strongest evidence today, specifically from the RADICALS-HD trial, with more than 1,500 men with 10 years of  follow-up and a clear statistically significant result.

“Intensification for 6 months is a very compelling concept, as most patients are not getting 2 years of androgen deprivation therapy at this point post prostatectomy,” he continued. “While we await the long term follow-up of this study and the pending PROSTATE IQ trial, and if only 6 months of therapy is acceptable or feasible, the FORMULA-509 [trial] provides convincing evidence that select patients would benefit from intensification with AAP and apalutamide.”

Another expert weighed in on the data. Approached by this news organization for an independent comment, Jeff M. Michalski, MD, MBA, professor of radiation oncology at Washington University, St Louis, and president of the American Society of Radiation Oncology, noted a few issues in the study.

He said that standards had changed since this study was first approved and had begun accrual several years ago. “In context of today’s era, the current standard is to do a PET scan if patients have a chemical failure after surgery,” he said. “The PSA levels of patients who were treated [in this trial] were very high, and many patients do not want to wait until they reach that level.”

Dr. Michalski also pointed out the number of patients getting radiation was less than the number who had node-positive disease. “This shows that patients had received suboptimal therapy late in the disease,” he said.

Overall, most patients in the study did not receive lymph node radiation, even though they had high-risk features. “A recent study of almost 1,800 patients that was published in The Lancet found that there is a benefit to pelvic lymph node radiation,” he said. “Because it wasn’t mandated, most of the patients did not receive pelvic lymph node radiation, which we now understand offers some benefit.”

The reasons for not giving pelvic radiation to these men is unclear. “Treatment was left at the discretion of the physician and this could create bias,” Dr. Michalski said. “It could drive one arm more than another.”

The study also wasn’t controlled for pelvic radiation. “Most of the nodal positive patients received it, but the other patients were undertreated,” he noted.

Dr. Michalski added that he hopes that in the forthcoming PROSTATE IQ study, lymph node radiation and imaging are standardized.

The trial was supported by Janssen Oncology. Dr. Nguyen disclosed relationships with, and/or support from, Volatilyx, Bayer, Blue Earth Diagnostics, Boston Scientific, Janssen Oncology, Myovant Sciences, Astellas Pharma, and Janssen. Dr. Seibert disclosed relationships with, and/or support from, CorTechs Labs, Varian Medical Systems, and GE Healthcare.

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

SAN FRANCISCO – For patients with prostate cancer who have unfavorable features and a detectable PSA following a radical prostatectomy, the standard of care is treatment with 6 months of a gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist with salvage radiation therapy (SRT), as established by the GETUG-AFU 16 trial.

A new trial, dubbed FORMULA-509, explored whether outcomes could be improved by intensifying the drug treatment by adding 6 months of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone as well as apalutamide on top of the GnRH agonist alongside the salvage radiotherapy.

This approach did not provide a significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) or metastasis-free survival (MFS) in the overall study population.

However, the combination did significantly improve PFS and MFS in a subset of men with PSA levels greater than 0.5 ng/mL.

“Although this primary analysis did not meet the prespecified threshold for statistical significance, it does strongly suggest that the addition of abiraterone acetate/prednisone/apalutamide to salvage radiotherapy plus 6 months of ADT [androgen deprivation therapy] may improve progression-free survival and metastasis-free survival,” said lead author Paul L. Nguyen, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, and professor of radiation oncology at Harvard Medical School.

“This may be particularly evident in the subgroup of patients with PSA greater that 0.5 ng/mL where a preplanned subgroup analysis by stratification factors observed a statistically significant benefit for both progression-free survival and metastasis-free survival,” he said. “Six months of intensified ADT with next generation anti-androgens may provide an attractive alternative to lengthening ADT for patients with rising PSA and unfavorable features after radical prostatectomy.”

The study results were presented at the ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.
 

Benefit in subset

The FORMULA-509 trial included 305 patients with PSA ≥ 0.1 ng/mL who had undergone a radical prostatectomy, and who had one or more unfavorable risk features (Gleason 8-10 disease, PSA > 0.5 ng/mL, pT3/T4, pN1 or radiographic N1, PSA doubling time < 10 months, negative margins, persistent PSA, gross local/regional disease).

“This was a pretty high-risk population,” Dr. Nguyen emphasized, as 35% had Gleason score of 9, about a third (31%) a PSA >0.5, and 29% were pathologic node positive.

All patients received salvage radiotherapy plus 6 months of GnRH agonist (bicalutamide 50 mg), and half were randomly assigned to also receive abiraterone acetate/prednisone 1,000 mg/5 mg + apalutamide 240 mg daily.

At a median follow-up of 34 months, the 3-year PFS rate was 74.9% in the AAP-apalutamide arm vs. 68.5% for the control group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.71; P = .06), and the 3-year MFS rate was 90.6% vs. 87.2%, respectively (HR, 0.57; P = .05).

In the subset of patients with a PSA greater than 0.5 ng/mL, the 3-year PFS and MFS rates were significantly higher with in the AAP-apalutamide group: the 3-year PFS rate was 67.2% vs. 46.8% (HR, 0.50; P = .03), and the 3-year MFS rate was 84.3% vs. 66.1% (HR, 0.32; P = .02).

Adverse events were consistent with the known safety profiles of the agents being studied, Dr. Nguyen noted. The most common toxicities for AAP-apalutamide vs. controls were hypertension (21.8% vs. 13.3%), maculopapular rash (11.5% vs. 0.6%), diarrhea (8.5% vs. 4.8%), and fatigue (7.9% vs. 6.1%).

Dr. Nguyen noted that even though “we’re not supposed to compare clinical trials,” the results of this study appeared to compare favorably with those of another trial, RADICALS-HD, which was presented at the 2022 European Society of Medical Oncology Congress. That study showed that in patients undergoing postoperative radiation therapy, 24 months of ADT was superior to 6 months of ADT in improving both time to salvage ADT and MFS.

However, Dr. Nguyen emphasized that it would have to be formally tested, to see if “FORMULA-509 is performing in the ballpark of what 24 months of ADT would do.

