B-Cell Lymphoma ICYMI

About one in four patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have an unsatisfactory antibody response to the Omicron variant following COVID-19 vaccination, according to a new study.

The study was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

“Booster vaccination increased binding and neutralizing antibody titers to Omicron, but antibody titers declined after 3 months. These data highlight the concern for patients with cancer given the rapid spread of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant,” wrote the authors, who were led by Rafi Ahmed, PhD, Emory University, Atlanta.

Researchers found that 18% had no detectable antibody at all and active treatment type had no association with vaccine response.

Researchers examined antibody titers among 82 NSCLC patients and 53 healthy volunteers. They collected blood samples longitudinally for analysis. While most patients had binding and neutralizing antibody titers that were comparable with healthy volunteers, 25% had poor responses, which led to six- to sevenfold lower titers than healthy controls. There was no association between worse vaccine responses and history of programmed death–1 monotherapy, chemotherapy, or both in combination. Receipt of a booster vaccine improved binding and neutralizing antibody titers to both the wild type and the Omicron variant, but 2-4 months after the booster there was a five- to sevenfold decrease in neutralizing titers to both the wild type and Omicron variant.

“This study indicates both the need to monitor our patients with lung cancer for response to COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, identify the nonresponders for follow-up and further attempts at immunization, and continue collecting and analyzing clinicodemographic information and biospecimens from our patients,” wrote the authors of an accompanying editorial.

Although the findings reveal potential concerns, the good news is that most patients NSCLC patients do respond normally to COVID-19 vaccination, said John D. Minna, MD, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, lead author of the editorial.

He offered some advice to physicians. “You can test your patients using currently available [Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments]–approved lab tests to determine what their antibody titers are. This should be done after boosting since titers will go down after time. We know that if a patient has lung cancer and they do get infected with SARS-CoV-2 that potentially they could develop serious COVID-19 disease. Besides giving antiviral treatment, it is important that they be closely monitored for symptoms of progression so if they need to be hospitalized it can be done in a prudent manner,” said Dr. Minna, who is director of the Hamon Center for Therapeutic Oncology Research at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center.

No clinical details have emerged that might predict which patients have an insufficient response to vaccination. “When we started these studies, a lot of us thought that anyone who did not develop a good antibody response would be weak or sicker. For example, [patients with] late-stage disease, or having had a lot of therapy, or perhaps immune checkpoint blockade. However, none of these things are correlated. The main advice we are giving our lung cancer patients are to get vaccinated, get boosted (double boosted), and just do the smart thing to protect yourself from exposure,” he said.

For example, when traveling on a plane, patients should wear a mask. They should also avoid large indoor events. He also recommended that, following vaccination and boosters, patients seek out CLIA-certified tests to get their titer checked.

“Upon any COVID infection, even if their titer is at or above 80%, patients should see their physician to consider treatment with Paxlovid (nirmatrelvir/ritonavir), which has emergency use authorization. For patients with a lower titer, it’s important to seek out a physician and consider Paxlovid and possibly antibody therapy. But these are individual decisions to be made with your doctor,” Dr. Minna said.

The next important research question is what happens to T-cell immune response following vaccination. “We know that a good cellular immune response is also important in preventing infection and severe infection, but we don’t yet know which persons (with or without cancer) have good T-cell responses. This information will also likely impact what we tell our patients and will add to the antibody data,” he said.

Studies are ongoing to determine specific T-cell responses to mRNA vaccines, and how well those T-cell responses respond to SARS-CoV-2 infection in the laboratory.

About one in four patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have an unsatisfactory antibody response to the Omicron variant following COVID-19 vaccination, according to a new study.

The study was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

“Booster vaccination increased binding and neutralizing antibody titers to Omicron, but antibody titers declined after 3 months. These data highlight the concern for patients with cancer given the rapid spread of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant,” wrote the authors, who were led by Rafi Ahmed, PhD, Emory University, Atlanta.

Researchers found that 18% had no detectable antibody at all and active treatment type had no association with vaccine response.

Researchers examined antibody titers among 82 NSCLC patients and 53 healthy volunteers. They collected blood samples longitudinally for analysis. While most patients had binding and neutralizing antibody titers that were comparable with healthy volunteers, 25% had poor responses, which led to six- to sevenfold lower titers than healthy controls. There was no association between worse vaccine responses and history of programmed death–1 monotherapy, chemotherapy, or both in combination. Receipt of a booster vaccine improved binding and neutralizing antibody titers to both the wild type and the Omicron variant, but 2-4 months after the booster there was a five- to sevenfold decrease in neutralizing titers to both the wild type and Omicron variant.

“This study indicates both the need to monitor our patients with lung cancer for response to COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, identify the nonresponders for follow-up and further attempts at immunization, and continue collecting and analyzing clinicodemographic information and biospecimens from our patients,” wrote the authors of an accompanying editorial.

Although the findings reveal potential concerns, the good news is that most patients NSCLC patients do respond normally to COVID-19 vaccination, said John D. Minna, MD, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, lead author of the editorial.

He offered some advice to physicians. “You can test your patients using currently available [Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments]–approved lab tests to determine what their antibody titers are. This should be done after boosting since titers will go down after time. We know that if a patient has lung cancer and they do get infected with SARS-CoV-2 that potentially they could develop serious COVID-19 disease. Besides giving antiviral treatment, it is important that they be closely monitored for symptoms of progression so if they need to be hospitalized it can be done in a prudent manner,” said Dr. Minna, who is director of the Hamon Center for Therapeutic Oncology Research at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center.

No clinical details have emerged that might predict which patients have an insufficient response to vaccination. “When we started these studies, a lot of us thought that anyone who did not develop a good antibody response would be weak or sicker. For example, [patients with] late-stage disease, or having had a lot of therapy, or perhaps immune checkpoint blockade. However, none of these things are correlated. The main advice we are giving our lung cancer patients are to get vaccinated, get boosted (double boosted), and just do the smart thing to protect yourself from exposure,” he said.

For example, when traveling on a plane, patients should wear a mask. They should also avoid large indoor events. He also recommended that, following vaccination and boosters, patients seek out CLIA-certified tests to get their titer checked.

“Upon any COVID infection, even if their titer is at or above 80%, patients should see their physician to consider treatment with Paxlovid (nirmatrelvir/ritonavir), which has emergency use authorization. For patients with a lower titer, it’s important to seek out a physician and consider Paxlovid and possibly antibody therapy. But these are individual decisions to be made with your doctor,” Dr. Minna said.

