Ob.Gyn. News

The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has issued an updated draft recommendation statement advising early screening for syphilis in all pregnant persons with no signs or symptoms of syphilis, regardless of risk. Those with abnormal screening results should receive “timely, equitable, and evidence-based evaluation and treatment for syphilis,” it advises.

Reaffirming the task force’s 2018 statement, in which an evidence review found the benefits of screening substantially outweighed the harms, the current draft is based on no substantial new data. It is open for public input until December 23.

“Congenital syphilis infection is still an important health problem, and rates are not decreasing as they should,” said USPSTF panel member Carlos R. Jaén, MD, PhD, MS, Dr. and Mrs. James L. Holly Distinguished Chair in the Department of Family and Community Medicine at the Joe R. and Teresa Lozano Long School of Medicine at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio. “Cases are 10 times higher today than they were a decade ago, despite the harmful consequences of syphilis infection in mother and baby and despite it being a preventable and easily treated condition.”

The statement notes that untreated syphilis infection in mothers is associated with miscarriage, premature birth, low birth weight, stillbirth, and neonatal death. Syphilis infection is linked to significant abnormalities in infants such as deformed bones, anemia, enlarged liver and spleen, jaundice, meningitis, and brain and nerve problems resulting in permanent vision or hearing loss.

The USPSTF statement aligns with the recommendations of other healthcare organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), which issued a clinical practice advisory on prenatal syphilis screening in April 2024.

This advisory recommends obstetric care providers screen all pregnant individuals serologically for syphilis at the first prenatal care visit, with universal rescreening during the third trimester and at birth rather than targeted risk-based testing.

The advisory notes that two in five infants with congenital syphilis were born to persons who received no prenatal care. It urges making any healthcare encounter during pregnancy — in emergency departments, jails, syringe service programs, and maternal and child health clinics — an opportunity to screen for syphilis.

So far, there is no official guidance on preconception screening for persons planning a pregnancy, according to Allison Bryant Mantha, MD, MPH, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Mass General Brigham health system and an associate professor at Harvard School of Medicine in Boston, Massachusetts, who coauthored the ACOG advisory.

But Lynn M. Yee, MD, MPH, an associate professor of maternal-fetal medicine at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and director of the Northwestern Medicine Women’s Infectious Disease Program in Chicago, Illinois, said syphilis testing could easily be part of a prepregnancy “bucket” of health checkup items along with other sexually transmitted infections and blood pressure.

 

By the Numbers

In 2022, there were 3761 cases of congenital syphilis in the United States, including 231 stillbirths and 51 infant deaths — the highest number reported in more than 30 years and more than 10 times that reported in 2012.

At play may be social, economic, and immigration status factors creating barriers to prenatal care as well as declines in prevention infrastructure and resources.

Although most syphilis cases occur in men, the increase in incidence rate in women was two to four times higher than that of men from 2017 to 2021.

 

Why Such Persistently High Rates?

Despite a widely available test and cost-effective penicillin treatment covered by most insurance, congenital syphilis remains a challenge. According to Bryant, many mothers are still presenting for care and testing late in pregnancy. “Differential access to care is just one of many reasons,” she said.

Stigma and bias may also play a part, according to Yee. “Some clinicians may think their patient population is not the kind to be at risk and doesn’t need to be screened,” she said. Furthermore, screening is not a one-off test but a two-step process, and serology results can be hard to understand and easy to misinterpret.

In addition, some situations may promote ongoing disease, according to Yee. “Reinfection can occur after treatment if a patient keeps returning to a partner who refuses treatment,” Yee said.

On an optimistic note, however, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that in some areas increases in newborn syphilis cases appear to be slowing — with a 3% increase in 2022 than with a 30% or higher annual increases in previous years. In 2020-2021, for example, congenital cases rose by 32% and resulted in 220 stillbirths and infant deaths.

 

Going Forward

The USPSTF statement identifies knowledge gaps. These include studies to evaluate the benefits and harms of repeat screening later in pregnancy and to evaluate the benefits and harms of such strategies as rapid point-of-care tests. The USPSTF also called for research on disparities in syphilis incidence and screening rates to reduce these disparities in populations.

Within these vulnerable groups, the CDC noted that babies born to Black, Hispanic, or Native American/Alaska Native mothers in 2021 were as much as eight times more likely to have congenital syphilis than those born to their White counterparts.

Jaén, Bryant, and Yee had no competing interests relevant to their comments.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has issued an updated draft recommendation statement advising early screening for syphilis in all pregnant persons with no signs or symptoms of syphilis, regardless of risk. Those with abnormal screening results should receive “timely, equitable, and evidence-based evaluation and treatment for syphilis,” it advises.

Reaffirming the task force’s 2018 statement, in which an evidence review found the benefits of screening substantially outweighed the harms, the current draft is based on no substantial new data. It is open for public input until December 23.

“Congenital syphilis infection is still an important health problem, and rates are not decreasing as they should,” said USPSTF panel member Carlos R. Jaén, MD, PhD, MS, Dr. and Mrs. James L. Holly Distinguished Chair in the Department of Family and Community Medicine at the Joe R. and Teresa Lozano Long School of Medicine at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio. “Cases are 10 times higher today than they were a decade ago, despite the harmful consequences of syphilis infection in mother and baby and despite it being a preventable and easily treated condition.”

The statement notes that untreated syphilis infection in mothers is associated with miscarriage, premature birth, low birth weight, stillbirth, and neonatal death. Syphilis infection is linked to significant abnormalities in infants such as deformed bones, anemia, enlarged liver and spleen, jaundice, meningitis, and brain and nerve problems resulting in permanent vision or hearing loss.

The USPSTF statement aligns with the recommendations of other healthcare organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), which issued a clinical practice advisory on prenatal syphilis screening in April 2024.

This advisory recommends obstetric care providers screen all pregnant individuals serologically for syphilis at the first prenatal care visit, with universal rescreening during the third trimester and at birth rather than targeted risk-based testing.

The advisory notes that two in five infants with congenital syphilis were born to persons who received no prenatal care. It urges making any healthcare encounter during pregnancy — in emergency departments, jails, syringe service programs, and maternal and child health clinics — an opportunity to screen for syphilis.

So far, there is no official guidance on preconception screening for persons planning a pregnancy, according to Allison Bryant Mantha, MD, MPH, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Mass General Brigham health system and an associate professor at Harvard School of Medicine in Boston, Massachusetts, who coauthored the ACOG advisory.

But Lynn M. Yee, MD, MPH, an associate professor of maternal-fetal medicine at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and director of the Northwestern Medicine Women’s Infectious Disease Program in Chicago, Illinois, said syphilis testing could easily be part of a prepregnancy “bucket” of health checkup items along with other sexually transmitted infections and blood pressure.

 

By the Numbers

In 2022, there were 3761 cases of congenital syphilis in the United States, including 231 stillbirths and 51 infant deaths — the highest number reported in more than 30 years and more than 10 times that reported in 2012.

At play may be social, economic, and immigration status factors creating barriers to prenatal care as well as declines in prevention infrastructure and resources.

Although most syphilis cases occur in men, the increase in incidence rate in women was two to four times higher than that of men from 2017 to 2021.

 

Why Such Persistently High Rates?

Despite a widely available test and cost-effective penicillin treatment covered by most insurance, congenital syphilis remains a challenge. According to Bryant, many mothers are still presenting for care and testing late in pregnancy. “Differential access to care is just one of many reasons,” she said.

Stigma and bias may also play a part, according to Yee. “Some clinicians may think their patient population is not the kind to be at risk and doesn’t need to be screened,” she said. Furthermore, screening is not a one-off test but a two-step process, and serology results can be hard to understand and easy to misinterpret.

In addition, some situations may promote ongoing disease, according to Yee. “Reinfection can occur after treatment if a patient keeps returning to a partner who refuses treatment,” Yee said.

On an optimistic note, however, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that in some areas increases in newborn syphilis cases appear to be slowing — with a 3% increase in 2022 than with a 30% or higher annual increases in previous years. In 2020-2021, for example, congenital cases rose by 32% and resulted in 220 stillbirths and infant deaths.

 

Going Forward

The USPSTF statement identifies knowledge gaps. These include studies to evaluate the benefits and harms of repeat screening later in pregnancy and to evaluate the benefits and harms of such strategies as rapid point-of-care tests. The USPSTF also called for research on disparities in syphilis incidence and screening rates to reduce these disparities in populations.

Within these vulnerable groups, the CDC noted that babies born to Black, Hispanic, or Native American/Alaska Native mothers in 2021 were as much as eight times more likely to have congenital syphilis than those born to their White counterparts.

Jaén, Bryant, and Yee had no competing interests relevant to their comments.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has issued an updated draft recommendation statement advising early screening for syphilis in all pregnant persons with no signs or symptoms of syphilis, regardless of risk. Those with abnormal screening results should receive “timely, equitable, and evidence-based evaluation and treatment for syphilis,” it advises.

Reaffirming the task force’s 2018 statement, in which an evidence review found the benefits of screening substantially outweighed the harms, the current draft is based on no substantial new data. It is open for public input until December 23.

“Congenital syphilis infection is still an important health problem, and rates are not decreasing as they should,” said USPSTF panel member Carlos R. Jaén, MD, PhD, MS, Dr. and Mrs. James L. Holly Distinguished Chair in the Department of Family and Community Medicine at the Joe R. and Teresa Lozano Long School of Medicine at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio. “Cases are 10 times higher today than they were a decade ago, despite the harmful consequences of syphilis infection in mother and baby and despite it being a preventable and easily treated condition.”

The statement notes that untreated syphilis infection in mothers is associated with miscarriage, premature birth, low birth weight, stillbirth, and neonatal death. Syphilis infection is linked to significant abnormalities in infants such as deformed bones, anemia, enlarged liver and spleen, jaundice, meningitis, and brain and nerve problems resulting in permanent vision or hearing loss.

The USPSTF statement aligns with the recommendations of other healthcare organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), which issued a clinical practice advisory on prenatal syphilis screening in April 2024.

This advisory recommends obstetric care providers screen all pregnant individuals serologically for syphilis at the first prenatal care visit, with universal rescreening during the third trimester and at birth rather than targeted risk-based testing.

The advisory notes that two in five infants with congenital syphilis were born to persons who received no prenatal care. It urges making any healthcare encounter during pregnancy — in emergency departments, jails, syringe service programs, and maternal and child health clinics — an opportunity to screen for syphilis.

So far, there is no official guidance on preconception screening for persons planning a pregnancy, according to Allison Bryant Mantha, MD, MPH, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Mass General Brigham health system and an associate professor at Harvard School of Medicine in Boston, Massachusetts, who coauthored the ACOG advisory.

But Lynn M. Yee, MD, MPH, an associate professor of maternal-fetal medicine at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and director of the Northwestern Medicine Women’s Infectious Disease Program in Chicago, Illinois, said syphilis testing could easily be part of a prepregnancy “bucket” of health checkup items along with other sexually transmitted infections and blood pressure.

 

By the Numbers

In 2022, there were 3761 cases of congenital syphilis in the United States, including 231 stillbirths and 51 infant deaths — the highest number reported in more than 30 years and more than 10 times that reported in 2012.

At play may be social, economic, and immigration status factors creating barriers to prenatal care as well as declines in prevention infrastructure and resources.

Although most syphilis cases occur in men, the increase in incidence rate in women was two to four times higher than that of men from 2017 to 2021.

 

Why Such Persistently High Rates?

Despite a widely available test and cost-effective penicillin treatment covered by most insurance, congenital syphilis remains a challenge. According to Bryant, many mothers are still presenting for care and testing late in pregnancy. “Differential access to care is just one of many reasons,” she said.

Stigma and bias may also play a part, according to Yee. “Some clinicians may think their patient population is not the kind to be at risk and doesn’t need to be screened,” she said. Furthermore, screening is not a one-off test but a two-step process, and serology results can be hard to understand and easy to misinterpret.

In addition, some situations may promote ongoing disease, according to Yee. “Reinfection can occur after treatment if a patient keeps returning to a partner who refuses treatment,” Yee said.

On an optimistic note, however, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that in some areas increases in newborn syphilis cases appear to be slowing — with a 3% increase in 2022 than with a 30% or higher annual increases in previous years. In 2020-2021, for example, congenital cases rose by 32% and resulted in 220 stillbirths and infant deaths.

 

Going Forward

The USPSTF statement identifies knowledge gaps. These include studies to evaluate the benefits and harms of repeat screening later in pregnancy and to evaluate the benefits and harms of such strategies as rapid point-of-care tests. The USPSTF also called for research on disparities in syphilis incidence and screening rates to reduce these disparities in populations.

Within these vulnerable groups, the CDC noted that babies born to Black, Hispanic, or Native American/Alaska Native mothers in 2021 were as much as eight times more likely to have congenital syphilis than those born to their White counterparts.

Jaén, Bryant, and Yee had no competing interests relevant to their comments.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has expanded two cancer genetic risk assessment guidelines to meet the growing understanding of hereditary cancer risk and use of genetic tests in cancer prevention, screening, and treatment. 