“And I think that compared to 6 months of ADT, we can say it is certainly performing in the ballpark,” he said. “So, for patients with higher risk features, intensifying 6 months of ADT, I think, may be an appealing alternative to lengthening the ADT duration to 24 months.”

He added that this concept would be formally tested in the upcoming PROSTATE IQ study.
 

Strong evidence, standardization needed

In a discussion of the paper, Tyler Seibert, MD, PhD, of the University of California San Diego, said that “escalation by 24 months has the strongest evidence today, specifically from the RADICALS-HD trial, with more than 1,500 men with 10 years of  follow-up and a clear statistically significant result.

“Intensification for 6 months is a very compelling concept, as most patients are not getting 2 years of androgen deprivation therapy at this point post prostatectomy,” he continued. “While we await the long term follow-up of this study and the pending PROSTATE IQ trial, and if only 6 months of therapy is acceptable or feasible, the FORMULA-509 [trial] provides convincing evidence that select patients would benefit from intensification with AAP and apalutamide.”

Another expert weighed in on the data. Approached by this news organization for an independent comment, Jeff M. Michalski, MD, MBA, professor of radiation oncology at Washington University, St Louis, and president of the American Society of Radiation Oncology, noted a few issues in the study.

He said that standards had changed since this study was first approved and had begun accrual several years ago. “In context of today’s era, the current standard is to do a PET scan if patients have a chemical failure after surgery,” he said. “The PSA levels of patients who were treated [in this trial] were very high, and many patients do not want to wait until they reach that level.”

Dr. Michalski also pointed out the number of patients getting radiation was less than the number who had node-positive disease. “This shows that patients had received suboptimal therapy late in the disease,” he said.

Overall, most patients in the study did not receive lymph node radiation, even though they had high-risk features. “A recent study of almost 1,800 patients that was published in The Lancet found that there is a benefit to pelvic lymph node radiation,” he said. “Because it wasn’t mandated, most of the patients did not receive pelvic lymph node radiation, which we now understand offers some benefit.”

The reasons for not giving pelvic radiation to these men is unclear. “Treatment was left at the discretion of the physician and this could create bias,” Dr. Michalski said. “It could drive one arm more than another.”

The study also wasn’t controlled for pelvic radiation. “Most of the nodal positive patients received it, but the other patients were undertreated,” he noted.

Dr. Michalski added that he hopes that in the forthcoming PROSTATE IQ study, lymph node radiation and imaging are standardized.

The trial was supported by Janssen Oncology. Dr. Nguyen disclosed relationships with, and/or support from, Volatilyx, Bayer, Blue Earth Diagnostics, Boston Scientific, Janssen Oncology, Myovant Sciences, Astellas Pharma, and Janssen. Dr. Seibert disclosed relationships with, and/or support from, CorTechs Labs, Varian Medical Systems, and GE Healthcare.

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

SAN FRANCISCO – For patients with prostate cancer who have unfavorable features and a detectable PSA following a radical prostatectomy, the standard of care is treatment with 6 months of a gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist with salvage radiation therapy (SRT), as established by the GETUG-AFU 16 trial.

A new trial, dubbed FORMULA-509, explored whether outcomes could be improved by intensifying the drug treatment by adding 6 months of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone as well as apalutamide on top of the GnRH agonist alongside the salvage radiotherapy.

This approach did not provide a significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) or metastasis-free survival (MFS) in the overall study population.

However, the combination did significantly improve PFS and MFS in a subset of men with PSA levels greater than 0.5 ng/mL.

“Although this primary analysis did not meet the prespecified threshold for statistical significance, it does strongly suggest that the addition of abiraterone acetate/prednisone/apalutamide to salvage radiotherapy plus 6 months of ADT [androgen deprivation therapy] may improve progression-free survival and metastasis-free survival,” said lead author Paul L. Nguyen, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, and professor of radiation oncology at Harvard Medical School.

“This may be particularly evident in the subgroup of patients with PSA greater that 0.5 ng/mL where a preplanned subgroup analysis by stratification factors observed a statistically significant benefit for both progression-free survival and metastasis-free survival,” he said. “Six months of intensified ADT with next generation anti-androgens may provide an attractive alternative to lengthening ADT for patients with rising PSA and unfavorable features after radical prostatectomy.”

The study results were presented at the ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.
 

Benefit in subset

The FORMULA-509 trial included 305 patients with PSA ≥ 0.1 ng/mL who had undergone a radical prostatectomy, and who had one or more unfavorable risk features (Gleason 8-10 disease, PSA > 0.5 ng/mL, pT3/T4, pN1 or radiographic N1, PSA doubling time < 10 months, negative margins, persistent PSA, gross local/regional disease).

“This was a pretty high-risk population,” Dr. Nguyen emphasized, as 35% had Gleason score of 9, about a third (31%) a PSA >0.5, and 29% were pathologic node positive.

All patients received salvage radiotherapy plus 6 months of GnRH agonist (bicalutamide 50 mg), and half were randomly assigned to also receive abiraterone acetate/prednisone 1,000 mg/5 mg + apalutamide 240 mg daily.

At a median follow-up of 34 months, the 3-year PFS rate was 74.9% in the AAP-apalutamide arm vs. 68.5% for the control group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.71; P = .06), and the 3-year MFS rate was 90.6% vs. 87.2%, respectively (HR, 0.57; P = .05).

In the subset of patients with a PSA greater than 0.5 ng/mL, the 3-year PFS and MFS rates were significantly higher with in the AAP-apalutamide group: the 3-year PFS rate was 67.2% vs. 46.8% (HR, 0.50; P = .03), and the 3-year MFS rate was 84.3% vs. 66.1% (HR, 0.32; P = .02).

Adverse events were consistent with the known safety profiles of the agents being studied, Dr. Nguyen noted. The most common toxicities for AAP-apalutamide vs. controls were hypertension (21.8% vs. 13.3%), maculopapular rash (11.5% vs. 0.6%), diarrhea (8.5% vs. 4.8%), and fatigue (7.9% vs. 6.1%).