The next important research question is what happens to T-cell immune response following vaccination. “We know that a good cellular immune response is also important in preventing infection and severe infection, but we don’t yet know which persons (with or without cancer) have good T-cell responses. This information will also likely impact what we tell our patients and will add to the antibody data,” he said.

Studies are ongoing to determine specific T-cell responses to mRNA vaccines, and how well those T-cell responses respond to SARS-CoV-2 infection in the laboratory.

About one in four patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have an unsatisfactory antibody response to the Omicron variant following COVID-19 vaccination, according to a new study.

The study was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

“Booster vaccination increased binding and neutralizing antibody titers to Omicron, but antibody titers declined after 3 months. These data highlight the concern for patients with cancer given the rapid spread of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant,” wrote the authors, who were led by Rafi Ahmed, PhD, Emory University, Atlanta.

Researchers found that 18% had no detectable antibody at all and active treatment type had no association with vaccine response.

Researchers examined antibody titers among 82 NSCLC patients and 53 healthy volunteers. They collected blood samples longitudinally for analysis. While most patients had binding and neutralizing antibody titers that were comparable with healthy volunteers, 25% had poor responses, which led to six- to sevenfold lower titers than healthy controls. There was no association between worse vaccine responses and history of programmed death–1 monotherapy, chemotherapy, or both in combination. Receipt of a booster vaccine improved binding and neutralizing antibody titers to both the wild type and the Omicron variant, but 2-4 months after the booster there was a five- to sevenfold decrease in neutralizing titers to both the wild type and Omicron variant.

“This study indicates both the need to monitor our patients with lung cancer for response to COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, identify the nonresponders for follow-up and further attempts at immunization, and continue collecting and analyzing clinicodemographic information and biospecimens from our patients,” wrote the authors of an accompanying editorial.

Although the findings reveal potential concerns, the good news is that most patients NSCLC patients do respond normally to COVID-19 vaccination, said John D. Minna, MD, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, lead author of the editorial.

He offered some advice to physicians. “You can test your patients using currently available [Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments]–approved lab tests to determine what their antibody titers are. This should be done after boosting since titers will go down after time. We know that if a patient has lung cancer and they do get infected with SARS-CoV-2 that potentially they could develop serious COVID-19 disease. Besides giving antiviral treatment, it is important that they be closely monitored for symptoms of progression so if they need to be hospitalized it can be done in a prudent manner,” said Dr. Minna, who is director of the Hamon Center for Therapeutic Oncology Research at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center.

No clinical details have emerged that might predict which patients have an insufficient response to vaccination. “When we started these studies, a lot of us thought that anyone who did not develop a good antibody response would be weak or sicker. For example, [patients with] late-stage disease, or having had a lot of therapy, or perhaps immune checkpoint blockade. However, none of these things are correlated. The main advice we are giving our lung cancer patients are to get vaccinated, get boosted (double boosted), and just do the smart thing to protect yourself from exposure,” he said.

For example, when traveling on a plane, patients should wear a mask. They should also avoid large indoor events. He also recommended that, following vaccination and boosters, patients seek out CLIA-certified tests to get their titer checked.

“Upon any COVID infection, even if their titer is at or above 80%, patients should see their physician to consider treatment with Paxlovid (nirmatrelvir/ritonavir), which has emergency use authorization. For patients with a lower titer, it’s important to seek out a physician and consider Paxlovid and possibly antibody therapy. But these are individual decisions to be made with your doctor,” Dr. Minna said.

The next important research question is what happens to T-cell immune response following vaccination. “We know that a good cellular immune response is also important in preventing infection and severe infection, but we don’t yet know which persons (with or without cancer) have good T-cell responses. This information will also likely impact what we tell our patients and will add to the antibody data,” he said.

Studies are ongoing to determine specific T-cell responses to mRNA vaccines, and how well those T-cell responses respond to SARS-CoV-2 infection in the laboratory.

New devices that use artificial intelligence (AI) to diagnose skin cancer – such as smartphone apps – have been popping up over the past few years, but there is some concern over the accuracy of these tools.

So far, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has cleared two devices. Both are computer-aided skin lesion classification devices meant to help clinicians assess cases of suspected melanoma.

Both were given a class III designation. That classification is intended for products that are considered to have a high risk of harm because of flawed design or implementation. Many such devices are under development, and there has been a proposal to include these devices in class II, which is less restrictive.

The FDA turned to one of its expert panels for advice. At a meeting held on Aug. 29, experts on the panel offered differing views and expressed concerns about the accuracy of these devices.

This was the second day of meetings of the general and plastic surgery devices panel of the FDA’s Medical Devices Advisory Committee. On the previous day, the panel held a wide-ranging discussion about expanding use of skin lesion analyzer devices.

The FDA sought the expert panel’s advice concerning a field that appears to be heating up quickly after relatively quiet times.

Two devices have been approved by the FDA so far, but only one is still being promoted – SciBase AB’s Nevisense. The Swedish company announced in May 2020 that it had received FDA approval for Nevisense 3.0, the third generation of their Nevisense system for early melanoma detection, an AI-based point-of-care system for the noninvasive evaluation of irregular moles.

The other device, known as MelaFind, was acquired by Strata Skin Sciences, but the company said in 2017 that it discontinued research and development, sales, and support activity related to the device, according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

But there’s been a swell in recent years in the number of publications related to the use of AI and machine learning, which could give rise to new tools for aiding in the diagnosis of skin conditions, including cancer. Google is among the companies that are involved in these efforts.

So, the FDA asked the expert panel to discuss a series of questions related to how the agency should weigh the risks of computer-aided devices for melanoma diagnosis. The agency also asked the panel to provide feedback about how well risks associated with such devices and tools might be managed and to offer suggestions.

The discussion at the July 29 meeting spun beyond narrow questions about reclassification of the current class III devices to topics involving emerging technology, such as efforts to apply AI to dermatology.

“Innovation continues. Medical device developers are anxious to plan how they might be able to develop the level of evidence that would meet your expectations” for future products, Binita Ashar, MD, a senior official in FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, told the panel.


 

Company CEO backs tougher regulation

Simon Grant, the chief executive of SciBase, which markets Nevisense, the first and only skin cancer–detecting device currently on the U.S. market, sought to make a case for sticking with the tougher class III regulations.

Speaking during the public comment session, Mr. Grant said switching to class II designations would weaken the standards used in clearing products that analyze skin lesions so as to put patients at risk.