Additional cancer types were included in the title and content for both guidelines. Prostate cancer was added to Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, Pancreatic, and Prostate, and endometrial and gastric cancer were added to Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Colorectal, Endometrial, and Gastric.

For these cancers, the expanded guidelines include information on when genetic testing is recommended and what type of testing may be best. These guidelines also detail the hereditary conditions and genetic mutations associated with elevated cancer risk and include appropriate “next steps” for individuals who have them, which may involve increased screening or prevention surgeries.

“These updates include the spectrum of genes associated with genetic syndromes, the range of risk associated with each pathogenic variant, the improvements in screening and prevention strategies, the role of genetic data to inform cancer treatment, and the expansion of the role of genetic counseling as this field moves forward,” Mary B. Daly, MD, PhD, with Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, said in a news release. Daly chaired the panel that updated the breast, ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancer guidelines.

Oncologists should, for instance, ask patients about their family and personal history of cancer and known germline variants at time of initial diagnosis. With prostate cancer, if patients meet criteria for germline testing, multigene testing should include a host of variants, including BRCA1, BRCA2, ATM, PALB2, CHEK2, HOXB13, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2.

The updated guidelines on genetic risk assessment of colorectal, endometrial, and gastric cancer include new recommendations to consider for hereditary cancer screening in patients with newly diagnosed endometrial cancer, for evaluating and managing CDH1-associated gastric cancer risk, and for managing gastric cancer risk in patients with APC pathogenic variants. 

For CDH1-associated gastric cancer, for instance, the guidelines recommend carriers be referred to institutions with expertise in managing risks for cancer associated with CDH1, “given the still limited understanding and rarity of this syndrome.” 

“These expanded guidelines reflect the recommendations from leading experts on genetic testing based on the latest scientific research across the cancer spectrum, consolidated into two convenient resources,” said NCCN CEO Crystal S. Denlinger, MD, with Fox Chase Cancer Center, in a news release. 

“This information is critical for guiding shared decision-making between health care providers and their patients, enhancing screening practices as appropriate, and potentially choosing options for prevention and targeted treatment choices. Genetic testing guidelines enable us to better care for people with cancer and their family members,” Denlinger added.

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

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has expanded two cancer genetic risk assessment guidelines to meet the growing understanding of hereditary cancer risk and use of genetic tests in cancer prevention, screening, and treatment. 

Additional cancer types were included in the title and content for both guidelines. Prostate cancer was added to Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, Pancreatic, and Prostate, and endometrial and gastric cancer were added to Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Colorectal, Endometrial, and Gastric.

For these cancers, the expanded guidelines include information on when genetic testing is recommended and what type of testing may be best. These guidelines also detail the hereditary conditions and genetic mutations associated with elevated cancer risk and include appropriate “next steps” for individuals who have them, which may involve increased screening or prevention surgeries.

“These updates include the spectrum of genes associated with genetic syndromes, the range of risk associated with each pathogenic variant, the improvements in screening and prevention strategies, the role of genetic data to inform cancer treatment, and the expansion of the role of genetic counseling as this field moves forward,” Mary B. Daly, MD, PhD, with Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, said in a news release. Daly chaired the panel that updated the breast, ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancer guidelines.

Oncologists should, for instance, ask patients about their family and personal history of cancer and known germline variants at time of initial diagnosis. With prostate cancer, if patients meet criteria for germline testing, multigene testing should include a host of variants, including BRCA1, BRCA2, ATM, PALB2, CHEK2, HOXB13, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2.

The updated guidelines on genetic risk assessment of colorectal, endometrial, and gastric cancer include new recommendations to consider for hereditary cancer screening in patients with newly diagnosed endometrial cancer, for evaluating and managing CDH1-associated gastric cancer risk, and for managing gastric cancer risk in patients with APC pathogenic variants. 

For CDH1-associated gastric cancer, for instance, the guidelines recommend carriers be referred to institutions with expertise in managing risks for cancer associated with CDH1, “given the still limited understanding and rarity of this syndrome.” 

“These expanded guidelines reflect the recommendations from leading experts on genetic testing based on the latest scientific research across the cancer spectrum, consolidated into two convenient resources,” said NCCN CEO Crystal S. Denlinger, MD, with Fox Chase Cancer Center, in a news release. 

“This information is critical for guiding shared decision-making between health care providers and their patients, enhancing screening practices as appropriate, and potentially choosing options for prevention and targeted treatment choices. Genetic testing guidelines enable us to better care for people with cancer and their family members,” Denlinger added.

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

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has expanded two cancer genetic risk assessment guidelines to meet the growing understanding of hereditary cancer risk and use of genetic tests in cancer prevention, screening, and treatment. 

Additional cancer types were included in the title and content for both guidelines. Prostate cancer was added to Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, Pancreatic, and Prostate, and endometrial and gastric cancer were added to Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Colorectal, Endometrial, and Gastric.

For these cancers, the expanded guidelines include information on when genetic testing is recommended and what type of testing may be best. These guidelines also detail the hereditary conditions and genetic mutations associated with elevated cancer risk and include appropriate “next steps” for individuals who have them, which may involve increased screening or prevention surgeries.

“These updates include the spectrum of genes associated with genetic syndromes, the range of risk associated with each pathogenic variant, the improvements in screening and prevention strategies, the role of genetic data to inform cancer treatment, and the expansion of the role of genetic counseling as this field moves forward,” Mary B. Daly, MD, PhD, with Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, said in a news release. Daly chaired the panel that updated the breast, ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancer guidelines.

Oncologists should, for instance, ask patients about their family and personal history of cancer and known germline variants at time of initial diagnosis. With prostate cancer, if patients meet criteria for germline testing, multigene testing should include a host of variants, including BRCA1, BRCA2, ATM, PALB2, CHEK2, HOXB13, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2.

The updated guidelines on genetic risk assessment of colorectal, endometrial, and gastric cancer include new recommendations to consider for hereditary cancer screening in patients with newly diagnosed endometrial cancer, for evaluating and managing CDH1-associated gastric cancer risk, and for managing gastric cancer risk in patients with APC pathogenic variants. 

For CDH1-associated gastric cancer, for instance, the guidelines recommend carriers be referred to institutions with expertise in managing risks for cancer associated with CDH1, “given the still limited understanding and rarity of this syndrome.” 

“These expanded guidelines reflect the recommendations from leading experts on genetic testing based on the latest scientific research across the cancer spectrum, consolidated into two convenient resources,” said NCCN CEO Crystal S. Denlinger, MD, with Fox Chase Cancer Center, in a news release. 

“This information is critical for guiding shared decision-making between health care providers and their patients, enhancing screening practices as appropriate, and potentially choosing options for prevention and targeted treatment choices. Genetic testing guidelines enable us to better care for people with cancer and their family members,” Denlinger added.

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

TOPLINE: 

The Profile for the Omission of Local Adjuvant Radiation (POLAR) biomarker, a 16-gene molecular signature, can help predict locoregional recurrence in patients with ER-positive early breast cancer following breast-conserving surgery as well as which patients will benefit most from adjuvant radiotherapy. Overall, patients with a high POLAR score derived a significant benefit from adjuvant radiotherapy, while those with a low score did not and might consider forgoing radiotherapy.

METHODOLOGY:

• Radiation therapy after breast-conserving surgery has been shown to reduce the risk for locoregional recurrence and is a standard approach to manage early breast cancer. However, certain patients with low locoregional recurrence risks may not necessarily benefit from adjuvant radiation, but there has not been a commercially available molecular test to help identify which patients that might be.
• In the current analysis, researchers assessed whether the POLAR biomarker test could reliably predict locoregional recurrence as well as identify patients who would not benefit from radiotherapy.
• The meta-analysis used data from three randomized trials — Scottish Conservation Trial, SweBCG91-RT, and Princess Margaret RT trial — to validate the POLAR biomarker test in patients with low-risk, HR-positive, HER2-negative, node-negative breast cancer.
• The analysis included 623 patients (ages 50-76), of whom 429 (69%) had high POLAR scores and 194 (31%) had low POLAR scores.
• The primary endpoint was the time to locoregional recurrence, and secondary endpoints included evaluating POLAR as a prognostic factor for locoregional recurrence in patients without radiotherapy and effect of radiotherapy in patients with low and high POLAR scores.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with high POLAR scores demonstrated a significant benefit from radiotherapy. The 10-year locoregional recurrence rate was 7% with radiotherapy vs 20% without radiotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.37; P < .001).
• Patients with low POLAR scores, however, did not experience a significant benefit from radiotherapy. In this group, the 10-year locoregional recurrence rates were similar with and without radiotherapy (7% vs 5%, respectively; HR, 0.92; P = .832), indicating that radiotherapy could potentially be omitted for these patients.
• Among patients who did not receive radiotherapy (n = 309), higher POLAR scores predicted a greater risk for recurrence, suggesting the genomic signature has prognostic value. There is no evidence, however, that POLAR predicts radiotherapy benefit or predicts patients’ risk for distant metastases or mortality.

IN PRACTICE:

“This meta-analysis from three randomized controlled trials clearly demonstrates the clinical potential for POLAR to be used in smaller estrogen receptor positive node negative breast cancer patients to identify those women who do not appear to benefit from the use of post-operative adjuvant radiotherapy,” the authors wrote. “ This classifier is an important step towards molecularly-stratified targeting of the use of radiotherapy.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Per Karlsson, MD, PhD, University of Gothenburg, Sweden, was published online in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

LIMITATIONS:

One cohort (SweBCG) had limited use of adjuvant systemic therapy, which could affect generalizability. Additionally, low numbers of patients with low POLAR scores in two trials could affect the observed benefit of radiotherapy.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Breast Cancer Institute Fund (Edinburgh and Lothians Health Foundation), Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Exact Sciences Corporation, PFS Genomics, Swedish Cancer Society, and Swedish Research Council. One author reported being an employee and owning stock or stock options or patents with Exact Sciences. Several authors reported having various ties with various sources including Exact Sciences.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

The Profile for the Omission of Local Adjuvant Radiation (POLAR) biomarker, a 16-gene molecular signature, can help predict locoregional recurrence in patients with ER-positive early breast cancer following breast-conserving surgery as well as which patients will benefit most from adjuvant radiotherapy. Overall, patients with a high POLAR score derived a significant benefit from adjuvant radiotherapy, while those with a low score did not and might consider forgoing radiotherapy.

METHODOLOGY:

• Radiation therapy after breast-conserving surgery has been shown to reduce the risk for locoregional recurrence and is a standard approach to manage early breast cancer. However, certain patients with low locoregional recurrence risks may not necessarily benefit from adjuvant radiation, but there has not been a commercially available molecular test to help identify which patients that might be.
• In the current analysis, researchers assessed whether the POLAR biomarker test could reliably predict locoregional recurrence as well as identify patients who would not benefit from radiotherapy.
• The meta-analysis used data from three randomized trials — Scottish Conservation Trial, SweBCG91-RT, and Princess Margaret RT trial — to validate the POLAR biomarker test in patients with low-risk, HR-positive, HER2-negative, node-negative breast cancer.
• The analysis included 623 patients (ages 50-76), of whom 429 (69%) had high POLAR scores and 194 (31%) had low POLAR scores.
• The primary endpoint was the time to locoregional recurrence, and secondary endpoints included evaluating POLAR as a prognostic factor for locoregional recurrence in patients without radiotherapy and effect of radiotherapy in patients with low and high POLAR scores.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with high POLAR scores demonstrated a significant benefit from radiotherapy. The 10-year locoregional recurrence rate was 7% with radiotherapy vs 20% without radiotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.37; P < .001).
• Patients with low POLAR scores, however, did not experience a significant benefit from radiotherapy. In this group, the 10-year locoregional recurrence rates were similar with and without radiotherapy (7% vs 5%, respectively; HR, 0.92; P = .832), indicating that radiotherapy could potentially be omitted for these patients.
• Among patients who did not receive radiotherapy (n = 309), higher POLAR scores predicted a greater risk for recurrence, suggesting the genomic signature has prognostic value. There is no evidence, however, that POLAR predicts radiotherapy benefit or predicts patients’ risk for distant metastases or mortality.

IN PRACTICE:

“This meta-analysis from three randomized controlled trials clearly demonstrates the clinical potential for POLAR to be used in smaller estrogen receptor positive node negative breast cancer patients to identify those women who do not appear to benefit from the use of post-operative adjuvant radiotherapy,” the authors wrote. “ This classifier is an important step towards molecularly-stratified targeting of the use of radiotherapy.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Per Karlsson, MD, PhD, University of Gothenburg, Sweden, was published online in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

LIMITATIONS:

One cohort (SweBCG) had limited use of adjuvant systemic therapy, which could affect generalizability. Additionally, low numbers of patients with low POLAR scores in two trials could affect the observed benefit of radiotherapy.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Breast Cancer Institute Fund (Edinburgh and Lothians Health Foundation), Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Exact Sciences Corporation, PFS Genomics, Swedish Cancer Society, and Swedish Research Council. One author reported being an employee and owning stock or stock options or patents with Exact Sciences. Several authors reported having various ties with various sources including Exact Sciences.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

The Profile for the Omission of Local Adjuvant Radiation (POLAR) biomarker, a 16-gene molecular signature, can help predict locoregional recurrence in patients with ER-positive early breast cancer following breast-conserving surgery as well as which patients will benefit most from adjuvant radiotherapy. Overall, patients with a high POLAR score derived a significant benefit from adjuvant radiotherapy, while those with a low score did not and might consider forgoing radiotherapy.