Dr. Nguyen noted that even though “we’re not supposed to compare clinical trials,” the results of this study appeared to compare favorably with those of another trial, RADICALS-HD, which was presented at the 2022 European Society of Medical Oncology Congress. That study showed that in patients undergoing postoperative radiation therapy, 24 months of ADT was superior to 6 months of ADT in improving both time to salvage ADT and MFS.

However, Dr. Nguyen emphasized that it would have to be formally tested, to see if “FORMULA-509 is performing in the ballpark of what 24 months of ADT would do.

“And I think that compared to 6 months of ADT, we can say it is certainly performing in the ballpark,” he said. “So, for patients with higher risk features, intensifying 6 months of ADT, I think, may be an appealing alternative to lengthening the ADT duration to 24 months.”

He added that this concept would be formally tested in the upcoming PROSTATE IQ study.
 

Strong evidence, standardization needed

In a discussion of the paper, Tyler Seibert, MD, PhD, of the University of California San Diego, said that “escalation by 24 months has the strongest evidence today, specifically from the RADICALS-HD trial, with more than 1,500 men with 10 years of  follow-up and a clear statistically significant result.

“Intensification for 6 months is a very compelling concept, as most patients are not getting 2 years of androgen deprivation therapy at this point post prostatectomy,” he continued. “While we await the long term follow-up of this study and the pending PROSTATE IQ trial, and if only 6 months of therapy is acceptable or feasible, the FORMULA-509 [trial] provides convincing evidence that select patients would benefit from intensification with AAP and apalutamide.”

Another expert weighed in on the data. Approached by this news organization for an independent comment, Jeff M. Michalski, MD, MBA, professor of radiation oncology at Washington University, St Louis, and president of the American Society of Radiation Oncology, noted a few issues in the study.

He said that standards had changed since this study was first approved and had begun accrual several years ago. “In context of today’s era, the current standard is to do a PET scan if patients have a chemical failure after surgery,” he said. “The PSA levels of patients who were treated [in this trial] were very high, and many patients do not want to wait until they reach that level.”

Dr. Michalski also pointed out the number of patients getting radiation was less than the number who had node-positive disease. “This shows that patients had received suboptimal therapy late in the disease,” he said.

Overall, most patients in the study did not receive lymph node radiation, even though they had high-risk features. “A recent study of almost 1,800 patients that was published in The Lancet found that there is a benefit to pelvic lymph node radiation,” he said. “Because it wasn’t mandated, most of the patients did not receive pelvic lymph node radiation, which we now understand offers some benefit.”

The reasons for not giving pelvic radiation to these men is unclear. “Treatment was left at the discretion of the physician and this could create bias,” Dr. Michalski said. “It could drive one arm more than another.”

The study also wasn’t controlled for pelvic radiation. “Most of the nodal positive patients received it, but the other patients were undertreated,” he noted.

Dr. Michalski added that he hopes that in the forthcoming PROSTATE IQ study, lymph node radiation and imaging are standardized.

The trial was supported by Janssen Oncology. Dr. Nguyen disclosed relationships with, and/or support from, Volatilyx, Bayer, Blue Earth Diagnostics, Boston Scientific, Janssen Oncology, Myovant Sciences, Astellas Pharma, and Janssen. Dr. Seibert disclosed relationships with, and/or support from, CorTechs Labs, Varian Medical Systems, and GE Healthcare.

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

HONOLULU – Nearly every day, Candrice R. Heath, MD, spends time during office visits dispelling myths about hair care practices in patients with skin of color. One myth is the idea that not washing hair helps it to grow.

“This is false,” Dr. Heath, director of pediatric dermatology at Temple University, Philadelphia, said at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by MedscapeLIVE! With little manipulation, length may be retained, since tightly coiled hair has a higher likelihood of breakage, she said. “But washing the scalp and hair is recommended for tightly coiled hair weekly or every other week. Exclusively co-washing – a technique where hair conditioner is used instead of shampooing – is also not advised due to scalp build-up.”

JGI/Jamie Grill/Getty Images

Other myths she addressed include the following:

“I have a weak spot (or stress spot) on the top of my scalp.” These terms may be used to describe hair on a spot that goes through cycles of breaking off and re-growing. This is false. “If someone were to say that, and we see short hairs on the top of a patient’s scalp, with or without tenderness, pruritus, or pain, we want to recognize that as possibly an early sign of central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia [CCCA],” she said. “We want to pick up cases of CCCA forme fruste [central hair breakage] early.”

Medicated shampoos are helpful for all patients with seborrheic dermatitis. This notion is more complicated. “In theory, medicated shampoos like ketoconazole should be helpful, but if the shampoos are too drying for the hair and they cause further hair breakage, that’s going to be a problem as well,” explained Dr. Heath, who was the senior author of an article on how to address common conditions affecting pediatric and adolescent patients with skin of color. For patients with tightly coiled hair, she recommends applying antifungal shampoos to the scalp only, waiting 5-10 minutes, rinsing, and shampooing the scalp and hair with a moisturizing shampoo and rinsing. They can then condition with a moisturizing conditioner and style their hair as desired.

HONOLULU – Nearly every day, Candrice R. Heath, MD, spends time during office visits dispelling myths about hair care practices in patients with skin of color. One myth is the idea that not washing hair helps it to grow.

“This is false,” Dr. Heath, director of pediatric dermatology at Temple University, Philadelphia, said at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by MedscapeLIVE! With little manipulation, length may be retained, since tightly coiled hair has a higher likelihood of breakage, she said. “But washing the scalp and hair is recommended for tightly coiled hair weekly or every other week. Exclusively co-washing – a technique where hair conditioner is used instead of shampooing – is also not advised due to scalp build-up.”