Under the FDA’s rules, the agency designates as class III devices that present potential unreasonable risk of illness or injury. Only about 10% of devices fall into this category. Such devices include implantable pacemakers and breast implants, as well as SciBase’s Nevisense.

About 43% of medical devices fall into the class II category, which includes powered wheelchairs and some pregnancy test kits, the FDA website says.

Class I medical devices pose minimal potential for harm and tend to be simpler in design. These include enema kits and elastic bandages, the FDA says.

Mr. Grant told the meeting that in his career he has worked on two class III products and about 20 class II products. (He had previously worked at medical startups Synectics Medical and Neoventa, as well as established multinationals such as Medtronic.)

“I can tell you that – practically – the FDA has many fewer sticks and much less control when it comes to class II devices,” he said. He offered an example of a manufacturer of a class II device having more latitude in making small changes to products without notifying the FDA.

In his hypothetical example, such a change could have unintended consequences, and “with AI systems, small changes can result in large and nonlinear or even random effects,” Mr. Grant said. “But it’s too late if the product is on the market and the harm has already occurred,” he said.

The American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association also protested the reclassifying of approved computer-aided melanoma detection class III devices.

In a statement posted on the FDA website as part of the materials for the meeting, the ASDSA raised a series of concerns about the prospects of expanded U.S. use of tools for assisting in diagnosing melanoma, including ones that would be marketed to consumers.

“To the extent that algorithms and devices for patient self-diagnosis of skin lesions are already widely available, they should be required to include detailed disclaimers that include that they are for entertainment and educational purposes and not a diagnostic device, that they are not approved by dermatologists or a recognized medical regulatory authority for self-diagnosis,” the ASDSA said.

Devices and algorithms in screening tools “are not highly regulated and remain unproven. They may result in wrong diagnoses, missed diagnoses, or over- or underdiagnosis,” the ASDSA added. “Both patients at low risk and those at high risk are better served by scheduling an in-person examination with a board-certified dermatologist, who can also help them determine the appropriate future skin screening schedule that is most appropriate for them.”

 

‘Stepping stone’

However, there is strong consumer demand for better information about skin conditions, and many patients face hurdles in going to dermatologists.

Google research has shown that consumers are seeking “a stepping stone” between the information they can easily find online and what they could get from a medical professional, said Lily Peng, MD, PhD, a director of product management for the health AI team at Google. Dr. Peng was a scheduled presenter at the July 29 meeting.

Consumers often are looking for more information on common conditions such as acne and poison ivy, and they sometimes face challenges in getting access to clinicians, she said.

“There are many unmet needs for consumers experiencing skin issues, many of which are lower-acuity conditions. There’s a big opportunity to increase accessibility and relevance of health journeys for consumers,” Dr. Peng said. “We have heard from consumers that they would like to have a self-help tool for nonserious conditions so they can decide when to seek medical attention.”

Dr. Peng’s presentation was not directly related to the question of class II or class III designation for existing products. Instead, her talk served as a glimpse into the work already underway in creating apps and tools for consumers.

Google researchers have published a number of studies in recent years about the use of AI to improve dermatology diagnosis.

A 2020 article reported on Google’s test of a form of AI known as deep learning system (DLS) to provide a differential diagnosis of skin conditions. On 963 validation cases, where a rotating panel of three board-certified dermatologists defined the reference standard, the DLS was noninferior to six other dermatologists and was superior to six primary care physicians (PCPs) and six nurse practitioners (NPs), according to a summary of the article.

A 2021 report published in JAMA Network Open said that use of an AI tool was associated with a higher agreement rate with dermatologists’ reference diagnoses for both PCPs and NPs.

In a 2021 blog post, Google scientists wrote that their AI model that powers a tool for checking skin conditions had earned European clearance, known as a CE mark, as a class I medical device.

SkinVision has an app that the company says “is available worldwide (with the exception of the USA and Canada).” The firm’s website includes a link where people in the United States and Canada can sign up for notifications about when SkinVision will be available in these nations. 


 

‘Not ready for prime time’

The FDA panel did not cast formal votes at the July 29 meeting. Rather, the members engaged in broad discussions about risks and potential benefits of new tools for aiding in the detection of skin cancer.

Among the key issues discussed was a question of whether the FDA could impose requirements and restrictions, known as special controls, to provide “reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness” for computer-aided devices that provide adjunctive diagnostic information to dermatologists about lesions suspicious for melanoma.

Among the potential special controls would be clinical performance testing in regards to rates of the sensitivity (true-positive rate) and specificity (true-negative rate).

The FDA could also look at requirements on software validation and verification and cybersecurity testing, as well as directions on labeling so as to mitigate risk.

Dermatologists serving on the panel called for caution in proceeding with steps that would make it easier for companies to market tools for aiding in melanoma diagnosis than it would be within the class III framework used for MelaFind and Nevisense.

Many expressed concerns about the need to design studies that would answer questions about how well new tools could accurately identify concerning lesions.

The phrase “not ready for prime time” was used at least three times during the discussion.

FDA panelist Maral Skelsey, MD, a skin cancer specialist from Chevy Chase, Maryland, said that over the years, she had used both Nevisense and MelaFind.

She said she had found MelaFind “unusable,” owing in large part to the high number of false positives it generated. The device also was limited as to where on patients’ bodies it could be used.

However, she spoke with enthusiasm about the prospects for better devices to aid in diagnosis of skin lesions. “It’s an area where we’re on the verge, and we really need these devices. There’s a need for patients to be able to examine themselves, for nondermatologists to be able to assess lesions,” Dr. Skelsey said.

But this field is “just not ready for prime time” yet, even with special controls, Dr. Skelsey said. To loosen approval standards too quickly could be a “detriment to what’s coming down the pipeline,” she said.

“It’s harmful to things that are likely to be around the corner,” she said.

FDA panelist Renata Block, PA-C, who works in a Chicago dermatology practice, pressed for maintaining a class III designation. “We are not ready for prime time yet, though the data that is coming down the pipeline on what we have is quite exciting,” Ms. Block said.

FDA panelist Karla V. Ballman, PhD, a statistician from Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, said there would need to be a clear standard for clinical performance before proceeding toward reclassification of devices for aid in detecting melanoma. “I just don’t think it’s ready for prime time at this point and should remain in class III,” she said.

But there was support from some panelists for the idea of a lower bar for clearance, combined with special controls to ensure patient safety.

In expressing her view, FDA panelist Katalin Roth, MD, JD, professor of medicine, George Washington University, Washington, said she was an outlier in her support for the agency’s view that these risks could be managed and that future tools could allow more patients to take a step on the pathway toward critical diagnoses.