METHODOLOGY:

• Radiation therapy after breast-conserving surgery has been shown to reduce the risk for locoregional recurrence and is a standard approach to manage early breast cancer. However, certain patients with low locoregional recurrence risks may not necessarily benefit from adjuvant radiation, but there has not been a commercially available molecular test to help identify which patients that might be.
• In the current analysis, researchers assessed whether the POLAR biomarker test could reliably predict locoregional recurrence as well as identify patients who would not benefit from radiotherapy.
• The meta-analysis used data from three randomized trials — Scottish Conservation Trial, SweBCG91-RT, and Princess Margaret RT trial — to validate the POLAR biomarker test in patients with low-risk, HR-positive, HER2-negative, node-negative breast cancer.
• The analysis included 623 patients (ages 50-76), of whom 429 (69%) had high POLAR scores and 194 (31%) had low POLAR scores.
• The primary endpoint was the time to locoregional recurrence, and secondary endpoints included evaluating POLAR as a prognostic factor for locoregional recurrence in patients without radiotherapy and effect of radiotherapy in patients with low and high POLAR scores.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with high POLAR scores demonstrated a significant benefit from radiotherapy. The 10-year locoregional recurrence rate was 7% with radiotherapy vs 20% without radiotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.37; P < .001).
• Patients with low POLAR scores, however, did not experience a significant benefit from radiotherapy. In this group, the 10-year locoregional recurrence rates were similar with and without radiotherapy (7% vs 5%, respectively; HR, 0.92; P = .832), indicating that radiotherapy could potentially be omitted for these patients.
• Among patients who did not receive radiotherapy (n = 309), higher POLAR scores predicted a greater risk for recurrence, suggesting the genomic signature has prognostic value. There is no evidence, however, that POLAR predicts radiotherapy benefit or predicts patients’ risk for distant metastases or mortality.

IN PRACTICE:

“This meta-analysis from three randomized controlled trials clearly demonstrates the clinical potential for POLAR to be used in smaller estrogen receptor positive node negative breast cancer patients to identify those women who do not appear to benefit from the use of post-operative adjuvant radiotherapy,” the authors wrote. “ This classifier is an important step towards molecularly-stratified targeting of the use of radiotherapy.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Per Karlsson, MD, PhD, University of Gothenburg, Sweden, was published online in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

LIMITATIONS:

One cohort (SweBCG) had limited use of adjuvant systemic therapy, which could affect generalizability. Additionally, low numbers of patients with low POLAR scores in two trials could affect the observed benefit of radiotherapy.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Breast Cancer Institute Fund (Edinburgh and Lothians Health Foundation), Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Exact Sciences Corporation, PFS Genomics, Swedish Cancer Society, and Swedish Research Council. One author reported being an employee and owning stock or stock options or patents with Exact Sciences. Several authors reported having various ties with various sources including Exact Sciences.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Summary and Key Highlights

Summary: This section explores why physicians often struggle to recognize burnout within themselves, partly due to stigma and a tendency to focus on productivity over well-being. Dr. Tyra Fainstad shares personal experiences of burnout symptoms, emphasizing the importance of awareness and self-reflection. Recognizing and addressing burnout early can help physicians find healthier coping strategies, avoid productivity traps, and seek support.

Key Takeaways:

• Many physicians struggle to identify burnout due to stigma and self-blame.
• Awareness of burnout symptoms is essential for early intervention and healthy coping.
• Seeking support can prevent burnout from worsening and improve quality of life.

Our Editors Also Recommend: 

Medscape Physician Burnout & Depression Report 2024: ‘We Have Much Work to Do’

Medscape Hospitalist Burnout & Depression Report 2024: Seeking Progress, Balance 

Medscape Physician Lifestyle & Happiness Report 2024: The Ongoing Struggle for Balance 

A Transformative Rx for Burnout, Grief, and Illness: Dance 

 

Next Medscape Masters Event:

Stay at the forefront of obesity care. Register for exclusive insights and the latest treatment innovations.

Lotte Dyrbye, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Co-inventor of the Well-being Index and its derivatives, which Mayo Clinic has licensed. Dyrbye receives royalties.

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

Summary and Key Highlights

Summary: This section explores why physicians often struggle to recognize burnout within themselves, partly due to stigma and a tendency to focus on productivity over well-being. Dr. Tyra Fainstad shares personal experiences of burnout symptoms, emphasizing the importance of awareness and self-reflection. Recognizing and addressing burnout early can help physicians find healthier coping strategies, avoid productivity traps, and seek support.

Key Takeaways:

• Many physicians struggle to identify burnout due to stigma and self-blame.
• Awareness of burnout symptoms is essential for early intervention and healthy coping.
• Seeking support can prevent burnout from worsening and improve quality of life.

Our Editors Also Recommend: 

Medscape Physician Burnout & Depression Report 2024: ‘We Have Much Work to Do’

Medscape Hospitalist Burnout & Depression Report 2024: Seeking Progress, Balance 

Medscape Physician Lifestyle & Happiness Report 2024: The Ongoing Struggle for Balance 

A Transformative Rx for Burnout, Grief, and Illness: Dance 

 

Next Medscape Masters Event:

Stay at the forefront of obesity care. Register for exclusive insights and the latest treatment innovations.

Lotte Dyrbye, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Co-inventor of the Well-being Index and its derivatives, which Mayo Clinic has licensed. Dyrbye receives royalties.

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

Summary and Key Highlights

Summary: This section explores why physicians often struggle to recognize burnout within themselves, partly due to stigma and a tendency to focus on productivity over well-being. Dr. Tyra Fainstad shares personal experiences of burnout symptoms, emphasizing the importance of awareness and self-reflection. Recognizing and addressing burnout early can help physicians find healthier coping strategies, avoid productivity traps, and seek support.

Key Takeaways:

• Many physicians struggle to identify burnout due to stigma and self-blame.
• Awareness of burnout symptoms is essential for early intervention and healthy coping.
• Seeking support can prevent burnout from worsening and improve quality of life.

Our Editors Also Recommend: 

Medscape Physician Burnout & Depression Report 2024: ‘We Have Much Work to Do’

Medscape Hospitalist Burnout & Depression Report 2024: Seeking Progress, Balance 

Medscape Physician Lifestyle & Happiness Report 2024: The Ongoing Struggle for Balance 

A Transformative Rx for Burnout, Grief, and Illness: Dance 

 

Next Medscape Masters Event:

Stay at the forefront of obesity care. Register for exclusive insights and the latest treatment innovations.

Lotte Dyrbye, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Co-inventor of the Well-being Index and its derivatives, which Mayo Clinic has licensed. Dyrbye receives royalties.

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

Summary and Key Highlights

Summary: Dr Tyra Fainstad explores the ingrained culture in medicine that encourages self-criticism, with many physicians feeling that they must be hard on themselves to succeed. Dr Fainstad challenges this belief, advocating for self-compassion as a healthier alternative. The evolving medical field now includes physicians who prioritize well-being without sacrificing quality of care, underscoring the importance of self-kindness for sustainable practice.

Key Takeaways:

• Many physicians believe that self-criticism is necessary for success, a mindset rooted in medical culture.
• Practicing self-compassion can improve long-term resilience and prevent burnout.
• The changing landscape of healthcare supports a more balanced approach to physician well-being.

Our Editors Also Recommend: 

Medscape Physician Burnout & Depression Report 2024: ‘We Have Much Work to Do’

Medscape Hospitalist Burnout & Depression Report 2024: Seeking Progress, Balance 

Medscape Physician Lifestyle & Happiness Report 2024: The Ongoing Struggle for Balance 

A Transformative Rx for Burnout, Grief, and Illness: Dance 

 

Next Medscape Masters Event:

Stay at the forefront of obesity care. Register for exclusive insights and the latest treatment innovations. 

Lotte Dyrbye, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Co-inventor of the Well-being Index and its derivatives, which Mayo Clinic has licensed. Dyrbye receives royalties.

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

Summary and Key Highlights

Summary: Dr Tyra Fainstad explores the ingrained culture in medicine that encourages self-criticism, with many physicians feeling that they must be hard on themselves to succeed. Dr Fainstad challenges this belief, advocating for self-compassion as a healthier alternative. The evolving medical field now includes physicians who prioritize well-being without sacrificing quality of care, underscoring the importance of self-kindness for sustainable practice.

Key Takeaways:

• Many physicians believe that self-criticism is necessary for success, a mindset rooted in medical culture.
• Practicing self-compassion can improve long-term resilience and prevent burnout.
• The changing landscape of healthcare supports a more balanced approach to physician well-being.

Our Editors Also Recommend: 

Medscape Physician Burnout & Depression Report 2024: ‘We Have Much Work to Do’

Medscape Hospitalist Burnout & Depression Report 2024: Seeking Progress, Balance 

Medscape Physician Lifestyle & Happiness Report 2024: The Ongoing Struggle for Balance 

A Transformative Rx for Burnout, Grief, and Illness: Dance 

 

Next Medscape Masters Event:

Stay at the forefront of obesity care. Register for exclusive insights and the latest treatment innovations. 

Lotte Dyrbye, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Co-inventor of the Well-being Index and its derivatives, which Mayo Clinic has licensed. Dyrbye receives royalties.

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

Summary and Key Highlights

Summary: Dr Tyra Fainstad explores the ingrained culture in medicine that encourages self-criticism, with many physicians feeling that they must be hard on themselves to succeed. Dr Fainstad challenges this belief, advocating for self-compassion as a healthier alternative. The evolving medical field now includes physicians who prioritize well-being without sacrificing quality of care, underscoring the importance of self-kindness for sustainable practice.

Key Takeaways:

• Many physicians believe that self-criticism is necessary for success, a mindset rooted in medical culture.
• Practicing self-compassion can improve long-term resilience and prevent burnout.
• The changing landscape of healthcare supports a more balanced approach to physician well-being.

Our Editors Also Recommend: 

Medscape Physician Burnout & Depression Report 2024: ‘We Have Much Work to Do’

Medscape Hospitalist Burnout & Depression Report 2024: Seeking Progress, Balance 

Medscape Physician Lifestyle & Happiness Report 2024: The Ongoing Struggle for Balance 

A Transformative Rx for Burnout, Grief, and Illness: Dance 

 

Next Medscape Masters Event:

Stay at the forefront of obesity care. Register for exclusive insights and the latest treatment innovations. 

Lotte Dyrbye, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Co-inventor of the Well-being Index and its derivatives, which Mayo Clinic has licensed. Dyrbye receives royalties.

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

Summary and Key Highlights

Summary: Dr Tyra Fainstad shares her personal experience with burnout and the journey to recovery through coaching and self-compassion. She describes the pressures of seeking validation through external achievements, which ultimately led to a crisis in self-worth after medical training. Through coaching, she learned to cultivate a sense of internal fulfillment, reconnecting with her passion for medicine and achieving a healthier balance.

Key Takeaways:

• Relying solely on external validation can deepen burnout and affect well-being.
• Coaching empowers physicians to develop self-compassion and sustainable coping strategies.
• Shifting from external to internal validation strengthens long-term fulfillment and job satisfaction.

Our Editors Also Recommend: 

Medscape Physician Burnout & Depression Report 2024: ‘We Have Much Work to Do’

Medscape Hospitalist Burnout & Depression Report 2024: Seeking Progress, Balance 

Medscape Physician Lifestyle & Happiness Report 2024: The Ongoing Struggle for Balance 

A Transformative Rx for Burnout, Grief, and Illness: Dance 

 

Next Medscape Masters Event:

Stay at the forefront of obesity care. Register for exclusive insights and the latest treatment innovations.

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

Summary and Key Highlights

Summary: Dr Tyra Fainstad shares her personal experience with burnout and the journey to recovery through coaching and self-compassion. She describes the pressures of seeking validation through external achievements, which ultimately led to a crisis in self-worth after medical training. Through coaching, she learned to cultivate a sense of internal fulfillment, reconnecting with her passion for medicine and achieving a healthier balance.

Key Takeaways:

• Relying solely on external validation can deepen burnout and affect well-being.
• Coaching empowers physicians to develop self-compassion and sustainable coping strategies.
• Shifting from external to internal validation strengthens long-term fulfillment and job satisfaction.

Our Editors Also Recommend: 

Medscape Physician Burnout & Depression Report 2024: ‘We Have Much Work to Do’

Medscape Hospitalist Burnout & Depression Report 2024: Seeking Progress, Balance 

Medscape Physician Lifestyle & Happiness Report 2024: The Ongoing Struggle for Balance 

A Transformative Rx for Burnout, Grief, and Illness: Dance 

 

Next Medscape Masters Event:

Stay at the forefront of obesity care. Register for exclusive insights and the latest treatment innovations.