JGI/Jamie Grill/Getty Images

Other myths she addressed include the following:

“I have a weak spot (or stress spot) on the top of my scalp.” These terms may be used to describe hair on a spot that goes through cycles of breaking off and re-growing. This is false. “If someone were to say that, and we see short hairs on the top of a patient’s scalp, with or without tenderness, pruritus, or pain, we want to recognize that as possibly an early sign of central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia [CCCA],” she said. “We want to pick up cases of CCCA forme fruste [central hair breakage] early.”

Medicated shampoos are helpful for all patients with seborrheic dermatitis. This notion is more complicated. “In theory, medicated shampoos like ketoconazole should be helpful, but if the shampoos are too drying for the hair and they cause further hair breakage, that’s going to be a problem as well,” explained Dr. Heath, who was the senior author of an article on how to address common conditions affecting pediatric and adolescent patients with skin of color. For patients with tightly coiled hair, she recommends applying antifungal shampoos to the scalp only, waiting 5-10 minutes, rinsing, and shampooing the scalp and hair with a moisturizing shampoo and rinsing. They can then condition with a moisturizing conditioner and style their hair as desired.

HONOLULU – Nearly every day, Candrice R. Heath, MD, spends time during office visits dispelling myths about hair care practices in patients with skin of color. One myth is the idea that not washing hair helps it to grow.

“This is false,” Dr. Heath, director of pediatric dermatology at Temple University, Philadelphia, said at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by MedscapeLIVE! With little manipulation, length may be retained, since tightly coiled hair has a higher likelihood of breakage, she said. “But washing the scalp and hair is recommended for tightly coiled hair weekly or every other week. Exclusively co-washing – a technique where hair conditioner is used instead of shampooing – is also not advised due to scalp build-up.”

JGI/Jamie Grill/Getty Images

Other myths she addressed include the following:

“I have a weak spot (or stress spot) on the top of my scalp.” These terms may be used to describe hair on a spot that goes through cycles of breaking off and re-growing. This is false. “If someone were to say that, and we see short hairs on the top of a patient’s scalp, with or without tenderness, pruritus, or pain, we want to recognize that as possibly an early sign of central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia [CCCA],” she said. “We want to pick up cases of CCCA forme fruste [central hair breakage] early.”

Medicated shampoos are helpful for all patients with seborrheic dermatitis. This notion is more complicated. “In theory, medicated shampoos like ketoconazole should be helpful, but if the shampoos are too drying for the hair and they cause further hair breakage, that’s going to be a problem as well,” explained Dr. Heath, who was the senior author of an article on how to address common conditions affecting pediatric and adolescent patients with skin of color. For patients with tightly coiled hair, she recommends applying antifungal shampoos to the scalp only, waiting 5-10 minutes, rinsing, and shampooing the scalp and hair with a moisturizing shampoo and rinsing. They can then condition with a moisturizing conditioner and style their hair as desired.

When it comes to a woman’s risk for a breast cancer recurrence, hormone status appears to matter.

New research shows that patients with ER-negative disease have a higher risk of a second breast cancer within a 5-year window post diagnosis, compared with patients with ER-positive disease.

“Our findings suggest that primary breast cancer ER status could be used to identify women at highest risk of second breast cancer events during the early post-treatment period and should be a consideration for guidelines and decision-making regarding surveillance imaging regimens for breast cancer survivors,” the study authors, led by Kathryn P. Lowry, MD, of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle, concluded.

The study was published online in Cancer.

Breast cancer survivors are at risk for a second breast cancer, making ongoing surveillance essential. Surveillance could be informed by better understanding an individual’s recurrence risk, but whether differences exist for women with ER‐positive vs. ER‐negative cancers remains unclear.

Dr. Lowry and colleagues analyzed women diagnosed with stage I-III breast cancer between 2000 and 2017, drawing from six Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium registries. The team collected information on patients’ ER status as well as second breast cancer events detectable by surveillance imaging. Second breast cancer rates were assessed 1-5 years and 6-10 years after diagnosis. The final study cohort included 23,139 women with ER-positive disease and 4,605 with ER-negative disease.

The researchers found that, at the 5-year mark, the cumulative breast cancer incidence was 7.1% for ER‐negative disease and 3.6% for ER‐positive disease. At the 10-year mark, the cumulative breast cancer incidence was still higher for women with ER-negative disease – 11.8% vs. 7.5% among those with ER-positive disease. 

Patients with ER-negative disease also had higher rates of second breast cancers within the first 5 years of follow-ups – 16.0 per 1,000 person‐years vs. 7.8 per 1,000 person‐years for those with ER‐positive breast cancer – though after 5 years, the rates by ER status were similar among the two groups (12.1 per 1,000 vs. 9.3 per 1,000 person‐years, respectively).

Overall, the findings indicate that the “ER status of the primary invasive cancer was an important prognostic factor for both the magnitude and the timing of second breast cancer events,” the authors concluded.

The team noted several limitations to their study, including that information on the presence of pathogenic variants, such as BRCA1 and BRCA2, were not available. Given that these variants tend to be more common among women with ER-negative breast cancers, this could represent a confounder.

Marisa C. Weiss, MD, chief medical officer and founder of Breastcancer.org, who was not involved in the research, highlighted two important details to keep in mind.

“We do know that triple negative breast cancers are associated with a higher risk of having an inherited genetic abnormality like BRCA1, which predicts a higher risk of second malignancies,” said Dr. Weiss, a breast oncologist at Lankenau Medical Center in Wynnewood, Pa. “Also, it should be noted that patients with HR-positive breast cancer have a higher incidence of local recurrence spread out over 10-plus years.”

What might these results mean for practice and following patients over the long term?

According to the researchers, “further study is needed to evaluate whether women with ER‐negative primary cancers may potentially benefit from more intensive surveillance in the early postdiagnosis period.”

Dr. Weiss noted as well that “each person’s situation is unique,” and it is “very important to develop a customized survivorship care plan with close surveillance,” which includes genetic testing.

Dr. Lowry reported grants from the American Cancer Society and personal fees from the Radiological Society of North America outside the submitted work. Several coauthors also reported disclosures. Dr. Weiss reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

When it comes to a woman’s risk for a breast cancer recurrence, hormone status appears to matter.