“I deal with a lot of people with cancer as a palliative care physician,” Dr. Roth said. “I think what we’re missing here is the issue of time. Melanoma is a terrible disease, and missing the diagnosis is a terrible thing, but I think special controls would be sufficient to counter the concerns of my colleagues on the committee.”

The FDA’s Dr. Ashar ended the meeting with questions posed to one panelist, Veronica Rotemberg, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

Dr. Rotemberg has for years been working in the field of research on developing AI and other computer-based tools for detecting and diagnosing melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer.

She has been publicly skeptical of the performance of commercial apps that scan moles and other lesions and that claim to identify which are cancerous. A May blog post on the Memorial Sloan Kettering website highlighted a recent British Journal of Dermatology article in which Dr. Rotemberg and coauthors reported on their evaluations of commercial apps. They judged them to be on average only 59% accurate, the blog post said.

However, during an earlier discussion at the meeting, she had spoken more positively about the prospects for using special controls in the near term to mitigate risk, although she said she would have a “very long list” of these requirements.

In the closing exchange with Dr. Ashar, Dr. Rotemberg outlined steps that could potentially ensure the safe use of tools to aid in melanoma screening. These included a need for postmarketing surveillance, which would require evaluation over time of algorithms used in tools meant to detect skin cancer.

“We need to have a mechanism for sampling,” Dr. Rotemberg said. “Most of our data is electronic now anyway, so comparing an algorithm and performance with biopsy results should not be that challenging.”

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

New devices that use artificial intelligence (AI) to diagnose skin cancer – such as smartphone apps – have been popping up over the past few years, but there is some concern over the accuracy of these tools.

So far, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has cleared two devices. Both are computer-aided skin lesion classification devices meant to help clinicians assess cases of suspected melanoma.

Both were given a class III designation. That classification is intended for products that are considered to have a high risk of harm because of flawed design or implementation. Many such devices are under development, and there has been a proposal to include these devices in class II, which is less restrictive.

The FDA turned to one of its expert panels for advice. At a meeting held on Aug. 29, experts on the panel offered differing views and expressed concerns about the accuracy of these devices.

This was the second day of meetings of the general and plastic surgery devices panel of the FDA’s Medical Devices Advisory Committee. On the previous day, the panel held a wide-ranging discussion about expanding use of skin lesion analyzer devices.

The FDA sought the expert panel’s advice concerning a field that appears to be heating up quickly after relatively quiet times.

Two devices have been approved by the FDA so far, but only one is still being promoted – SciBase AB’s Nevisense. The Swedish company announced in May 2020 that it had received FDA approval for Nevisense 3.0, the third generation of their Nevisense system for early melanoma detection, an AI-based point-of-care system for the noninvasive evaluation of irregular moles.

The other device, known as MelaFind, was acquired by Strata Skin Sciences, but the company said in 2017 that it discontinued research and development, sales, and support activity related to the device, according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

But there’s been a swell in recent years in the number of publications related to the use of AI and machine learning, which could give rise to new tools for aiding in the diagnosis of skin conditions, including cancer. Google is among the companies that are involved in these efforts.

So, the FDA asked the expert panel to discuss a series of questions related to how the agency should weigh the risks of computer-aided devices for melanoma diagnosis. The agency also asked the panel to provide feedback about how well risks associated with such devices and tools might be managed and to offer suggestions.

The discussion at the July 29 meeting spun beyond narrow questions about reclassification of the current class III devices to topics involving emerging technology, such as efforts to apply AI to dermatology.

“Innovation continues. Medical device developers are anxious to plan how they might be able to develop the level of evidence that would meet your expectations” for future products, Binita Ashar, MD, a senior official in FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, told the panel.


 

Company CEO backs tougher regulation

Simon Grant, the chief executive of SciBase, which markets Nevisense, the first and only skin cancer–detecting device currently on the U.S. market, sought to make a case for sticking with the tougher class III regulations.

Speaking during the public comment session, Mr. Grant said switching to class II designations would weaken the standards used in clearing products that analyze skin lesions so as to put patients at risk.

Under the FDA’s rules, the agency designates as class III devices that present potential unreasonable risk of illness or injury. Only about 10% of devices fall into this category. Such devices include implantable pacemakers and breast implants, as well as SciBase’s Nevisense.

About 43% of medical devices fall into the class II category, which includes powered wheelchairs and some pregnancy test kits, the FDA website says.

Class I medical devices pose minimal potential for harm and tend to be simpler in design. These include enema kits and elastic bandages, the FDA says.

Mr. Grant told the meeting that in his career he has worked on two class III products and about 20 class II products. (He had previously worked at medical startups Synectics Medical and Neoventa, as well as established multinationals such as Medtronic.)

“I can tell you that – practically – the FDA has many fewer sticks and much less control when it comes to class II devices,” he said. He offered an example of a manufacturer of a class II device having more latitude in making small changes to products without notifying the FDA.

In his hypothetical example, such a change could have unintended consequences, and “with AI systems, small changes can result in large and nonlinear or even random effects,” Mr. Grant said. “But it’s too late if the product is on the market and the harm has already occurred,” he said.

The American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association also protested the reclassifying of approved computer-aided melanoma detection class III devices.

In a statement posted on the FDA website as part of the materials for the meeting, the ASDSA raised a series of concerns about the prospects of expanded U.S. use of tools for assisting in diagnosing melanoma, including ones that would be marketed to consumers.

“To the extent that algorithms and devices for patient self-diagnosis of skin lesions are already widely available, they should be required to include detailed disclaimers that include that they are for entertainment and educational purposes and not a diagnostic device, that they are not approved by dermatologists or a recognized medical regulatory authority for self-diagnosis,” the ASDSA said.

Devices and algorithms in screening tools “are not highly regulated and remain unproven. They may result in wrong diagnoses, missed diagnoses, or over- or underdiagnosis,” the ASDSA added. “Both patients at low risk and those at high risk are better served by scheduling an in-person examination with a board-certified dermatologist, who can also help them determine the appropriate future skin screening schedule that is most appropriate for them.”

 

‘Stepping stone’

However, there is strong consumer demand for better information about skin conditions, and many patients face hurdles in going to dermatologists.

Google research has shown that consumers are seeking “a stepping stone” between the information they can easily find online and what they could get from a medical professional, said Lily Peng, MD, PhD, a director of product management for the health AI team at Google. Dr. Peng was a scheduled presenter at the July 29 meeting.