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

Summary and Key Highlights

Summary: Dr Tyra Fainstad shares her personal experience with burnout and the journey to recovery through coaching and self-compassion. She describes the pressures of seeking validation through external achievements, which ultimately led to a crisis in self-worth after medical training. Through coaching, she learned to cultivate a sense of internal fulfillment, reconnecting with her passion for medicine and achieving a healthier balance.

Key Takeaways:

• Relying solely on external validation can deepen burnout and affect well-being.
• Coaching empowers physicians to develop self-compassion and sustainable coping strategies.
• Shifting from external to internal validation strengthens long-term fulfillment and job satisfaction.

Our Editors Also Recommend: 

Medscape Physician Burnout & Depression Report 2024: ‘We Have Much Work to Do’

Medscape Hospitalist Burnout & Depression Report 2024: Seeking Progress, Balance 

Medscape Physician Lifestyle & Happiness Report 2024: The Ongoing Struggle for Balance 

A Transformative Rx for Burnout, Grief, and Illness: Dance 

 

Next Medscape Masters Event:

Stay at the forefront of obesity care. Register for exclusive insights and the latest treatment innovations.

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

The persistent epidemic of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in the United States is showing signs of a slowdown in cases of syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia, according to the latest data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

More than 2.4 million cases of these three nationally notifiable STIs were reported in the United States in 2023 but represent a 1.8% decrease from 2022, based on a new CDC report, Sexually Transmitted Infections Surveillance, 2023.

The 2023 report indicates a 7.2% decrease in gonorrhea, which accounts for most of the decrease.

Although syphilis cases increased overall, they did so by only 1% compared with double-digit increases in previous years, according to the report. Primary and secondary syphilis decreased by 10%, compared with 2022 overall, with a 13% decrease in cases among gay and bisexual men.

Congenital syphilis rates increased by 3%. However, the 3% increase represents a significant drop from the 30% increases each year in recent years, according to the report.

Chlamydia rates remained essentially stable, with a decrease of less than 1.0% overall. Reported chlamydia rates increased by 1.3% among men and decreased by 1.7% among women.

Despite the declines, overall disparities persist, with higher rates of STIs among gay and bisexual men, as well as American Indian/Alaska Native, Black/African American, and Hispanic/Latino populations, according to the report.

 

CDC Cautiously Optimistic

The CDC is “guardedly optimistic that the new data represent a turning point in terms of syphilis and gonorrhea,” said Bradley Stoner, MD, director of the CDC’s Division of STD Prevention, in an interview.

However, a tremendous amount of work remains to be done, notably in addressing disparities in care, said Stoner.

New techniques for diagnosis and treatment, such as the increased use of doxycycline (doxy PEP) for the prevention of STIs after sex for high-risk populations with a history of STIs, are likely contributing to the overall decrease, Stoner said. Other contributing factors include improved communication and awareness of STI treatment options at the community level in emergency departments, substance use facilities, and syringe use programs.

Although the United States has not yet turned the corner in reducing STIs, “We are at an inflection point in the epidemic after years of increases,” Stoner told this news organization. “The CDC is committed to keeping the momentum going and turning things around.” Although congenital syphilis rates are slowing down, it remains a significant problem with severe outcomes for mothers and infants, he noted.

The message to healthcare providers on the front lines is to increase awareness, screen widely, and provide effective treatments, Stoner emphasized.

Looking ahead, more research is needed to identify the settings in which prevention tools can be best utilized, such as urgent care or other programs, said Stoner. “My hope is that implementation science research will give us some clues.” In addition, better tools for detection and treatment of STIs are always needed, notably better diagnostics for syphilis, which still requires a blood test, although research is underway for more efficient testing.

 

Spotlight on Disparities, Syphilis

“I think these are very nuanced results,” said David J. Cennimo, MD, associate professor of medicine and pediatrics in the Division of Infectious Disease at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, in an interview. “I am happy, on first pass, to see that STI rates have declined.” However, a closer look reveals that most of the improvements are driven by the 7% drop in gonorrhea, while chlamydia and syphilis rates are relatively stable.

The decreases may reflect that the public is receiving the messaging about the need for screening and safer sex. “Clinicians also have been educated on the need for screening,” Cennimo said. However, “we are still 90% above the [STI] rates from 20 years ago.”

Clinicians also must recognize the disparities in STI rates by race and other demographics, Cennimo said. The current report “is a call to make sure that STI and other medical services are targeted to specific groups as needed and are widely available, especially in under-resourced areas.”

“I am still dismayed by the high syphilis rates, which are also resulting in congenital syphilis,” Cennimo said. “Syphilis in pregnancy is very dangerous, and any case of congenital syphilis is a failure of preventive care and screening; it is a potentially devastating disease.

“We have good treatments for STIs, but we must continue to monitor for resistance,” said Cennimo. “More work is needed to reach high-risk individuals and to provide preventive care and screening.” 

The research was supported by the CDC. Stoner and Cennimo had no financial conflicts to disclose.

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

The persistent epidemic of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in the United States is showing signs of a slowdown in cases of syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia, according to the latest data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

More than 2.4 million cases of these three nationally notifiable STIs were reported in the United States in 2023 but represent a 1.8% decrease from 2022, based on a new CDC report, Sexually Transmitted Infections Surveillance, 2023.

The 2023 report indicates a 7.2% decrease in gonorrhea, which accounts for most of the decrease.

Although syphilis cases increased overall, they did so by only 1% compared with double-digit increases in previous years, according to the report. Primary and secondary syphilis decreased by 10%, compared with 2022 overall, with a 13% decrease in cases among gay and bisexual men.

Congenital syphilis rates increased by 3%. However, the 3% increase represents a significant drop from the 30% increases each year in recent years, according to the report.

Chlamydia rates remained essentially stable, with a decrease of less than 1.0% overall. Reported chlamydia rates increased by 1.3% among men and decreased by 1.7% among women.

Despite the declines, overall disparities persist, with higher rates of STIs among gay and bisexual men, as well as American Indian/Alaska Native, Black/African American, and Hispanic/Latino populations, according to the report.

 

CDC Cautiously Optimistic

The CDC is “guardedly optimistic that the new data represent a turning point in terms of syphilis and gonorrhea,” said Bradley Stoner, MD, director of the CDC’s Division of STD Prevention, in an interview.

However, a tremendous amount of work remains to be done, notably in addressing disparities in care, said Stoner.

New techniques for diagnosis and treatment, such as the increased use of doxycycline (doxy PEP) for the prevention of STIs after sex for high-risk populations with a history of STIs, are likely contributing to the overall decrease, Stoner said. Other contributing factors include improved communication and awareness of STI treatment options at the community level in emergency departments, substance use facilities, and syringe use programs.

Although the United States has not yet turned the corner in reducing STIs, “We are at an inflection point in the epidemic after years of increases,” Stoner told this news organization. “The CDC is committed to keeping the momentum going and turning things around.” Although congenital syphilis rates are slowing down, it remains a significant problem with severe outcomes for mothers and infants, he noted.

The message to healthcare providers on the front lines is to increase awareness, screen widely, and provide effective treatments, Stoner emphasized.

Looking ahead, more research is needed to identify the settings in which prevention tools can be best utilized, such as urgent care or other programs, said Stoner. “My hope is that implementation science research will give us some clues.” In addition, better tools for detection and treatment of STIs are always needed, notably better diagnostics for syphilis, which still requires a blood test, although research is underway for more efficient testing.

 

Spotlight on Disparities, Syphilis

“I think these are very nuanced results,” said David J. Cennimo, MD, associate professor of medicine and pediatrics in the Division of Infectious Disease at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, in an interview. “I am happy, on first pass, to see that STI rates have declined.” However, a closer look reveals that most of the improvements are driven by the 7% drop in gonorrhea, while chlamydia and syphilis rates are relatively stable.

The decreases may reflect that the public is receiving the messaging about the need for screening and safer sex. “Clinicians also have been educated on the need for screening,” Cennimo said. However, “we are still 90% above the [STI] rates from 20 years ago.”

Clinicians also must recognize the disparities in STI rates by race and other demographics, Cennimo said. The current report “is a call to make sure that STI and other medical services are targeted to specific groups as needed and are widely available, especially in under-resourced areas.”

“I am still dismayed by the high syphilis rates, which are also resulting in congenital syphilis,” Cennimo said. “Syphilis in pregnancy is very dangerous, and any case of congenital syphilis is a failure of preventive care and screening; it is a potentially devastating disease.

“We have good treatments for STIs, but we must continue to monitor for resistance,” said Cennimo. “More work is needed to reach high-risk individuals and to provide preventive care and screening.” 

The research was supported by the CDC. Stoner and Cennimo had no financial conflicts to disclose.

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

The persistent epidemic of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in the United States is showing signs of a slowdown in cases of syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia, according to the latest data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

More than 2.4 million cases of these three nationally notifiable STIs were reported in the United States in 2023 but represent a 1.8% decrease from 2022, based on a new CDC report, Sexually Transmitted Infections Surveillance, 2023.

The 2023 report indicates a 7.2% decrease in gonorrhea, which accounts for most of the decrease.

Although syphilis cases increased overall, they did so by only 1% compared with double-digit increases in previous years, according to the report. Primary and secondary syphilis decreased by 10%, compared with 2022 overall, with a 13% decrease in cases among gay and bisexual men.

Congenital syphilis rates increased by 3%. However, the 3% increase represents a significant drop from the 30% increases each year in recent years, according to the report.

Chlamydia rates remained essentially stable, with a decrease of less than 1.0% overall. Reported chlamydia rates increased by 1.3% among men and decreased by 1.7% among women.

Despite the declines, overall disparities persist, with higher rates of STIs among gay and bisexual men, as well as American Indian/Alaska Native, Black/African American, and Hispanic/Latino populations, according to the report.

 

CDC Cautiously Optimistic

The CDC is “guardedly optimistic that the new data represent a turning point in terms of syphilis and gonorrhea,” said Bradley Stoner, MD, director of the CDC’s Division of STD Prevention, in an interview.

However, a tremendous amount of work remains to be done, notably in addressing disparities in care, said Stoner.

New techniques for diagnosis and treatment, such as the increased use of doxycycline (doxy PEP) for the prevention of STIs after sex for high-risk populations with a history of STIs, are likely contributing to the overall decrease, Stoner said. Other contributing factors include improved communication and awareness of STI treatment options at the community level in emergency departments, substance use facilities, and syringe use programs.

Although the United States has not yet turned the corner in reducing STIs, “We are at an inflection point in the epidemic after years of increases,” Stoner told this news organization. “The CDC is committed to keeping the momentum going and turning things around.” Although congenital syphilis rates are slowing down, it remains a significant problem with severe outcomes for mothers and infants, he noted.

The message to healthcare providers on the front lines is to increase awareness, screen widely, and provide effective treatments, Stoner emphasized.

Looking ahead, more research is needed to identify the settings in which prevention tools can be best utilized, such as urgent care or other programs, said Stoner. “My hope is that implementation science research will give us some clues.” In addition, better tools for detection and treatment of STIs are always needed, notably better diagnostics for syphilis, which still requires a blood test, although research is underway for more efficient testing.

 

Spotlight on Disparities, Syphilis

“I think these are very nuanced results,” said David J. Cennimo, MD, associate professor of medicine and pediatrics in the Division of Infectious Disease at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, in an interview. “I am happy, on first pass, to see that STI rates have declined.” However, a closer look reveals that most of the improvements are driven by the 7% drop in gonorrhea, while chlamydia and syphilis rates are relatively stable.

The decreases may reflect that the public is receiving the messaging about the need for screening and safer sex. “Clinicians also have been educated on the need for screening,” Cennimo said. However, “we are still 90% above the [STI] rates from 20 years ago.”

Clinicians also must recognize the disparities in STI rates by race and other demographics, Cennimo said. The current report “is a call to make sure that STI and other medical services are targeted to specific groups as needed and are widely available, especially in under-resourced areas.”

“I am still dismayed by the high syphilis rates, which are also resulting in congenital syphilis,” Cennimo said. “Syphilis in pregnancy is very dangerous, and any case of congenital syphilis is a failure of preventive care and screening; it is a potentially devastating disease.

“We have good treatments for STIs, but we must continue to monitor for resistance,” said Cennimo. “More work is needed to reach high-risk individuals and to provide preventive care and screening.” 

The research was supported by the CDC. Stoner and Cennimo had no financial conflicts to disclose.

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

Patients who discontinue treatment with the osteoporosis drug denosumab, despite transitioning to zoledronate, show significant losses in lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) within a year, according to the latest findings to show that the rapid rebound of bone loss after denosumab discontinuation is not easily prevented with other therapies — even bisphosphonates.

“When initiating denosumab for osteoporosis treatment, it is recommended to engage in thorough shared decision-making with the patient to ensure they understand the potential risks associated with discontinuing the medication,” senior author Shau-Huai Fu, MD, PhD, Department of Orthopedics, National Taiwan University Hospital Yunlin Branch, Douliu, told this news organization.

Furthermore, “integrating a case manager system is crucial to support long-term adherence and compliance,” he added.

The results are from the Denosumab Sequential Therapy prospective, open-label, parallel-group randomized clinical trial, published online in JAMA Network Open.