New research shows that patients with ER-negative disease have a higher risk of a second breast cancer within a 5-year window post diagnosis, compared with patients with ER-positive disease.

“Our findings suggest that primary breast cancer ER status could be used to identify women at highest risk of second breast cancer events during the early post-treatment period and should be a consideration for guidelines and decision-making regarding surveillance imaging regimens for breast cancer survivors,” the study authors, led by Kathryn P. Lowry, MD, of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle, concluded.

The study was published online in Cancer.

Breast cancer survivors are at risk for a second breast cancer, making ongoing surveillance essential. Surveillance could be informed by better understanding an individual’s recurrence risk, but whether differences exist for women with ER‐positive vs. ER‐negative cancers remains unclear.

Dr. Lowry and colleagues analyzed women diagnosed with stage I-III breast cancer between 2000 and 2017, drawing from six Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium registries. The team collected information on patients’ ER status as well as second breast cancer events detectable by surveillance imaging. Second breast cancer rates were assessed 1-5 years and 6-10 years after diagnosis. The final study cohort included 23,139 women with ER-positive disease and 4,605 with ER-negative disease.

The researchers found that, at the 5-year mark, the cumulative breast cancer incidence was 7.1% for ER‐negative disease and 3.6% for ER‐positive disease. At the 10-year mark, the cumulative breast cancer incidence was still higher for women with ER-negative disease – 11.8% vs. 7.5% among those with ER-positive disease. 

Patients with ER-negative disease also had higher rates of second breast cancers within the first 5 years of follow-ups – 16.0 per 1,000 person‐years vs. 7.8 per 1,000 person‐years for those with ER‐positive breast cancer – though after 5 years, the rates by ER status were similar among the two groups (12.1 per 1,000 vs. 9.3 per 1,000 person‐years, respectively).

Overall, the findings indicate that the “ER status of the primary invasive cancer was an important prognostic factor for both the magnitude and the timing of second breast cancer events,” the authors concluded.

The team noted several limitations to their study, including that information on the presence of pathogenic variants, such as BRCA1 and BRCA2, were not available. Given that these variants tend to be more common among women with ER-negative breast cancers, this could represent a confounder.

Marisa C. Weiss, MD, chief medical officer and founder of Breastcancer.org, who was not involved in the research, highlighted two important details to keep in mind.

“We do know that triple negative breast cancers are associated with a higher risk of having an inherited genetic abnormality like BRCA1, which predicts a higher risk of second malignancies,” said Dr. Weiss, a breast oncologist at Lankenau Medical Center in Wynnewood, Pa. “Also, it should be noted that patients with HR-positive breast cancer have a higher incidence of local recurrence spread out over 10-plus years.”

What might these results mean for practice and following patients over the long term?

According to the researchers, “further study is needed to evaluate whether women with ER‐negative primary cancers may potentially benefit from more intensive surveillance in the early postdiagnosis period.”

Dr. Weiss noted as well that “each person’s situation is unique,” and it is “very important to develop a customized survivorship care plan with close surveillance,” which includes genetic testing.

Dr. Lowry reported grants from the American Cancer Society and personal fees from the Radiological Society of North America outside the submitted work. Several coauthors also reported disclosures. Dr. Weiss reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

When it comes to a woman’s risk for a breast cancer recurrence, hormone status appears to matter.

New research shows that patients with ER-negative disease have a higher risk of a second breast cancer within a 5-year window post diagnosis, compared with patients with ER-positive disease.

“Our findings suggest that primary breast cancer ER status could be used to identify women at highest risk of second breast cancer events during the early post-treatment period and should be a consideration for guidelines and decision-making regarding surveillance imaging regimens for breast cancer survivors,” the study authors, led by Kathryn P. Lowry, MD, of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle, concluded.

The study was published online in Cancer.

Breast cancer survivors are at risk for a second breast cancer, making ongoing surveillance essential. Surveillance could be informed by better understanding an individual’s recurrence risk, but whether differences exist for women with ER‐positive vs. ER‐negative cancers remains unclear.

Dr. Lowry and colleagues analyzed women diagnosed with stage I-III breast cancer between 2000 and 2017, drawing from six Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium registries. The team collected information on patients’ ER status as well as second breast cancer events detectable by surveillance imaging. Second breast cancer rates were assessed 1-5 years and 6-10 years after diagnosis. The final study cohort included 23,139 women with ER-positive disease and 4,605 with ER-negative disease.

The researchers found that, at the 5-year mark, the cumulative breast cancer incidence was 7.1% for ER‐negative disease and 3.6% for ER‐positive disease. At the 10-year mark, the cumulative breast cancer incidence was still higher for women with ER-negative disease – 11.8% vs. 7.5% among those with ER-positive disease. 

Patients with ER-negative disease also had higher rates of second breast cancers within the first 5 years of follow-ups – 16.0 per 1,000 person‐years vs. 7.8 per 1,000 person‐years for those with ER‐positive breast cancer – though after 5 years, the rates by ER status were similar among the two groups (12.1 per 1,000 vs. 9.3 per 1,000 person‐years, respectively).

Overall, the findings indicate that the “ER status of the primary invasive cancer was an important prognostic factor for both the magnitude and the timing of second breast cancer events,” the authors concluded.

The team noted several limitations to their study, including that information on the presence of pathogenic variants, such as BRCA1 and BRCA2, were not available. Given that these variants tend to be more common among women with ER-negative breast cancers, this could represent a confounder.

Marisa C. Weiss, MD, chief medical officer and founder of Breastcancer.org, who was not involved in the research, highlighted two important details to keep in mind.

“We do know that triple negative breast cancers are associated with a higher risk of having an inherited genetic abnormality like BRCA1, which predicts a higher risk of second malignancies,” said Dr. Weiss, a breast oncologist at Lankenau Medical Center in Wynnewood, Pa. “Also, it should be noted that patients with HR-positive breast cancer have a higher incidence of local recurrence spread out over 10-plus years.”

What might these results mean for practice and following patients over the long term?