Consumers often are looking for more information on common conditions such as acne and poison ivy, and they sometimes face challenges in getting access to clinicians, she said.

“There are many unmet needs for consumers experiencing skin issues, many of which are lower-acuity conditions. There’s a big opportunity to increase accessibility and relevance of health journeys for consumers,” Dr. Peng said. “We have heard from consumers that they would like to have a self-help tool for nonserious conditions so they can decide when to seek medical attention.”

Dr. Peng’s presentation was not directly related to the question of class II or class III designation for existing products. Instead, her talk served as a glimpse into the work already underway in creating apps and tools for consumers.

Google researchers have published a number of studies in recent years about the use of AI to improve dermatology diagnosis.

A 2020 article reported on Google’s test of a form of AI known as deep learning system (DLS) to provide a differential diagnosis of skin conditions. On 963 validation cases, where a rotating panel of three board-certified dermatologists defined the reference standard, the DLS was noninferior to six other dermatologists and was superior to six primary care physicians (PCPs) and six nurse practitioners (NPs), according to a summary of the article.

A 2021 report published in JAMA Network Open said that use of an AI tool was associated with a higher agreement rate with dermatologists’ reference diagnoses for both PCPs and NPs.

In a 2021 blog post, Google scientists wrote that their AI model that powers a tool for checking skin conditions had earned European clearance, known as a CE mark, as a class I medical device.

SkinVision has an app that the company says “is available worldwide (with the exception of the USA and Canada).” The firm’s website includes a link where people in the United States and Canada can sign up for notifications about when SkinVision will be available in these nations. 


 

‘Not ready for prime time’

The FDA panel did not cast formal votes at the July 29 meeting. Rather, the members engaged in broad discussions about risks and potential benefits of new tools for aiding in the detection of skin cancer.

Among the key issues discussed was a question of whether the FDA could impose requirements and restrictions, known as special controls, to provide “reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness” for computer-aided devices that provide adjunctive diagnostic information to dermatologists about lesions suspicious for melanoma.

Among the potential special controls would be clinical performance testing in regards to rates of the sensitivity (true-positive rate) and specificity (true-negative rate).

The FDA could also look at requirements on software validation and verification and cybersecurity testing, as well as directions on labeling so as to mitigate risk.

Dermatologists serving on the panel called for caution in proceeding with steps that would make it easier for companies to market tools for aiding in melanoma diagnosis than it would be within the class III framework used for MelaFind and Nevisense.

Many expressed concerns about the need to design studies that would answer questions about how well new tools could accurately identify concerning lesions.

The phrase “not ready for prime time” was used at least three times during the discussion.

FDA panelist Maral Skelsey, MD, a skin cancer specialist from Chevy Chase, Maryland, said that over the years, she had used both Nevisense and MelaFind.

She said she had found MelaFind “unusable,” owing in large part to the high number of false positives it generated. The device also was limited as to where on patients’ bodies it could be used.

However, she spoke with enthusiasm about the prospects for better devices to aid in diagnosis of skin lesions. “It’s an area where we’re on the verge, and we really need these devices. There’s a need for patients to be able to examine themselves, for nondermatologists to be able to assess lesions,” Dr. Skelsey said.

But this field is “just not ready for prime time” yet, even with special controls, Dr. Skelsey said. To loosen approval standards too quickly could be a “detriment to what’s coming down the pipeline,” she said.

“It’s harmful to things that are likely to be around the corner,” she said.

FDA panelist Renata Block, PA-C, who works in a Chicago dermatology practice, pressed for maintaining a class III designation. “We are not ready for prime time yet, though the data that is coming down the pipeline on what we have is quite exciting,” Ms. Block said.

FDA panelist Karla V. Ballman, PhD, a statistician from Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, said there would need to be a clear standard for clinical performance before proceeding toward reclassification of devices for aid in detecting melanoma. “I just don’t think it’s ready for prime time at this point and should remain in class III,” she said.

But there was support from some panelists for the idea of a lower bar for clearance, combined with special controls to ensure patient safety.

In expressing her view, FDA panelist Katalin Roth, MD, JD, professor of medicine, George Washington University, Washington, said she was an outlier in her support for the agency’s view that these risks could be managed and that future tools could allow more patients to take a step on the pathway toward critical diagnoses.

“I deal with a lot of people with cancer as a palliative care physician,” Dr. Roth said. “I think what we’re missing here is the issue of time. Melanoma is a terrible disease, and missing the diagnosis is a terrible thing, but I think special controls would be sufficient to counter the concerns of my colleagues on the committee.”

The FDA’s Dr. Ashar ended the meeting with questions posed to one panelist, Veronica Rotemberg, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

Dr. Rotemberg has for years been working in the field of research on developing AI and other computer-based tools for detecting and diagnosing melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer.

She has been publicly skeptical of the performance of commercial apps that scan moles and other lesions and that claim to identify which are cancerous. A May blog post on the Memorial Sloan Kettering website highlighted a recent British Journal of Dermatology article in which Dr. Rotemberg and coauthors reported on their evaluations of commercial apps. They judged them to be on average only 59% accurate, the blog post said.

However, during an earlier discussion at the meeting, she had spoken more positively about the prospects for using special controls in the near term to mitigate risk, although she said she would have a “very long list” of these requirements.

In the closing exchange with Dr. Ashar, Dr. Rotemberg outlined steps that could potentially ensure the safe use of tools to aid in melanoma screening. These included a need for postmarketing surveillance, which would require evaluation over time of algorithms used in tools meant to detect skin cancer.

“We need to have a mechanism for sampling,” Dr. Rotemberg said. “Most of our data is electronic now anyway, so comparing an algorithm and performance with biopsy results should not be that challenging.”

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

New devices that use artificial intelligence (AI) to diagnose skin cancer – such as smartphone apps – have been popping up over the past few years, but there is some concern over the accuracy of these tools.

So far, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has cleared two devices. Both are computer-aided skin lesion classification devices meant to help clinicians assess cases of suspected melanoma.

Both were given a class III designation. That classification is intended for products that are considered to have a high risk of harm because of flawed design or implementation. Many such devices are under development, and there has been a proposal to include these devices in class II, which is less restrictive.

The FDA turned to one of its expert panels for advice. At a meeting held on Aug. 29, experts on the panel offered differing views and expressed concerns about the accuracy of these devices.

This was the second day of meetings of the general and plastic surgery devices panel of the FDA’s Medical Devices Advisory Committee. On the previous day, the panel held a wide-ranging discussion about expanding use of skin lesion analyzer devices.