In the study, 101 patients were recruited between April 2019 and May 2021 at a referral center and two hospitals in Taiwan. The patients, including postmenopausal women and men over the age of 50, had been treated with regular denosumab for at least 2 years and had no previous exposure to other anti-osteoporosis medication.

They were randomized to treatment either with continuous denosumab at the standard dose of 60 mg twice yearly or to discontinue denosumab and receive the standard intravenous dose of the bisphosphonate zoledronate at 5 mg at the time when the next dose of denosumab would have been administered.

There were no differences between the two groups in serum bone turnover markers at baseline.

The current results, reflecting the first year of the 2-year study, show that, overall, those receiving zoledronate (n = 76), had a significant decrease in lumbar spine BMD, compared with a slight increase in the denosumab continuation group (–0.68% vs 1.30%, respectively; P = .03).

No significant differences were observed between the groups in terms of the study’s other measures of total hip BMD (median, 0% vs 1.12%; P = .24), and femoral neck BMD (median, 0.18% vs 0.17%; P = .71).

Additional findings from multivariable analyses in the study also supported results from previous studies showing that a longer duration of denosumab use is associated with a more substantial rebound effect: Among 15 of the denosumab users in the study who had ≥ 3 prior years of the drug, the reduction in lumbar spine BMD was even greater with zoledronate compared with denosumab continuation (–3.20% vs 1.30%; P = .003).

Though the lack of losses in the other measures of total hip and femoral neck BMD may seem encouraging, evidence from the bulk of other studies suggests cautious interpretation of those findings, Fu said.

“Although our study did not observe a noticeable decline in total hip or femoral neck BMD, other randomized controlled trials with longer durations of denosumab use have reported significant reductions in these areas,” Fu said. “Therefore, it cannot be assumed that non-lumbar spine regions are entirely safe.”

 

Fracture Risk Is the Overriding Concern

Meanwhile, the loss of lumbar spine BMD is of particular concern because of its role in what amounts to the broader, overriding concern of denosumab discontinuation — the risk for fracture, Fu noted.

“Real-world observations indicate that fractures caused by or associated with discontinuation of denosumab primarily occur in the spine,” he explained.

Previous research underscores the risk for fracture with denosumab discontinuation — and the greater risk with longer-term denosumab use, showing an 11.8% annual incidence of vertebral fracture after discontinuation of denosumab used for less than 2 years, increasing to 16.0% upon discontinuation after more than 2 years of treatment.

Randomized trials have shown sequential zoledronate to have some benefit in offsetting that risk, reducing first-year fracture risk by 3%-4% in some studies.

In the current study, 3 of 76 participants experienced a vertebral fracture in the first year of discontinuation, all involving women, including 2 who had been receiving denosumab for ≥ 4 years before medication transition.

If a transition to a bisphosphonate is anticipated, the collective findings suggest doing it as early on in denosumab treatment as possible, Fu and his colleagues noted in the study.

“When medication transition from denosumab is expected or when long-term denosumab treatment may not be suitable, earlier medication transition with potent sequential therapy should be considered,” they wrote.

 

Dosing Adjustments?

The findings add to the evidence that “patients who gain the most with denosumab are likely to lose the most with zoledronate,” Nelson Watts, MD, who authored an editorial accompanying the study, told this news organization.

Furthermore, “denosumab and other medications seem to do more [and faster] for BMD in the spine, so we expect more loss in the spine than in the hip,” said Watts, who is director of Mercy Health Osteoporosis and Bone Health Services, Bon Secours Mercy Health in Cincinnati, Ohio.

“Studies are needed but not yet done to see if a higher dose or more frequent zoledronate would be better for BMD than the ‘usual’ yearly dose,” Watts added.

The only published clinical recommendations on the matter are discussed in a position paper from the European Calcified Tissue Society (ECTS).

“Pending additional robust data, a pragmatic approach is to begin treatment with zoledronate 6 months after the last denosumab injection and monitor the effect with bone turnover markers, for example, 3 and 6 months after the zoledronate infusion,” they recommended.

In cases of increased bone turnover markers, including above the mean found in age- and sex-matched cohorts, “repeated infusion of zoledronate should be considered,” the society added.

If bone turnover markers are not available for monitoring the patients, “a pragmatic approach could be administrating a second infusion of zoledronate 6 months after the first infusion,” they wrote.

 

Clinicians Need to Be Proactive From the Start

Bente Langdahl, MD, of the Medical Department of Endocrinology, Aarhus University Hospital in Denmark, who was a coauthor on the ECTS position statement, told this news organization that clinicians should also be proactive on the other side of treatment — before it begins — to prevent problems with discontinuation.

“I think denosumab is a very good treatment for some patients with high fracture risk and very low BMD, but both patients and clinicians should know that this treatment is either lifelong or there needs to be a plan for discontinuation,” Langdahl said.

Langdahl noted that denosumab is coming off patent soon; hence, issues with cost could become more manageable.

But until then, “I think [cost] should be considered before starting treatment because if patients cannot afford denosumab, they should have been started on zoledronate from the beginning.”

 

Discontinuation Reasons Vary

Research indicates that, broadly, adherence to denosumab ranges from about 45% to 72% at 2 years, with some reasons for discontinuation including the need for dental treatment or cost, Fu and colleagues reported.

Fu added, however, that other reasons for discontinuing denosumab “are not due to ‘need’ but rather factors such as relocating, missing follow-up appointments, or poor adherence.”

Lorenz Hofbauer, MD, who is head of the Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Bone Diseases, Department of Medicine III at the Technical University Medical Center in Dresden, Germany, noted that another issue contributing to some hesitation by patients about remaining on, or even initiating denosumab, is the known risk for osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ).

Though reported as being rare, research continuing to stir concern for ONJ with denosumab use includes one recent study of patients with breast cancer showing those treated with denosumab had a fivefold higher risk for ONJ vs those on bisphosphonates.

“About 20% of my patients have ONJ concerns or other questions, which may delay treatment with denosumab or other therapies,” Hofbauer told this news organization.

“There is a high need to discuss risk versus benefits toward a shared decision-making,” he said.

Conversely, however, Hofbauer noted that adherence to denosumab at his center is fairly high — at 90%, which he says is largely credited to an electronically supported recall system in place at the center.

Denosumab maker Amgen also offers patient reminders via email, text, or phone through its Bone Matters patient support system, which also provides access to a call center for questions or to update treatment appointment information.

In terms of the ongoing question of how to best prevent fracture risk when patients do wind up discontinuing denosumab, Watts concluded in his editorial that more robust studies are needed.

“The dilemma is what to do with longer-term users who stop, and the real question is not what happens to BMD, but what happens to fracture risk,” he wrote.

“It is unlikely that the fracture risk question can be answered due to ethical limitations, but finding the best option, [whether it is] oral or intravenous bisphosphonate, timing, dose, and frequency, to minimize bone loss and the rebound increase in bone resorption after stopping long-term denosumab requires larger and longer studies of better design.”

The authors had no disclosures to report. Watts has been an investigator, consultant, and speaker for Amgen outside of the published editorial. Hofbauer is on advisory boards for Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Amolyt Pharma, Amgen, and UCB. Langdahl has been a primary investigator on previous and ongoing clinical trials involving denosumab.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients who discontinue treatment with the osteoporosis drug denosumab, despite transitioning to zoledronate, show significant losses in lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) within a year, according to the latest findings to show that the rapid rebound of bone loss after denosumab discontinuation is not easily prevented with other therapies — even bisphosphonates.

“When initiating denosumab for osteoporosis treatment, it is recommended to engage in thorough shared decision-making with the patient to ensure they understand the potential risks associated with discontinuing the medication,” senior author Shau-Huai Fu, MD, PhD, Department of Orthopedics, National Taiwan University Hospital Yunlin Branch, Douliu, told this news organization.

Furthermore, “integrating a case manager system is crucial to support long-term adherence and compliance,” he added.

The results are from the Denosumab Sequential Therapy prospective, open-label, parallel-group randomized clinical trial, published online in JAMA Network Open.

In the study, 101 patients were recruited between April 2019 and May 2021 at a referral center and two hospitals in Taiwan. The patients, including postmenopausal women and men over the age of 50, had been treated with regular denosumab for at least 2 years and had no previous exposure to other anti-osteoporosis medication.

They were randomized to treatment either with continuous denosumab at the standard dose of 60 mg twice yearly or to discontinue denosumab and receive the standard intravenous dose of the bisphosphonate zoledronate at 5 mg at the time when the next dose of denosumab would have been administered.

There were no differences between the two groups in serum bone turnover markers at baseline.

The current results, reflecting the first year of the 2-year study, show that, overall, those receiving zoledronate (n = 76), had a significant decrease in lumbar spine BMD, compared with a slight increase in the denosumab continuation group (–0.68% vs 1.30%, respectively; P = .03).

No significant differences were observed between the groups in terms of the study’s other measures of total hip BMD (median, 0% vs 1.12%; P = .24), and femoral neck BMD (median, 0.18% vs 0.17%; P = .71).

Additional findings from multivariable analyses in the study also supported results from previous studies showing that a longer duration of denosumab use is associated with a more substantial rebound effect: Among 15 of the denosumab users in the study who had ≥ 3 prior years of the drug, the reduction in lumbar spine BMD was even greater with zoledronate compared with denosumab continuation (–3.20% vs 1.30%; P = .003).

Though the lack of losses in the other measures of total hip and femoral neck BMD may seem encouraging, evidence from the bulk of other studies suggests cautious interpretation of those findings, Fu said.

“Although our study did not observe a noticeable decline in total hip or femoral neck BMD, other randomized controlled trials with longer durations of denosumab use have reported significant reductions in these areas,” Fu said. “Therefore, it cannot be assumed that non-lumbar spine regions are entirely safe.”

 

Fracture Risk Is the Overriding Concern

Meanwhile, the loss of lumbar spine BMD is of particular concern because of its role in what amounts to the broader, overriding concern of denosumab discontinuation — the risk for fracture, Fu noted.

“Real-world observations indicate that fractures caused by or associated with discontinuation of denosumab primarily occur in the spine,” he explained.

Previous research underscores the risk for fracture with denosumab discontinuation — and the greater risk with longer-term denosumab use, showing an 11.8% annual incidence of vertebral fracture after discontinuation of denosumab used for less than 2 years, increasing to 16.0% upon discontinuation after more than 2 years of treatment.

Randomized trials have shown sequential zoledronate to have some benefit in offsetting that risk, reducing first-year fracture risk by 3%-4% in some studies.

In the current study, 3 of 76 participants experienced a vertebral fracture in the first year of discontinuation, all involving women, including 2 who had been receiving denosumab for ≥ 4 years before medication transition.

If a transition to a bisphosphonate is anticipated, the collective findings suggest doing it as early on in denosumab treatment as possible, Fu and his colleagues noted in the study.

“When medication transition from denosumab is expected or when long-term denosumab treatment may not be suitable, earlier medication transition with potent sequential therapy should be considered,” they wrote.

 

Dosing Adjustments?

The findings add to the evidence that “patients who gain the most with denosumab are likely to lose the most with zoledronate,” Nelson Watts, MD, who authored an editorial accompanying the study, told this news organization.

Furthermore, “denosumab and other medications seem to do more [and faster] for BMD in the spine, so we expect more loss in the spine than in the hip,” said Watts, who is director of Mercy Health Osteoporosis and Bone Health Services, Bon Secours Mercy Health in Cincinnati, Ohio.

“Studies are needed but not yet done to see if a higher dose or more frequent zoledronate would be better for BMD than the ‘usual’ yearly dose,” Watts added.

The only published clinical recommendations on the matter are discussed in a position paper from the European Calcified Tissue Society (ECTS).

“Pending additional robust data, a pragmatic approach is to begin treatment with zoledronate 6 months after the last denosumab injection and monitor the effect with bone turnover markers, for example, 3 and 6 months after the zoledronate infusion,” they recommended.

In cases of increased bone turnover markers, including above the mean found in age- and sex-matched cohorts, “repeated infusion of zoledronate should be considered,” the society added.

If bone turnover markers are not available for monitoring the patients, “a pragmatic approach could be administrating a second infusion of zoledronate 6 months after the first infusion,” they wrote.

 

Clinicians Need to Be Proactive From the Start

Bente Langdahl, MD, of the Medical Department of Endocrinology, Aarhus University Hospital in Denmark, who was a coauthor on the ECTS position statement, told this news organization that clinicians should also be proactive on the other side of treatment — before it begins — to prevent problems with discontinuation.

“I think denosumab is a very good treatment for some patients with high fracture risk and very low BMD, but both patients and clinicians should know that this treatment is either lifelong or there needs to be a plan for discontinuation,” Langdahl said.

Langdahl noted that denosumab is coming off patent soon; hence, issues with cost could become more manageable.

But until then, “I think [cost] should be considered before starting treatment because if patients cannot afford denosumab, they should have been started on zoledronate from the beginning.”

 

Discontinuation Reasons Vary

Research indicates that, broadly, adherence to denosumab ranges from about 45% to 72% at 2 years, with some reasons for discontinuation including the need for dental treatment or cost, Fu and colleagues reported.