According to the researchers, “further study is needed to evaluate whether women with ER‐negative primary cancers may potentially benefit from more intensive surveillance in the early postdiagnosis period.”

Dr. Weiss noted as well that “each person’s situation is unique,” and it is “very important to develop a customized survivorship care plan with close surveillance,” which includes genetic testing.

Dr. Lowry reported grants from the American Cancer Society and personal fees from the Radiological Society of North America outside the submitted work. Several coauthors also reported disclosures. Dr. Weiss reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Another study caught my attention this month for having presented a lot of information with no clinically important conclusions. In "Mode of Delivery and Offspring Atopic Dermatitis in a Swedish Nationwide Study," Mubanga and colleagues studied 1.4 million children! With that many participants, they were almost certain to find associations that were statistically significant and clinically irrelevant. They reported that children born by instrumental vaginal delivery, emergency caesarean section, and elective caesarean section were at a higher risk for AD compared with those born by uncomplicated vaginal delivery. They failed to report the absolute magnitude of the associations, which were undoubtedly so small as to be clinically meaningless. Even if the observed association were not due to some hidden bias, the association is not anything that would change treatment in any way.

On the other hand, the small, open label registry analysis, "Experiences From Daily Practice of Upadacitinib Treatment on Atopic Dermatitis With a Focus on Hand Eczema: Results From the BioDay Registry," published by Kamphuis and colleagues, is of much greater value, reporting the effectiveness and safety of upadacitinib on hand eczema. Not surprisingly, there were large improvements in the investigators' assessments of the dermatitis and in patients' quality of life. This small study is informative about efficacy; it is too small, though, to evaluate how frequently rare severe adverse events occur.

The use of probiotics to safely improve skin disease is such an appealing concept, yet it sounds a lot like hocus-pocus to me. Feíto-Rodríguez and colleagues report in the journal Clinical and Experimental Dermatology that a probiotic mixture of Bifidobacterium lactis, Bifidobacterium longum, and Lactobacillus casei improved atopic dermatitis more than did placebo. The findings are not compelling. Differences were small. Rates of being clear or almost clear weren't reported. We can get atopic dermatitis to clear up in a few days with topical triamcinolone (if we can get patients to use it); so far, the effects of probiotics on the presumed gut-immune system-skin axis seem very much underwhelming.

Another study caught my attention this month for having presented a lot of information with no clinically important conclusions. In "Mode of Delivery and Offspring Atopic Dermatitis in a Swedish Nationwide Study," Mubanga and colleagues studied 1.4 million children! With that many participants, they were almost certain to find associations that were statistically significant and clinically irrelevant. They reported that children born by instrumental vaginal delivery, emergency caesarean section, and elective caesarean section were at a higher risk for AD compared with those born by uncomplicated vaginal delivery. They failed to report the absolute magnitude of the associations, which were undoubtedly so small as to be clinically meaningless. Even if the observed association were not due to some hidden bias, the association is not anything that would change treatment in any way.

On the other hand, the small, open label registry analysis, "Experiences From Daily Practice of Upadacitinib Treatment on Atopic Dermatitis With a Focus on Hand Eczema: Results From the BioDay Registry," published by Kamphuis and colleagues, is of much greater value, reporting the effectiveness and safety of upadacitinib on hand eczema. Not surprisingly, there were large improvements in the investigators' assessments of the dermatitis and in patients' quality of life. This small study is informative about efficacy; it is too small, though, to evaluate how frequently rare severe adverse events occur.

The use of probiotics to safely improve skin disease is such an appealing concept, yet it sounds a lot like hocus-pocus to me. Feíto-Rodríguez and colleagues report in the journal Clinical and Experimental Dermatology that a probiotic mixture of Bifidobacterium lactis, Bifidobacterium longum, and Lactobacillus casei improved atopic dermatitis more than did placebo. The findings are not compelling. Differences were small. Rates of being clear or almost clear weren't reported. We can get atopic dermatitis to clear up in a few days with topical triamcinolone (if we can get patients to use it); so far, the effects of probiotics on the presumed gut-immune system-skin axis seem very much underwhelming.

Another study caught my attention this month for having presented a lot of information with no clinically important conclusions. In "Mode of Delivery and Offspring Atopic Dermatitis in a Swedish Nationwide Study," Mubanga and colleagues studied 1.4 million children! With that many participants, they were almost certain to find associations that were statistically significant and clinically irrelevant. They reported that children born by instrumental vaginal delivery, emergency caesarean section, and elective caesarean section were at a higher risk for AD compared with those born by uncomplicated vaginal delivery. They failed to report the absolute magnitude of the associations, which were undoubtedly so small as to be clinically meaningless. Even if the observed association were not due to some hidden bias, the association is not anything that would change treatment in any way.

On the other hand, the small, open label registry analysis, "Experiences From Daily Practice of Upadacitinib Treatment on Atopic Dermatitis With a Focus on Hand Eczema: Results From the BioDay Registry," published by Kamphuis and colleagues, is of much greater value, reporting the effectiveness and safety of upadacitinib on hand eczema. Not surprisingly, there were large improvements in the investigators' assessments of the dermatitis and in patients' quality of life. This small study is informative about efficacy; it is too small, though, to evaluate how frequently rare severe adverse events occur.

The use of probiotics to safely improve skin disease is such an appealing concept, yet it sounds a lot like hocus-pocus to me. Feíto-Rodríguez and colleagues report in the journal Clinical and Experimental Dermatology that a probiotic mixture of Bifidobacterium lactis, Bifidobacterium longum, and Lactobacillus casei improved atopic dermatitis more than did placebo. The findings are not compelling. Differences were small. Rates of being clear or almost clear weren't reported. We can get atopic dermatitis to clear up in a few days with topical triamcinolone (if we can get patients to use it); so far, the effects of probiotics on the presumed gut-immune system-skin axis seem very much underwhelming.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Matthew F. Watto, MD: Welcome back to The Curbsiders. On tonight’s episode, we are going to be talking about back pain. This is based on an interview, Back Pain Update with Dr. Austin Baraki. He gave us some great pearls about how to manage back pain, which we see so much of in primary care. I’ll use one of my famous teaching techniques: If the patient has any kind of back pain, they should just not move. Right?