The FDA sought the expert panel’s advice concerning a field that appears to be heating up quickly after relatively quiet times.

Two devices have been approved by the FDA so far, but only one is still being promoted – SciBase AB’s Nevisense. The Swedish company announced in May 2020 that it had received FDA approval for Nevisense 3.0, the third generation of their Nevisense system for early melanoma detection, an AI-based point-of-care system for the noninvasive evaluation of irregular moles.

The other device, known as MelaFind, was acquired by Strata Skin Sciences, but the company said in 2017 that it discontinued research and development, sales, and support activity related to the device, according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

But there’s been a swell in recent years in the number of publications related to the use of AI and machine learning, which could give rise to new tools for aiding in the diagnosis of skin conditions, including cancer. Google is among the companies that are involved in these efforts.

So, the FDA asked the expert panel to discuss a series of questions related to how the agency should weigh the risks of computer-aided devices for melanoma diagnosis. The agency also asked the panel to provide feedback about how well risks associated with such devices and tools might be managed and to offer suggestions.

The discussion at the July 29 meeting spun beyond narrow questions about reclassification of the current class III devices to topics involving emerging technology, such as efforts to apply AI to dermatology.

“Innovation continues. Medical device developers are anxious to plan how they might be able to develop the level of evidence that would meet your expectations” for future products, Binita Ashar, MD, a senior official in FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, told the panel.


 

Company CEO backs tougher regulation

Simon Grant, the chief executive of SciBase, which markets Nevisense, the first and only skin cancer–detecting device currently on the U.S. market, sought to make a case for sticking with the tougher class III regulations.

Speaking during the public comment session, Mr. Grant said switching to class II designations would weaken the standards used in clearing products that analyze skin lesions so as to put patients at risk.

Under the FDA’s rules, the agency designates as class III devices that present potential unreasonable risk of illness or injury. Only about 10% of devices fall into this category. Such devices include implantable pacemakers and breast implants, as well as SciBase’s Nevisense.

About 43% of medical devices fall into the class II category, which includes powered wheelchairs and some pregnancy test kits, the FDA website says.

Class I medical devices pose minimal potential for harm and tend to be simpler in design. These include enema kits and elastic bandages, the FDA says.

Mr. Grant told the meeting that in his career he has worked on two class III products and about 20 class II products. (He had previously worked at medical startups Synectics Medical and Neoventa, as well as established multinationals such as Medtronic.)

“I can tell you that – practically – the FDA has many fewer sticks and much less control when it comes to class II devices,” he said. He offered an example of a manufacturer of a class II device having more latitude in making small changes to products without notifying the FDA.

In his hypothetical example, such a change could have unintended consequences, and “with AI systems, small changes can result in large and nonlinear or even random effects,” Mr. Grant said. “But it’s too late if the product is on the market and the harm has already occurred,” he said.

The American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association also protested the reclassifying of approved computer-aided melanoma detection class III devices.

In a statement posted on the FDA website as part of the materials for the meeting, the ASDSA raised a series of concerns about the prospects of expanded U.S. use of tools for assisting in diagnosing melanoma, including ones that would be marketed to consumers.

“To the extent that algorithms and devices for patient self-diagnosis of skin lesions are already widely available, they should be required to include detailed disclaimers that include that they are for entertainment and educational purposes and not a diagnostic device, that they are not approved by dermatologists or a recognized medical regulatory authority for self-diagnosis,” the ASDSA said.

Devices and algorithms in screening tools “are not highly regulated and remain unproven. They may result in wrong diagnoses, missed diagnoses, or over- or underdiagnosis,” the ASDSA added. “Both patients at low risk and those at high risk are better served by scheduling an in-person examination with a board-certified dermatologist, who can also help them determine the appropriate future skin screening schedule that is most appropriate for them.”

 

‘Stepping stone’

However, there is strong consumer demand for better information about skin conditions, and many patients face hurdles in going to dermatologists.

Google research has shown that consumers are seeking “a stepping stone” between the information they can easily find online and what they could get from a medical professional, said Lily Peng, MD, PhD, a director of product management for the health AI team at Google. Dr. Peng was a scheduled presenter at the July 29 meeting.

Consumers often are looking for more information on common conditions such as acne and poison ivy, and they sometimes face challenges in getting access to clinicians, she said.

“There are many unmet needs for consumers experiencing skin issues, many of which are lower-acuity conditions. There’s a big opportunity to increase accessibility and relevance of health journeys for consumers,” Dr. Peng said. “We have heard from consumers that they would like to have a self-help tool for nonserious conditions so they can decide when to seek medical attention.”

Dr. Peng’s presentation was not directly related to the question of class II or class III designation for existing products. Instead, her talk served as a glimpse into the work already underway in creating apps and tools for consumers.

Google researchers have published a number of studies in recent years about the use of AI to improve dermatology diagnosis.

A 2020 article reported on Google’s test of a form of AI known as deep learning system (DLS) to provide a differential diagnosis of skin conditions. On 963 validation cases, where a rotating panel of three board-certified dermatologists defined the reference standard, the DLS was noninferior to six other dermatologists and was superior to six primary care physicians (PCPs) and six nurse practitioners (NPs), according to a summary of the article.

A 2021 report published in JAMA Network Open said that use of an AI tool was associated with a higher agreement rate with dermatologists’ reference diagnoses for both PCPs and NPs.

In a 2021 blog post, Google scientists wrote that their AI model that powers a tool for checking skin conditions had earned European clearance, known as a CE mark, as a class I medical device.

SkinVision has an app that the company says “is available worldwide (with the exception of the USA and Canada).” The firm’s website includes a link where people in the United States and Canada can sign up for notifications about when SkinVision will be available in these nations. 


 

‘Not ready for prime time’

The FDA panel did not cast formal votes at the July 29 meeting. Rather, the members engaged in broad discussions about risks and potential benefits of new tools for aiding in the detection of skin cancer.

Among the key issues discussed was a question of whether the FDA could impose requirements and restrictions, known as special controls, to provide “reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness” for computer-aided devices that provide adjunctive diagnostic information to dermatologists about lesions suspicious for melanoma.

Among the potential special controls would be clinical performance testing in regards to rates of the sensitivity (true-positive rate) and specificity (true-negative rate).

The FDA could also look at requirements on software validation and verification and cybersecurity testing, as well as directions on labeling so as to mitigate risk.