Fu added, however, that other reasons for discontinuing denosumab “are not due to ‘need’ but rather factors such as relocating, missing follow-up appointments, or poor adherence.”

Lorenz Hofbauer, MD, who is head of the Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Bone Diseases, Department of Medicine III at the Technical University Medical Center in Dresden, Germany, noted that another issue contributing to some hesitation by patients about remaining on, or even initiating denosumab, is the known risk for osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ).

Though reported as being rare, research continuing to stir concern for ONJ with denosumab use includes one recent study of patients with breast cancer showing those treated with denosumab had a fivefold higher risk for ONJ vs those on bisphosphonates.

“About 20% of my patients have ONJ concerns or other questions, which may delay treatment with denosumab or other therapies,” Hofbauer told this news organization.

“There is a high need to discuss risk versus benefits toward a shared decision-making,” he said.

Conversely, however, Hofbauer noted that adherence to denosumab at his center is fairly high — at 90%, which he says is largely credited to an electronically supported recall system in place at the center.

Denosumab maker Amgen also offers patient reminders via email, text, or phone through its Bone Matters patient support system, which also provides access to a call center for questions or to update treatment appointment information.

In terms of the ongoing question of how to best prevent fracture risk when patients do wind up discontinuing denosumab, Watts concluded in his editorial that more robust studies are needed.

“The dilemma is what to do with longer-term users who stop, and the real question is not what happens to BMD, but what happens to fracture risk,” he wrote.

“It is unlikely that the fracture risk question can be answered due to ethical limitations, but finding the best option, [whether it is] oral or intravenous bisphosphonate, timing, dose, and frequency, to minimize bone loss and the rebound increase in bone resorption after stopping long-term denosumab requires larger and longer studies of better design.”

The authors had no disclosures to report. Watts has been an investigator, consultant, and speaker for Amgen outside of the published editorial. Hofbauer is on advisory boards for Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Amolyt Pharma, Amgen, and UCB. Langdahl has been a primary investigator on previous and ongoing clinical trials involving denosumab.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients who discontinue treatment with the osteoporosis drug denosumab, despite transitioning to zoledronate, show significant losses in lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) within a year, according to the latest findings to show that the rapid rebound of bone loss after denosumab discontinuation is not easily prevented with other therapies — even bisphosphonates.

“When initiating denosumab for osteoporosis treatment, it is recommended to engage in thorough shared decision-making with the patient to ensure they understand the potential risks associated with discontinuing the medication,” senior author Shau-Huai Fu, MD, PhD, Department of Orthopedics, National Taiwan University Hospital Yunlin Branch, Douliu, told this news organization.

Furthermore, “integrating a case manager system is crucial to support long-term adherence and compliance,” he added.

The results are from the Denosumab Sequential Therapy prospective, open-label, parallel-group randomized clinical trial, published online in JAMA Network Open.

In the study, 101 patients were recruited between April 2019 and May 2021 at a referral center and two hospitals in Taiwan. The patients, including postmenopausal women and men over the age of 50, had been treated with regular denosumab for at least 2 years and had no previous exposure to other anti-osteoporosis medication.

They were randomized to treatment either with continuous denosumab at the standard dose of 60 mg twice yearly or to discontinue denosumab and receive the standard intravenous dose of the bisphosphonate zoledronate at 5 mg at the time when the next dose of denosumab would have been administered.

There were no differences between the two groups in serum bone turnover markers at baseline.

The current results, reflecting the first year of the 2-year study, show that, overall, those receiving zoledronate (n = 76), had a significant decrease in lumbar spine BMD, compared with a slight increase in the denosumab continuation group (–0.68% vs 1.30%, respectively; P = .03).

No significant differences were observed between the groups in terms of the study’s other measures of total hip BMD (median, 0% vs 1.12%; P = .24), and femoral neck BMD (median, 0.18% vs 0.17%; P = .71).

Additional findings from multivariable analyses in the study also supported results from previous studies showing that a longer duration of denosumab use is associated with a more substantial rebound effect: Among 15 of the denosumab users in the study who had ≥ 3 prior years of the drug, the reduction in lumbar spine BMD was even greater with zoledronate compared with denosumab continuation (–3.20% vs 1.30%; P = .003).

Though the lack of losses in the other measures of total hip and femoral neck BMD may seem encouraging, evidence from the bulk of other studies suggests cautious interpretation of those findings, Fu said.

“Although our study did not observe a noticeable decline in total hip or femoral neck BMD, other randomized controlled trials with longer durations of denosumab use have reported significant reductions in these areas,” Fu said. “Therefore, it cannot be assumed that non-lumbar spine regions are entirely safe.”

 

Fracture Risk Is the Overriding Concern

Meanwhile, the loss of lumbar spine BMD is of particular concern because of its role in what amounts to the broader, overriding concern of denosumab discontinuation — the risk for fracture, Fu noted.

“Real-world observations indicate that fractures caused by or associated with discontinuation of denosumab primarily occur in the spine,” he explained.

Previous research underscores the risk for fracture with denosumab discontinuation — and the greater risk with longer-term denosumab use, showing an 11.8% annual incidence of vertebral fracture after discontinuation of denosumab used for less than 2 years, increasing to 16.0% upon discontinuation after more than 2 years of treatment.

Randomized trials have shown sequential zoledronate to have some benefit in offsetting that risk, reducing first-year fracture risk by 3%-4% in some studies.

In the current study, 3 of 76 participants experienced a vertebral fracture in the first year of discontinuation, all involving women, including 2 who had been receiving denosumab for ≥ 4 years before medication transition.

If a transition to a bisphosphonate is anticipated, the collective findings suggest doing it as early on in denosumab treatment as possible, Fu and his colleagues noted in the study.

“When medication transition from denosumab is expected or when long-term denosumab treatment may not be suitable, earlier medication transition with potent sequential therapy should be considered,” they wrote.

 

Dosing Adjustments?

The findings add to the evidence that “patients who gain the most with denosumab are likely to lose the most with zoledronate,” Nelson Watts, MD, who authored an editorial accompanying the study, told this news organization.

Furthermore, “denosumab and other medications seem to do more [and faster] for BMD in the spine, so we expect more loss in the spine than in the hip,” said Watts, who is director of Mercy Health Osteoporosis and Bone Health Services, Bon Secours Mercy Health in Cincinnati, Ohio.

“Studies are needed but not yet done to see if a higher dose or more frequent zoledronate would be better for BMD than the ‘usual’ yearly dose,” Watts added.

The only published clinical recommendations on the matter are discussed in a position paper from the European Calcified Tissue Society (ECTS).

“Pending additional robust data, a pragmatic approach is to begin treatment with zoledronate 6 months after the last denosumab injection and monitor the effect with bone turnover markers, for example, 3 and 6 months after the zoledronate infusion,” they recommended.

In cases of increased bone turnover markers, including above the mean found in age- and sex-matched cohorts, “repeated infusion of zoledronate should be considered,” the society added.

If bone turnover markers are not available for monitoring the patients, “a pragmatic approach could be administrating a second infusion of zoledronate 6 months after the first infusion,” they wrote.

 

Clinicians Need to Be Proactive From the Start

Bente Langdahl, MD, of the Medical Department of Endocrinology, Aarhus University Hospital in Denmark, who was a coauthor on the ECTS position statement, told this news organization that clinicians should also be proactive on the other side of treatment — before it begins — to prevent problems with discontinuation.

“I think denosumab is a very good treatment for some patients with high fracture risk and very low BMD, but both patients and clinicians should know that this treatment is either lifelong or there needs to be a plan for discontinuation,” Langdahl said.

Langdahl noted that denosumab is coming off patent soon; hence, issues with cost could become more manageable.

But until then, “I think [cost] should be considered before starting treatment because if patients cannot afford denosumab, they should have been started on zoledronate from the beginning.”

 

Discontinuation Reasons Vary

Research indicates that, broadly, adherence to denosumab ranges from about 45% to 72% at 2 years, with some reasons for discontinuation including the need for dental treatment or cost, Fu and colleagues reported.

Fu added, however, that other reasons for discontinuing denosumab “are not due to ‘need’ but rather factors such as relocating, missing follow-up appointments, or poor adherence.”

Lorenz Hofbauer, MD, who is head of the Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Bone Diseases, Department of Medicine III at the Technical University Medical Center in Dresden, Germany, noted that another issue contributing to some hesitation by patients about remaining on, or even initiating denosumab, is the known risk for osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ).

Though reported as being rare, research continuing to stir concern for ONJ with denosumab use includes one recent study of patients with breast cancer showing those treated with denosumab had a fivefold higher risk for ONJ vs those on bisphosphonates.

“About 20% of my patients have ONJ concerns or other questions, which may delay treatment with denosumab or other therapies,” Hofbauer told this news organization.

“There is a high need to discuss risk versus benefits toward a shared decision-making,” he said.

Conversely, however, Hofbauer noted that adherence to denosumab at his center is fairly high — at 90%, which he says is largely credited to an electronically supported recall system in place at the center.

Denosumab maker Amgen also offers patient reminders via email, text, or phone through its Bone Matters patient support system, which also provides access to a call center for questions or to update treatment appointment information.

In terms of the ongoing question of how to best prevent fracture risk when patients do wind up discontinuing denosumab, Watts concluded in his editorial that more robust studies are needed.

“The dilemma is what to do with longer-term users who stop, and the real question is not what happens to BMD, but what happens to fracture risk,” he wrote.

“It is unlikely that the fracture risk question can be answered due to ethical limitations, but finding the best option, [whether it is] oral or intravenous bisphosphonate, timing, dose, and frequency, to minimize bone loss and the rebound increase in bone resorption after stopping long-term denosumab requires larger and longer studies of better design.”

The authors had no disclosures to report. Watts has been an investigator, consultant, and speaker for Amgen outside of the published editorial. Hofbauer is on advisory boards for Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Amolyt Pharma, Amgen, and UCB. Langdahl has been a primary investigator on previous and ongoing clinical trials involving denosumab.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Most of my writing starts on paper. I’ve stacks of Docket Gold legal pads, yellow and college ruled, filled with Sharpie S-Gel black ink. There are many scratch-outs and arrows, but no doodles. I’m genetically not a doodler. The draft of this essay however was interrupted by a graphic. It is a round figure with stick arms and legs. Somewhat centered are two intense scribbles, which represent eyes. A few loopy curls rest on top. It looks like a Mr. Potato Head, with owl eyes. 

“Ah, art!” I say when I flip up the page and discover this spontaneous self-portrait of my 4-year-old. Using the media she had on hand, she let free her stored creative energy, an energy we all seem to have. “Tell me about what you’ve drawn here,” I say. She’s eager to share. Art is a natural way to connect. 

My patients have shown me many similar self-portraits. Last week, the artist was a 71-year-old woman. She came with her friend, a 73-year-old woman, who is also my patient. They accompany each other on all their visits. She chose a small realtor pad with a color photo of a blonde with her arms folded and back against a graphic of a house. My patient managed to fit her sketch on the small, lined space, noting with tiny scribbles the lesions she wanted me to check. Although unnecessary, she added eyes, nose, and mouth. 

Another drawing was from a middle-aged white man. He has a look that suggests he rises early. His was on white printer paper, which he withdrew from a folder. He drew both a front and back view indicating with precision where I might find the spots he had mapped on his portrait. A retired teacher brought hers  with a notably proportional anatomy and uniform tick marks on her face, arms, and legs. It reminded me of a self-portrait by the artist Frida Kahlo’s “The Broken Column.” 

Kahlo was born with polio and suffered a severe bus accident as a young woman. She is one of many artists who shared their suffering through their art. “The Broken Column” depicts her with nails running from her face down her right short, weak leg. They look like the ticks my patient had added to her own self-portrait.  

I’ve viewed countless other patient self-portraits through my years of practice. Some stick figures, others with individually drawn fingers and toes. I remember in my neurology rotation asking patients to draw a clock. Stroke patients leave a whole half missing. Patients with dementia often crunch all the numbers into a little corner of the circle or forget to add the hands. Some of my dermatology patient self-portraits looked like that. I sometimes wonder if they also need a neurologist.

These pieces of patient art are utilitarian, drawn to narrate the story of what brought them to see me. Yet patients often add superfluous detail, demonstrating that utility and aesthetics are inseparable. I hold their drawings in the best light and notice the features and attributes. It helps me see their concerns from their point of view and primes me to notice other details during the physical exam. Viewing patients’ drawings can help build something called narrative competence the “ability to acknowledge, absorb, interpret, and act on the stories and plights of others.” Like Kahlo, patients are trying to share something with us, universal and recognizable. Art is how we connect to each other. 

 

A few months ago, I walked in  a room to see a consult. A white man in his 30s, he had prematurely graying hair and 80s-hip frames for glasses. He explained he was there for a skin screening and stood without warning, taking a step toward me. Like Michelangelo on wet plaster, he had grabbed a purple surgical marker to draw a self-portrait on the exam paper, the table set to just the right height and pitch to be an easel. It was the ginger-bread-man-type portrait with thick arms and legs and frosting-like dots marking the spots of concern. He marked L and R on the sheet, which were opposite what they would be if he was sitting facing me. But this was a self-portrait and he was drawing as it was with him facing the canvas, of course. “Ah, art!” I thought, and said, “Delightful! Tell me about what you’ve drawn here.” And so he did. A faint shadow of his portrait remains on that exam table to this day for every patient to see.