Paul N. Williams, MD: That’s right, Matt – we should recommend bedrest until they get better for anyone who has any back pain? No. For back pain, early activity and exercise are great. Patients are often concerned that physical therapy will make their pain worse, so they don’t exercise. This misunderstanding is not surprising. They believe that if they are experiencing pain, it’s facilitating more damage, which is not necessarily the case. It will get better, and a little bit of anticipatory guidance goes a long way in terms of managing patient expectations related to early mobilization, early exercise, and physical therapy.

Dr. Watto: Absolutely. One of the goals of treatment is symptom relief to the extent that we’re able to achieve. We’re not expecting the pain to go to zero. That just doesn’t happen, especially if someone’s on a medication long term. Another goal is return to function. We want them sleeping. We want them to be able to tolerate movement.

We have medications – NSAIDs and muscle relaxants, which are actually tranquilizers. But most therapy for back pain doesn’t involve medications. It involves active movement, so we have to find movement that the patient enjoys doing. Passive treatments, things being done to patients, just don’t work as well.
 

Dr. Williams: We should be clear – we’re talking primarily about chronic back pain here. For acute back pain, we actually have some decent medications, but acute back pain tends to improve no matter what you do. We don’t have much to offer pharmacologically for chronic low back pain. The best modalities usually involve physical activity of some kind.

Dr. Watto: Let’s discuss the evaluation of back pain. Something that always comes up: Should we order imaging, and is there a right time to get it? Dr. Baraki was very clear about when to do imaging. Two big buckets of patients might need imaging.

First, a patient who has a serious underlying condition and you’re using imaging to try to diagnose it; or in a chronic setting, a patient who needs surgery, and imaging is part of the presurgical evaluation. We talked about red flags.

The red flags are major trauma, where we have reason to believe there might be something going on – if we strongly suspect infection, or the patient is injecting drugs. If the patient has a history of cancer, we would be worried that they might have a recurrence. Those are some of the main red flags. With a patient who has osteoporosis or is on chronic steroids, you might even be able to get by with plain films instead of an MRI to look for fracture.

The other thing I wanted to ask you about is, when should we get imaging? Are there any pitfalls we need to worry about?
 

Dr. Williams: I always like podcasts I’m not on because I enjoy listening to them much more. Dr. Baraki talked about the very specific language that is used in radiology reports, such as spondylitis, spondylolysis, and multilevel degenerative disease. They sound bad, but if they are just reframed as age-related degenerative changes, that sounds so much more benign. When discussing with patients, we should avoid medical jargon and say that we saw some changes that we would expect for someone of your age. That sounds so much better than saying we saw multilevel degenerative disease, which sounds like an alarming pathology if you’re not a physician. Without being inaccurate, we should frame the discussion such that we aren’t providing a very specific diagnosis, because that is rarely the case with chronic low back pain. Typically, many things are going on and you may never identify a single unifying diagnosis, which doesn’t tend to help anyway.

Dr. Watto: There’s evidence showing that if the radiology report uses clinical terminology that both clinician and patient think of as less serious, they are less likely to proceed to more invasive treatments. Calling an episode of back pain a “lumbar strain” helps the patient understand that this is a pretty common thing. Almost everyone is going to have an episode of back pain at some point in their life, and almost all of them will get better. Most of the time there’s no serious underlying condition.

This was a great discussion with Dr. Baraki. Click on Back Pain Update with Dr Austin Baraki to hear the full discussion. Until next time, I’ve been Dr. Matthew Frank Watto.
 

Dr. Williams: And I’m Dr. Paul Nelson Williams.

Dr. Watto is Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Dr. Williams is Associate Professor of Clinical Medicine, Department of General Internal Medicine, Temple University, Philadelphia. Neither reported any conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Matthew F. Watto, MD: Welcome back to The Curbsiders. On tonight’s episode, we are going to be talking about back pain. This is based on an interview, Back Pain Update with Dr. Austin Baraki. He gave us some great pearls about how to manage back pain, which we see so much of in primary care. I’ll use one of my famous teaching techniques: If the patient has any kind of back pain, they should just not move. Right?

Paul N. Williams, MD: That’s right, Matt – we should recommend bedrest until they get better for anyone who has any back pain? No. For back pain, early activity and exercise are great. Patients are often concerned that physical therapy will make their pain worse, so they don’t exercise. This misunderstanding is not surprising. They believe that if they are experiencing pain, it’s facilitating more damage, which is not necessarily the case. It will get better, and a little bit of anticipatory guidance goes a long way in terms of managing patient expectations related to early mobilization, early exercise, and physical therapy.

Dr. Watto: Absolutely. One of the goals of treatment is symptom relief to the extent that we’re able to achieve. We’re not expecting the pain to go to zero. That just doesn’t happen, especially if someone’s on a medication long term. Another goal is return to function. We want them sleeping. We want them to be able to tolerate movement.

We have medications – NSAIDs and muscle relaxants, which are actually tranquilizers. But most therapy for back pain doesn’t involve medications. It involves active movement, so we have to find movement that the patient enjoys doing. Passive treatments, things being done to patients, just don’t work as well.
 

Dr. Williams: We should be clear – we’re talking primarily about chronic back pain here. For acute back pain, we actually have some decent medications, but acute back pain tends to improve no matter what you do. We don’t have much to offer pharmacologically for chronic low back pain. The best modalities usually involve physical activity of some kind.

Dr. Watto: Let’s discuss the evaluation of back pain. Something that always comes up: Should we order imaging, and is there a right time to get it? Dr. Baraki was very clear about when to do imaging. Two big buckets of patients might need imaging.

First, a patient who has a serious underlying condition and you’re using imaging to try to diagnose it; or in a chronic setting, a patient who needs surgery, and imaging is part of the presurgical evaluation. We talked about red flags.