Dermatologists serving on the panel called for caution in proceeding with steps that would make it easier for companies to market tools for aiding in melanoma diagnosis than it would be within the class III framework used for MelaFind and Nevisense.

Many expressed concerns about the need to design studies that would answer questions about how well new tools could accurately identify concerning lesions.

The phrase “not ready for prime time” was used at least three times during the discussion.

FDA panelist Maral Skelsey, MD, a skin cancer specialist from Chevy Chase, Maryland, said that over the years, she had used both Nevisense and MelaFind.

She said she had found MelaFind “unusable,” owing in large part to the high number of false positives it generated. The device also was limited as to where on patients’ bodies it could be used.

However, she spoke with enthusiasm about the prospects for better devices to aid in diagnosis of skin lesions. “It’s an area where we’re on the verge, and we really need these devices. There’s a need for patients to be able to examine themselves, for nondermatologists to be able to assess lesions,” Dr. Skelsey said.

But this field is “just not ready for prime time” yet, even with special controls, Dr. Skelsey said. To loosen approval standards too quickly could be a “detriment to what’s coming down the pipeline,” she said.

“It’s harmful to things that are likely to be around the corner,” she said.

FDA panelist Renata Block, PA-C, who works in a Chicago dermatology practice, pressed for maintaining a class III designation. “We are not ready for prime time yet, though the data that is coming down the pipeline on what we have is quite exciting,” Ms. Block said.

FDA panelist Karla V. Ballman, PhD, a statistician from Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, said there would need to be a clear standard for clinical performance before proceeding toward reclassification of devices for aid in detecting melanoma. “I just don’t think it’s ready for prime time at this point and should remain in class III,” she said.

But there was support from some panelists for the idea of a lower bar for clearance, combined with special controls to ensure patient safety.

In expressing her view, FDA panelist Katalin Roth, MD, JD, professor of medicine, George Washington University, Washington, said she was an outlier in her support for the agency’s view that these risks could be managed and that future tools could allow more patients to take a step on the pathway toward critical diagnoses.

“I deal with a lot of people with cancer as a palliative care physician,” Dr. Roth said. “I think what we’re missing here is the issue of time. Melanoma is a terrible disease, and missing the diagnosis is a terrible thing, but I think special controls would be sufficient to counter the concerns of my colleagues on the committee.”

The FDA’s Dr. Ashar ended the meeting with questions posed to one panelist, Veronica Rotemberg, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

Dr. Rotemberg has for years been working in the field of research on developing AI and other computer-based tools for detecting and diagnosing melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer.

She has been publicly skeptical of the performance of commercial apps that scan moles and other lesions and that claim to identify which are cancerous. A May blog post on the Memorial Sloan Kettering website highlighted a recent British Journal of Dermatology article in which Dr. Rotemberg and coauthors reported on their evaluations of commercial apps. They judged them to be on average only 59% accurate, the blog post said.

However, during an earlier discussion at the meeting, she had spoken more positively about the prospects for using special controls in the near term to mitigate risk, although she said she would have a “very long list” of these requirements.

In the closing exchange with Dr. Ashar, Dr. Rotemberg outlined steps that could potentially ensure the safe use of tools to aid in melanoma screening. These included a need for postmarketing surveillance, which would require evaluation over time of algorithms used in tools meant to detect skin cancer.

“We need to have a mechanism for sampling,” Dr. Rotemberg said. “Most of our data is electronic now anyway, so comparing an algorithm and performance with biopsy results should not be that challenging.”

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

Some patients with blood cancers for whom all other therapeutic options have been exhausted have one final chance of getting rid of their disease: treatment with chimeric antigen-receptor (CAR) T cells.

Described as a “living drug,” the treatment involves genetically engineering the patient’s own blood cells and reinfusing them back into their system. These CAR T cells then hunt down and destroy cancer cells; in some cases, they manage to eradicate the disease completely.

About half of patients with leukemia or lymphoma and about a third of those with multiple myeloma who receive this treatment have a complete remission and achieve a functional “cure.”

But not all patients who could benefit from this therapy are able to get it. Some are spending months on waiting lists, often deteriorating while they wait. These patients have exhausted all other therapeutic options, and many are facing hospice and death.

The scope of this problem was illustrated by a recent survey of the centers that are certified to deliver this complex therapy.

The survey was led by Yi Lin, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and medical director for the cellular therapy program. It was published as an abstract at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology recently, although it was not presented there.

“We wanted to find out just how widespread this problem is,” Dr. Lin said, adding: “There had been nothing in the literature thus far about it.”

The team contacted 20 centers across the United States and received responses from 17. Results showed that the median time on the waiting list was 6 months and that only 25% of patients eventually received CAR T-cell therapy. An additional 25% were able to enter a CAR T clinical trial. The remaining 50% of patients either were enrolled in a different type of trial, entered hospice, or died.

For patient selection, all centers reported using a committee of experienced physicians to ensure consistency. They employed different ethical principles for selection. Some centers sought to maximize the total benefit, such as selecting the patients most likely to achieve leukapheresis or a clinical response, while others based their decisions on the time patients spent on waiting list or gave priority to the patients who were the “worst off” with the most limited therapeutic options.
 

Shortage affecting mostly myeloma patients

The shortages in CAR T-cell therapies primarily involve the products used for patients with multiple myeloma.

The problem has not, as yet, noticeably spilled over to lymphoma and leukemia treatments, which use a slightly different type of CAR T-cell therapy (it targets CD19, whereas the cell therapies used for myeloma target BCMA).

“We have backlog of myeloma patients who don’t have access,” said Nina Shah, MD, a hematologist and professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco. “We have only four slots for the two myeloma products but about 50-60 eligible patients.”

Long waiting times for CAR T cells for myeloma have been an issue ever since the first of these products appeared on the market: idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel; Abecma), developed by Bluebird Bio and Bristol-Myers Squibb. “As soon as it became available in March 2021, we had people waiting and limits on our access to it,” Dr. Shah said.

A second CAR T-cell therapy for myeloma, ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel, Carvykti), developed by Janssen and Legend Biotech, received approval in February 2022. While that helped provide centers with a few more slots, it wasn’t sufficient to cut waiting times, and the demand for these myeloma therapies continues to outstrip the capacity to produce CAR-T products in a timely manner.

“For myeloma, the demand is very high, as most patients are not cured from any other existing myeloma therapies, and most patients will make it to fifth-line therapy where the two CAR T-cell products are approved right now,” said Krina K. Patel, MD, medical director of the department of lymphoma/myeloma in the division of cancer medicine at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

“We likely have 10 eligible CAR-T myeloma patients each month at our center,” she said, “but were getting two slots per month for the past 8 months, and now are getting four slots a month.”