Benabio is chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

Most of my writing starts on paper. I’ve stacks of Docket Gold legal pads, yellow and college ruled, filled with Sharpie S-Gel black ink. There are many scratch-outs and arrows, but no doodles. I’m genetically not a doodler. The draft of this essay however was interrupted by a graphic. It is a round figure with stick arms and legs. Somewhat centered are two intense scribbles, which represent eyes. A few loopy curls rest on top. It looks like a Mr. Potato Head, with owl eyes. 

“Ah, art!” I say when I flip up the page and discover this spontaneous self-portrait of my 4-year-old. Using the media she had on hand, she let free her stored creative energy, an energy we all seem to have. “Tell me about what you’ve drawn here,” I say. She’s eager to share. Art is a natural way to connect. 

My patients have shown me many similar self-portraits. Last week, the artist was a 71-year-old woman. She came with her friend, a 73-year-old woman, who is also my patient. They accompany each other on all their visits. She chose a small realtor pad with a color photo of a blonde with her arms folded and back against a graphic of a house. My patient managed to fit her sketch on the small, lined space, noting with tiny scribbles the lesions she wanted me to check. Although unnecessary, she added eyes, nose, and mouth. 

Another drawing was from a middle-aged white man. He has a look that suggests he rises early. His was on white printer paper, which he withdrew from a folder. He drew both a front and back view indicating with precision where I might find the spots he had mapped on his portrait. A retired teacher brought hers  with a notably proportional anatomy and uniform tick marks on her face, arms, and legs. It reminded me of a self-portrait by the artist Frida Kahlo’s “The Broken Column.” 

Kahlo was born with polio and suffered a severe bus accident as a young woman. She is one of many artists who shared their suffering through their art. “The Broken Column” depicts her with nails running from her face down her right short, weak leg. They look like the ticks my patient had added to her own self-portrait.  

I’ve viewed countless other patient self-portraits through my years of practice. Some stick figures, others with individually drawn fingers and toes. I remember in my neurology rotation asking patients to draw a clock. Stroke patients leave a whole half missing. Patients with dementia often crunch all the numbers into a little corner of the circle or forget to add the hands. Some of my dermatology patient self-portraits looked like that. I sometimes wonder if they also need a neurologist.

These pieces of patient art are utilitarian, drawn to narrate the story of what brought them to see me. Yet patients often add superfluous detail, demonstrating that utility and aesthetics are inseparable. I hold their drawings in the best light and notice the features and attributes. It helps me see their concerns from their point of view and primes me to notice other details during the physical exam. Viewing patients’ drawings can help build something called narrative competence the “ability to acknowledge, absorb, interpret, and act on the stories and plights of others.” Like Kahlo, patients are trying to share something with us, universal and recognizable. Art is how we connect to each other. 

 

A few months ago, I walked in  a room to see a consult. A white man in his 30s, he had prematurely graying hair and 80s-hip frames for glasses. He explained he was there for a skin screening and stood without warning, taking a step toward me. Like Michelangelo on wet plaster, he had grabbed a purple surgical marker to draw a self-portrait on the exam paper, the table set to just the right height and pitch to be an easel. It was the ginger-bread-man-type portrait with thick arms and legs and frosting-like dots marking the spots of concern. He marked L and R on the sheet, which were opposite what they would be if he was sitting facing me. But this was a self-portrait and he was drawing as it was with him facing the canvas, of course. “Ah, art!” I thought, and said, “Delightful! Tell me about what you’ve drawn here.” And so he did. A faint shadow of his portrait remains on that exam table to this day for every patient to see.

Benabio is chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

Most of my writing starts on paper. I’ve stacks of Docket Gold legal pads, yellow and college ruled, filled with Sharpie S-Gel black ink. There are many scratch-outs and arrows, but no doodles. I’m genetically not a doodler. The draft of this essay however was interrupted by a graphic. It is a round figure with stick arms and legs. Somewhat centered are two intense scribbles, which represent eyes. A few loopy curls rest on top. It looks like a Mr. Potato Head, with owl eyes. 

“Ah, art!” I say when I flip up the page and discover this spontaneous self-portrait of my 4-year-old. Using the media she had on hand, she let free her stored creative energy, an energy we all seem to have. “Tell me about what you’ve drawn here,” I say. She’s eager to share. Art is a natural way to connect. 

My patients have shown me many similar self-portraits. Last week, the artist was a 71-year-old woman. She came with her friend, a 73-year-old woman, who is also my patient. They accompany each other on all their visits. She chose a small realtor pad with a color photo of a blonde with her arms folded and back against a graphic of a house. My patient managed to fit her sketch on the small, lined space, noting with tiny scribbles the lesions she wanted me to check. Although unnecessary, she added eyes, nose, and mouth. 

Another drawing was from a middle-aged white man. He has a look that suggests he rises early. His was on white printer paper, which he withdrew from a folder. He drew both a front and back view indicating with precision where I might find the spots he had mapped on his portrait. A retired teacher brought hers  with a notably proportional anatomy and uniform tick marks on her face, arms, and legs. It reminded me of a self-portrait by the artist Frida Kahlo’s “The Broken Column.” 

Kahlo was born with polio and suffered a severe bus accident as a young woman. She is one of many artists who shared their suffering through their art. “The Broken Column” depicts her with nails running from her face down her right short, weak leg. They look like the ticks my patient had added to her own self-portrait.  

I’ve viewed countless other patient self-portraits through my years of practice. Some stick figures, others with individually drawn fingers and toes. I remember in my neurology rotation asking patients to draw a clock. Stroke patients leave a whole half missing. Patients with dementia often crunch all the numbers into a little corner of the circle or forget to add the hands. Some of my dermatology patient self-portraits looked like that. I sometimes wonder if they also need a neurologist.

These pieces of patient art are utilitarian, drawn to narrate the story of what brought them to see me. Yet patients often add superfluous detail, demonstrating that utility and aesthetics are inseparable. I hold their drawings in the best light and notice the features and attributes. It helps me see their concerns from their point of view and primes me to notice other details during the physical exam. Viewing patients’ drawings can help build something called narrative competence the “ability to acknowledge, absorb, interpret, and act on the stories and plights of others.” Like Kahlo, patients are trying to share something with us, universal and recognizable. Art is how we connect to each other. 

 

A few months ago, I walked in  a room to see a consult. A white man in his 30s, he had prematurely graying hair and 80s-hip frames for glasses. He explained he was there for a skin screening and stood without warning, taking a step toward me. Like Michelangelo on wet plaster, he had grabbed a purple surgical marker to draw a self-portrait on the exam paper, the table set to just the right height and pitch to be an easel. It was the ginger-bread-man-type portrait with thick arms and legs and frosting-like dots marking the spots of concern. He marked L and R on the sheet, which were opposite what they would be if he was sitting facing me. But this was a self-portrait and he was drawing as it was with him facing the canvas, of course. “Ah, art!” I thought, and said, “Delightful! Tell me about what you’ve drawn here.” And so he did. A faint shadow of his portrait remains on that exam table to this day for every patient to see.

Benabio is chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

A population-based study has shown a slightly elevated risk for patients’ developing skin disorders, including alopecia areata (AA), alopecia totalis (AT), vitiligo, and bullous pemphigoid (BP), more than 6 months after COVID-19 infection. In addition, the authors reported that COVID-19 vaccination appears to reduce these risks.

The study was published in JAMA Dermatology.

 

‘Compelling Evidence’

“This well-executed study by Heo et al provides compelling evidence to support an association between COVID-19 infection and the development of subsequent autoimmune and autoinflammatory skin diseases,” wrote authors led by Lisa M. Arkin, MD, of the Department of Dermatology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health in Madison, in an accompanying editorial.

Using databases from Korea’s National Health Insurance Service and the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency, investigators led by Yeon-Woo Heo, MD, a dermatology resident at Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine, Wonju, Republic of Korea, compared 3.1 million people who had COVID-19 with 3.8 million controls, all with at least 180 days’ follow-up through December 31, 2022.

At a mean follow-up of 287 days in both cohorts, authors found significantly elevated risks for AA and vitiligo (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.11 for both), AT (aHR, 1.24), Behçet disease (aHR, 1.45), and BP (aHR, 1.62) in the post–COVID-19 cohort. The infection also raised the risk for other conditions such as systemic lupus erythematosus (aHR, 1.14) and Crohn’s disease (aHR, 1.35).

In subgroup analyses, demographic factors were associated with diverse effects: COVID-19 infection was associated with significantly higher odds of developing AA (for both men and women), vitiligo (men), Behçet disease (men and women), Crohn’s disease (men), ulcerative colitis (men), rheumatoid arthritis (men and women), systemic lupus erythematosus (men), ankylosing spondylitis (men), AT (women), and BP (women) than controls.

Those aged under 40 years were more likely to develop AA, primary cicatricial alopecia, Behçet disease, and ulcerative colitis, while those aged 40 years or older were more likely to develop AA, AT, vitiligo, Behçet disease, Crohn’s disease, rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, Sjögren’s syndrome, ankylosing spondylitis, and BP.

Additionally, severe COVID-19 requiring intensive care unit admission was associated with a significantly increased risk for autoimmune diseases, including AA, psoriasis, BP, and sarcoidosis. By timeframe, risks for AA, AT, and psoriasis were significantly higher during the initial Delta-dominant period.

 

Vaccination Effect

Moreover, vaccinated individuals were less likely to develop AA, AT, psoriasis, Behçet disease, and various nondermatologic conditions than were those who were unvaccinated. This finding, wrote Heo and colleagues, “may provide evidence to support the hypothesis that COVID-19 vaccines can help prevent autoimmune diseases.”

“That’s the part we all need to take into our offices tomorrow,” said Brett King, MD, PhD, a Fairfield, Connecticut–based dermatologist in private practice. He was not involved with the study but was asked to comment.

Overall, King said, the study carries two main messages. “The first is that COVID-19 infection increases the likelihood of developing an autoimmune or autoinflammatory disease in a large population.” The second and very important message is that being vaccinated against COVID-19 provides protection against developing an autoimmune or autoinflammatory disease.

“My concern is that the popular media highlights the first part,” said King, “and everybody who develops alopecia areata, vitiligo, or sarcoidosis blames COVID-19. That’s not what this work says.”

The foregoing distinction is especially important during the fall and winter, he added, when people getting influenza vaccines are routinely offered COVID-19 vaccines. “Many patients have said, ‘I got the COVID vaccine and developed alopecia areata 6 months later.’ Nearly everybody who has developed a new or worsening health condition in the last almost 5 years has had the perfect fall guy — the COVID vaccine or infection.”

With virtually all patients asking if they should get an updated COVID-19 vaccine or booster, he added, many report having heard that such vaccines cause AA, vitiligo, or other diseases. “To anchor these conversations in real data and not just anecdotes from a blog or Facebook is very useful,” said King, “and now we have very good data saying that the COVID vaccine is protective against these disorders.”

George Han, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology at the Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York, applauds investigators’ use of a large, robust database but suggests interpreting results cautiously. He was not involved with the study but was asked to comment.

“You could do a large, well-done study,” Han said, “but it could still not necessarily be generalizable. These autoimmune conditions they’re looking at have clear ethnic and racial biases.” Heo and colleagues acknowledged shortcomings including their study population’s monomorphic nature.

Additional issues that limit the study’s impact, said Han, include the difficulty of conceptualizing a 10%-20% increase in conditions that at baseline are rare. And many of the findings reflected natural patterns, he said. For instance, BP more commonly affects older people, COVID-19 notwithstanding.

Han said that for him, the study’s main value going forward is helping to explain a rash of worsening inflammatory skin disease that many dermatologists saw early in the pandemic. “We would regularly see patients who were well controlled with, for example, psoriasis or eczema. But after COVID-19 infection or a vaccine (usually mRNA-type), in some cases they would come in flaring badly.” This happened at least a dozen times during the first year of post-shutdown appointments, he said.

“We’ve seen patients who have flared multiple times — they get the booster, then flare again,” Han added. Similar patterns occurred with pyoderma gangrenosum and other inflammatory skin diseases, he said.

Given the modest effect sizes of the associations reported in the Korean study, Arkin and colleagues wrote in their JAMA Dermatology editorial that surveillance for autoimmune disease is probably not warranted without new examination findings or symptoms. “For certain,” King said, “we should not go hunting for things that aren’t obviously there.”

Rather, Arkin and colleagues wrote, the higher autoimmunity rates seen among the unvaccinated, as well as during the Delta phase (when patients were sicker and hospitalizations were more likely) and in patients requiring intensive care, suggest that “interventions that reduce disease severity could also potentially reduce long-term risk of subsequent autoimmune sequelae.”

Future research addressing whether people with preexisting autoimmune conditions are at greater risk for flares or developing new autoimmune diseases following COVID-19 infection “would help to frame an evidence-based approach for patients with autoimmune disorders who develop COVID-19 infection, including the role for antiviral treatments,” they added.