The red flags are major trauma, where we have reason to believe there might be something going on – if we strongly suspect infection, or the patient is injecting drugs. If the patient has a history of cancer, we would be worried that they might have a recurrence. Those are some of the main red flags. With a patient who has osteoporosis or is on chronic steroids, you might even be able to get by with plain films instead of an MRI to look for fracture.

The other thing I wanted to ask you about is, when should we get imaging? Are there any pitfalls we need to worry about?
 

Dr. Williams: I always like podcasts I’m not on because I enjoy listening to them much more. Dr. Baraki talked about the very specific language that is used in radiology reports, such as spondylitis, spondylolysis, and multilevel degenerative disease. They sound bad, but if they are just reframed as age-related degenerative changes, that sounds so much more benign. When discussing with patients, we should avoid medical jargon and say that we saw some changes that we would expect for someone of your age. That sounds so much better than saying we saw multilevel degenerative disease, which sounds like an alarming pathology if you’re not a physician. Without being inaccurate, we should frame the discussion such that we aren’t providing a very specific diagnosis, because that is rarely the case with chronic low back pain. Typically, many things are going on and you may never identify a single unifying diagnosis, which doesn’t tend to help anyway.

Dr. Watto: There’s evidence showing that if the radiology report uses clinical terminology that both clinician and patient think of as less serious, they are less likely to proceed to more invasive treatments. Calling an episode of back pain a “lumbar strain” helps the patient understand that this is a pretty common thing. Almost everyone is going to have an episode of back pain at some point in their life, and almost all of them will get better. Most of the time there’s no serious underlying condition.

This was a great discussion with Dr. Baraki. Click on Back Pain Update with Dr Austin Baraki to hear the full discussion. Until next time, I’ve been Dr. Matthew Frank Watto.
 

Dr. Williams: And I’m Dr. Paul Nelson Williams.

Dr. Watto is Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Dr. Williams is Associate Professor of Clinical Medicine, Department of General Internal Medicine, Temple University, Philadelphia. Neither reported any conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Matthew F. Watto, MD: Welcome back to The Curbsiders. On tonight’s episode, we are going to be talking about back pain. This is based on an interview, Back Pain Update with Dr. Austin Baraki. He gave us some great pearls about how to manage back pain, which we see so much of in primary care. I’ll use one of my famous teaching techniques: If the patient has any kind of back pain, they should just not move. Right?

Paul N. Williams, MD: That’s right, Matt – we should recommend bedrest until they get better for anyone who has any back pain? No. For back pain, early activity and exercise are great. Patients are often concerned that physical therapy will make their pain worse, so they don’t exercise. This misunderstanding is not surprising. They believe that if they are experiencing pain, it’s facilitating more damage, which is not necessarily the case. It will get better, and a little bit of anticipatory guidance goes a long way in terms of managing patient expectations related to early mobilization, early exercise, and physical therapy.

Dr. Watto: Absolutely. One of the goals of treatment is symptom relief to the extent that we’re able to achieve. We’re not expecting the pain to go to zero. That just doesn’t happen, especially if someone’s on a medication long term. Another goal is return to function. We want them sleeping. We want them to be able to tolerate movement.

We have medications – NSAIDs and muscle relaxants, which are actually tranquilizers. But most therapy for back pain doesn’t involve medications. It involves active movement, so we have to find movement that the patient enjoys doing. Passive treatments, things being done to patients, just don’t work as well.
 

Dr. Williams: We should be clear – we’re talking primarily about chronic back pain here. For acute back pain, we actually have some decent medications, but acute back pain tends to improve no matter what you do. We don’t have much to offer pharmacologically for chronic low back pain. The best modalities usually involve physical activity of some kind.

Dr. Watto: Let’s discuss the evaluation of back pain. Something that always comes up: Should we order imaging, and is there a right time to get it? Dr. Baraki was very clear about when to do imaging. Two big buckets of patients might need imaging.

First, a patient who has a serious underlying condition and you’re using imaging to try to diagnose it; or in a chronic setting, a patient who needs surgery, and imaging is part of the presurgical evaluation. We talked about red flags.

The red flags are major trauma, where we have reason to believe there might be something going on – if we strongly suspect infection, or the patient is injecting drugs. If the patient has a history of cancer, we would be worried that they might have a recurrence. Those are some of the main red flags. With a patient who has osteoporosis or is on chronic steroids, you might even be able to get by with plain films instead of an MRI to look for fracture.

The other thing I wanted to ask you about is, when should we get imaging? Are there any pitfalls we need to worry about?
 

Dr. Williams: I always like podcasts I’m not on because I enjoy listening to them much more. Dr. Baraki talked about the very specific language that is used in radiology reports, such as spondylitis, spondylolysis, and multilevel degenerative disease. They sound bad, but if they are just reframed as age-related degenerative changes, that sounds so much more benign. When discussing with patients, we should avoid medical jargon and say that we saw some changes that we would expect for someone of your age. That sounds so much better than saying we saw multilevel degenerative disease, which sounds like an alarming pathology if you’re not a physician. Without being inaccurate, we should frame the discussion such that we aren’t providing a very specific diagnosis, because that is rarely the case with chronic low back pain. Typically, many things are going on and you may never identify a single unifying diagnosis, which doesn’t tend to help anyway.

Dr. Watto: There’s evidence showing that if the radiology report uses clinical terminology that both clinician and patient think of as less serious, they are less likely to proceed to more invasive treatments. Calling an episode of back pain a “lumbar strain” helps the patient understand that this is a pretty common thing. Almost everyone is going to have an episode of back pain at some point in their life, and almost all of them will get better. Most of the time there’s no serious underlying condition.

This was a great discussion with Dr. Baraki. Click on Back Pain Update with Dr Austin Baraki to hear the full discussion. Until next time, I’ve been Dr. Matthew Frank Watto.
 

Dr. Williams: And I’m Dr. Paul Nelson Williams.

Dr. Watto is Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Dr. Williams is Associate Professor of Clinical Medicine, Department of General Internal Medicine, Temple University, Philadelphia. Neither reported any conflicts of interest.

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