The study was supported by grants from the Research Program of the Korea Medical Institute, the Korea Health Industry Development Institute, and the National Research Foundation of Korea. Han and King reported no relevant financial relationships. Arkin disclosed receiving research grants to her institution from Amgen and Eli Lilly, personal fees from Sanofi/Regeneron for consulting, and personal consulting fees from Merck outside the submitted work. Another author reported personal consulting fees from Dexcel Pharma and Honeydew outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A population-based study has shown a slightly elevated risk for patients’ developing skin disorders, including alopecia areata (AA), alopecia totalis (AT), vitiligo, and bullous pemphigoid (BP), more than 6 months after COVID-19 infection. In addition, the authors reported that COVID-19 vaccination appears to reduce these risks.

The study was published in JAMA Dermatology.

 

‘Compelling Evidence’

“This well-executed study by Heo et al provides compelling evidence to support an association between COVID-19 infection and the development of subsequent autoimmune and autoinflammatory skin diseases,” wrote authors led by Lisa M. Arkin, MD, of the Department of Dermatology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health in Madison, in an accompanying editorial.

Using databases from Korea’s National Health Insurance Service and the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency, investigators led by Yeon-Woo Heo, MD, a dermatology resident at Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine, Wonju, Republic of Korea, compared 3.1 million people who had COVID-19 with 3.8 million controls, all with at least 180 days’ follow-up through December 31, 2022.

At a mean follow-up of 287 days in both cohorts, authors found significantly elevated risks for AA and vitiligo (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.11 for both), AT (aHR, 1.24), Behçet disease (aHR, 1.45), and BP (aHR, 1.62) in the post–COVID-19 cohort. The infection also raised the risk for other conditions such as systemic lupus erythematosus (aHR, 1.14) and Crohn’s disease (aHR, 1.35).

In subgroup analyses, demographic factors were associated with diverse effects: COVID-19 infection was associated with significantly higher odds of developing AA (for both men and women), vitiligo (men), Behçet disease (men and women), Crohn’s disease (men), ulcerative colitis (men), rheumatoid arthritis (men and women), systemic lupus erythematosus (men), ankylosing spondylitis (men), AT (women), and BP (women) than controls.

Those aged under 40 years were more likely to develop AA, primary cicatricial alopecia, Behçet disease, and ulcerative colitis, while those aged 40 years or older were more likely to develop AA, AT, vitiligo, Behçet disease, Crohn’s disease, rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, Sjögren’s syndrome, ankylosing spondylitis, and BP.

Additionally, severe COVID-19 requiring intensive care unit admission was associated with a significantly increased risk for autoimmune diseases, including AA, psoriasis, BP, and sarcoidosis. By timeframe, risks for AA, AT, and psoriasis were significantly higher during the initial Delta-dominant period.

 

Vaccination Effect

Moreover, vaccinated individuals were less likely to develop AA, AT, psoriasis, Behçet disease, and various nondermatologic conditions than were those who were unvaccinated. This finding, wrote Heo and colleagues, “may provide evidence to support the hypothesis that COVID-19 vaccines can help prevent autoimmune diseases.”

“That’s the part we all need to take into our offices tomorrow,” said Brett King, MD, PhD, a Fairfield, Connecticut–based dermatologist in private practice. He was not involved with the study but was asked to comment.

Overall, King said, the study carries two main messages. “The first is that COVID-19 infection increases the likelihood of developing an autoimmune or autoinflammatory disease in a large population.” The second and very important message is that being vaccinated against COVID-19 provides protection against developing an autoimmune or autoinflammatory disease.

“My concern is that the popular media highlights the first part,” said King, “and everybody who develops alopecia areata, vitiligo, or sarcoidosis blames COVID-19. That’s not what this work says.”

The foregoing distinction is especially important during the fall and winter, he added, when people getting influenza vaccines are routinely offered COVID-19 vaccines. “Many patients have said, ‘I got the COVID vaccine and developed alopecia areata 6 months later.’ Nearly everybody who has developed a new or worsening health condition in the last almost 5 years has had the perfect fall guy — the COVID vaccine or infection.”

With virtually all patients asking if they should get an updated COVID-19 vaccine or booster, he added, many report having heard that such vaccines cause AA, vitiligo, or other diseases. “To anchor these conversations in real data and not just anecdotes from a blog or Facebook is very useful,” said King, “and now we have very good data saying that the COVID vaccine is protective against these disorders.”

George Han, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology at the Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York, applauds investigators’ use of a large, robust database but suggests interpreting results cautiously. He was not involved with the study but was asked to comment.

“You could do a large, well-done study,” Han said, “but it could still not necessarily be generalizable. These autoimmune conditions they’re looking at have clear ethnic and racial biases.” Heo and colleagues acknowledged shortcomings including their study population’s monomorphic nature.

Additional issues that limit the study’s impact, said Han, include the difficulty of conceptualizing a 10%-20% increase in conditions that at baseline are rare. And many of the findings reflected natural patterns, he said. For instance, BP more commonly affects older people, COVID-19 notwithstanding.

Han said that for him, the study’s main value going forward is helping to explain a rash of worsening inflammatory skin disease that many dermatologists saw early in the pandemic. “We would regularly see patients who were well controlled with, for example, psoriasis or eczema. But after COVID-19 infection or a vaccine (usually mRNA-type), in some cases they would come in flaring badly.” This happened at least a dozen times during the first year of post-shutdown appointments, he said.

“We’ve seen patients who have flared multiple times — they get the booster, then flare again,” Han added. Similar patterns occurred with pyoderma gangrenosum and other inflammatory skin diseases, he said.

Given the modest effect sizes of the associations reported in the Korean study, Arkin and colleagues wrote in their JAMA Dermatology editorial that surveillance for autoimmune disease is probably not warranted without new examination findings or symptoms. “For certain,” King said, “we should not go hunting for things that aren’t obviously there.”

Rather, Arkin and colleagues wrote, the higher autoimmunity rates seen among the unvaccinated, as well as during the Delta phase (when patients were sicker and hospitalizations were more likely) and in patients requiring intensive care, suggest that “interventions that reduce disease severity could also potentially reduce long-term risk of subsequent autoimmune sequelae.”

Future research addressing whether people with preexisting autoimmune conditions are at greater risk for flares or developing new autoimmune diseases following COVID-19 infection “would help to frame an evidence-based approach for patients with autoimmune disorders who develop COVID-19 infection, including the role for antiviral treatments,” they added.

The study was supported by grants from the Research Program of the Korea Medical Institute, the Korea Health Industry Development Institute, and the National Research Foundation of Korea. Han and King reported no relevant financial relationships. Arkin disclosed receiving research grants to her institution from Amgen and Eli Lilly, personal fees from Sanofi/Regeneron for consulting, and personal consulting fees from Merck outside the submitted work. Another author reported personal consulting fees from Dexcel Pharma and Honeydew outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A population-based study has shown a slightly elevated risk for patients’ developing skin disorders, including alopecia areata (AA), alopecia totalis (AT), vitiligo, and bullous pemphigoid (BP), more than 6 months after COVID-19 infection. In addition, the authors reported that COVID-19 vaccination appears to reduce these risks.

The study was published in JAMA Dermatology.

 

‘Compelling Evidence’

“This well-executed study by Heo et al provides compelling evidence to support an association between COVID-19 infection and the development of subsequent autoimmune and autoinflammatory skin diseases,” wrote authors led by Lisa M. Arkin, MD, of the Department of Dermatology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health in Madison, in an accompanying editorial.

Using databases from Korea’s National Health Insurance Service and the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency, investigators led by Yeon-Woo Heo, MD, a dermatology resident at Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine, Wonju, Republic of Korea, compared 3.1 million people who had COVID-19 with 3.8 million controls, all with at least 180 days’ follow-up through December 31, 2022.

At a mean follow-up of 287 days in both cohorts, authors found significantly elevated risks for AA and vitiligo (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.11 for both), AT (aHR, 1.24), Behçet disease (aHR, 1.45), and BP (aHR, 1.62) in the post–COVID-19 cohort. The infection also raised the risk for other conditions such as systemic lupus erythematosus (aHR, 1.14) and Crohn’s disease (aHR, 1.35).

In subgroup analyses, demographic factors were associated with diverse effects: COVID-19 infection was associated with significantly higher odds of developing AA (for both men and women), vitiligo (men), Behçet disease (men and women), Crohn’s disease (men), ulcerative colitis (men), rheumatoid arthritis (men and women), systemic lupus erythematosus (men), ankylosing spondylitis (men), AT (women), and BP (women) than controls.

Those aged under 40 years were more likely to develop AA, primary cicatricial alopecia, Behçet disease, and ulcerative colitis, while those aged 40 years or older were more likely to develop AA, AT, vitiligo, Behçet disease, Crohn’s disease, rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, Sjögren’s syndrome, ankylosing spondylitis, and BP.

Additionally, severe COVID-19 requiring intensive care unit admission was associated with a significantly increased risk for autoimmune diseases, including AA, psoriasis, BP, and sarcoidosis. By timeframe, risks for AA, AT, and psoriasis were significantly higher during the initial Delta-dominant period.

 

Vaccination Effect

Moreover, vaccinated individuals were less likely to develop AA, AT, psoriasis, Behçet disease, and various nondermatologic conditions than were those who were unvaccinated. This finding, wrote Heo and colleagues, “may provide evidence to support the hypothesis that COVID-19 vaccines can help prevent autoimmune diseases.”

“That’s the part we all need to take into our offices tomorrow,” said Brett King, MD, PhD, a Fairfield, Connecticut–based dermatologist in private practice. He was not involved with the study but was asked to comment.

Overall, King said, the study carries two main messages. “The first is that COVID-19 infection increases the likelihood of developing an autoimmune or autoinflammatory disease in a large population.” The second and very important message is that being vaccinated against COVID-19 provides protection against developing an autoimmune or autoinflammatory disease.

“My concern is that the popular media highlights the first part,” said King, “and everybody who develops alopecia areata, vitiligo, or sarcoidosis blames COVID-19. That’s not what this work says.”

The foregoing distinction is especially important during the fall and winter, he added, when people getting influenza vaccines are routinely offered COVID-19 vaccines. “Many patients have said, ‘I got the COVID vaccine and developed alopecia areata 6 months later.’ Nearly everybody who has developed a new or worsening health condition in the last almost 5 years has had the perfect fall guy — the COVID vaccine or infection.”

With virtually all patients asking if they should get an updated COVID-19 vaccine or booster, he added, many report having heard that such vaccines cause AA, vitiligo, or other diseases. “To anchor these conversations in real data and not just anecdotes from a blog or Facebook is very useful,” said King, “and now we have very good data saying that the COVID vaccine is protective against these disorders.”

George Han, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology at the Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York, applauds investigators’ use of a large, robust database but suggests interpreting results cautiously. He was not involved with the study but was asked to comment.

“You could do a large, well-done study,” Han said, “but it could still not necessarily be generalizable. These autoimmune conditions they’re looking at have clear ethnic and racial biases.” Heo and colleagues acknowledged shortcomings including their study population’s monomorphic nature.

Additional issues that limit the study’s impact, said Han, include the difficulty of conceptualizing a 10%-20% increase in conditions that at baseline are rare. And many of the findings reflected natural patterns, he said. For instance, BP more commonly affects older people, COVID-19 notwithstanding.

Han said that for him, the study’s main value going forward is helping to explain a rash of worsening inflammatory skin disease that many dermatologists saw early in the pandemic. “We would regularly see patients who were well controlled with, for example, psoriasis or eczema. But after COVID-19 infection or a vaccine (usually mRNA-type), in some cases they would come in flaring badly.” This happened at least a dozen times during the first year of post-shutdown appointments, he said.

“We’ve seen patients who have flared multiple times — they get the booster, then flare again,” Han added. Similar patterns occurred with pyoderma gangrenosum and other inflammatory skin diseases, he said.

Given the modest effect sizes of the associations reported in the Korean study, Arkin and colleagues wrote in their JAMA Dermatology editorial that surveillance for autoimmune disease is probably not warranted without new examination findings or symptoms. “For certain,” King said, “we should not go hunting for things that aren’t obviously there.”

Rather, Arkin and colleagues wrote, the higher autoimmunity rates seen among the unvaccinated, as well as during the Delta phase (when patients were sicker and hospitalizations were more likely) and in patients requiring intensive care, suggest that “interventions that reduce disease severity could also potentially reduce long-term risk of subsequent autoimmune sequelae.”

Future research addressing whether people with preexisting autoimmune conditions are at greater risk for flares or developing new autoimmune diseases following COVID-19 infection “would help to frame an evidence-based approach for patients with autoimmune disorders who develop COVID-19 infection, including the role for antiviral treatments,” they added.

The study was supported by grants from the Research Program of the Korea Medical Institute, the Korea Health Industry Development Institute, and the National Research Foundation of Korea. Han and King reported no relevant financial relationships. Arkin disclosed receiving research grants to her institution from Amgen and Eli Lilly, personal fees from Sanofi/Regeneron for consulting, and personal consulting fees from Merck outside the submitted work. Another author reported personal consulting fees from Dexcel Pharma and Honeydew outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.