“Our clinic has also experienced the impact of the low number of manufacturing slots offered to each cancer center for some CAR T-cell products,” said David Maloney, MD, PhD, medical director, Cellular Immunotherapy and Bezos Family Immunotherapy Clinic, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance.

He noted that, as with other cancer centers, for multiple myeloma they are provided a specific number of manufacturing slots for each treatment. “Our providers discuss which patients are most appropriate for available slots for that month,” said Dr. Maloney.

“Additionally, juggling patient schedules may be required to address the extended manufacturing time for some products. In some cases, clinical trials may be available in a more timely fashion for appropriate patients, and in some cases, switching to an alternative product is possible,” he commented.
 

Complex causes behind bottleneck

The cause of the current bottleneck for myeloma patients is complex. It stems from a shortage of raw materials and supply chain restraints, among other things.

While the biggest impact of shortages has been on patients with multiple myeloma, Dr. Patel pointed out that these constraints are also affecting patients with lymphoma at her institution, but to a lesser degree.

“This is multifactorial as to why, but most of the issues arise from manufacturing,” Dr. Patel said in an interview. “Initially, the FDA limited how many slots each new product could have per month, then there was a viral vector shortage, and then the quality-control process the FDA requires takes longer than the manufacturing of the cells actually do.”

On top of that, “we have about a 5% manufacturing fail rate so far,” she added. Such failures occur when the cells taken from a patient cannot be converted into CAR T cells for therapy.

Matthew J. Frigault, MD, from the Center for Cellular Therapies, Mass General Cancer Center, Boston, explained that the growing excitement about the potential for cellular therapy and recent approvals for these products for use in earlier lines of treatment have increased demand for them.

There are also problems regarding supply. Manufacture and delivery of CAR T is complicated and takes time to scale up, Dr. Frigault pointed out. “Therefore, we are seeing limited access, more so for the BCMA-directed therapies [which are used for myeloma].”

The shortages and delays likely involve two main factors. “For the newer indications, there is a significant backlog of patients who have been waiting for these therapies and have not been able to access them in the clinical trial setting, and manufacturing is extremely complicated and not easily scaled up,” he said.

“That being said, manufacturers are trying to increase the number of available manufacturing slots and decrease the time needed to manufacture cells,” Dr. Frigault commented.

Delays in access to myeloma CAR T-cell therapy are also affecting patient care at Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia. “We have had about one slot every 2 months for Abecma,” noted Henry Fung, MD, chair of the department of bone marrow transplant and cellular therapies at Fox Chase. “For Carvykti, there are only 32 certified centers in [the] U.S., and access is very limited.”

Dr. Fung explained that they have had to offer alternative treatments to many of their patients. “There are rumors that there’s shortage in obtaining raw materials, such as the virus used for transduction, although we have not encountered any problems in other CAR T products used for lymphomas.”
 

Pharma companies trying to meet the demand

This news organization reached out to the manufacturers of CAR T products. All have reported that they are doing what they feasibly can to ramp up production.

“The complexity of delivering CAR T-cell therapies is unlike any other traditional biologic or small-molecule medicine, using a patient’s own cells to start a highly sophisticated and personalized manufacturing process,” commented a spokesperson for BMS, which has two CAR T-cell products currently on the market.

“In this nascent field of cell therapy, we continue to evolve every day, addressing supply and manufacturing challenges head on by applying key learnings across our three state-of-the-art cell therapy facilities and two new facilities in progress.

“We have been encouraged by a steady increase in our manufacturing capacity, and we continue efforts to ramp up further to meet the demand for our cell therapies,” the BMS spokesperson commented. “We have already seen improvements in the stabilization of vector supply and expect additional improvements in capacity in the second half of 2022.”

Novartis said much the same thing. They have a “comprehensive, integrated global CAR-T manufacturing footprint that strengthens the flexibility, resilience, and sustainability of the Novartis manufacturing and supply chain. Together with an improved manufacturing process, we are confident in our ability to meet patient demand with timely delivery,” according to a Novartis spokesperson.

The spokesperson also pointed out that the company has continuously incorporated process improvements that have significantly increased manufacturing capacity and success rates for patients in need of CAR T cells.

“Data presented at [the] American Society of Hematology annual meeting in 2021 showed the Novartis Morris Plains facility, our flagship CAR T manufacturing site, had commercial manufacturing and shipping success rates of 96% and 99%, respectively, between January and August 2021,” according to the spokesperson.

Legend and Janssen, the companies behind Carvykti, one of the two approved cell products for myeloma, which launched earlier in 2022, said that they have continued to activate certified treatment centers in a phased approach that will enable them to expand availability throughout 2022 and beyond.

“This phased approach was designed to ensure the highest level of predictability and reliability for the patient and the certified treatment centers,” the spokesperson said. “We understand the urgency for patients in need of Carvyki and are committed to doing everything we can to accelerate our ability to deliver this important cell therapy in a reliable and timely manner.”

With regard to the industry-wide supply shortage of lentivirus, Legend and Janssen say they have put in place multiple processes to address the shortage, “including enhancing our own internal manufacturing capabilities of this essential drug substance, to ensure sufficient and sustained supply.”
 

Incredibly exciting potential

Given the immense potential of CAR T-cell therapy, the supply shortage that myeloma patients are experiencing is all the more poignant and distressing. While not everyone benefits, some patients for whom every other therapy failed and who were facing hospice have had dramatic results.

“Incredibly exciting with unbelievable potential” was how one expert described these new therapies when the first product was about to enter the marketplace. Since then, six CAR T-cell therapies have received regulatory approval for an ever-increasing range of hematologic malignancies.

But these CAR T-cell therapies have their own set of adverse events, which can be serious and even life-threatening. In addition, not all patients become cancer free, although long-term data are impressive.

A study that included one of the longest follow-ups to date was reported at the 2020 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. The researchers reported that remissions lasted over 9 years for patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell lymphoma or chronic lymphocytic leukemia who underwent treatment with Kite’s axicaptagene cilleucel (Yescarta). This review included 43 patients and showed an overall remission rate of 76%. Complete remission was achieved for 54% of patients, and partial remission was achieved for 22%.

The results with CAR T-cell therapy in multiple myeloma are not quite as impressive, but even so, the clinical data that supported the approval of Abecma showed that a third of patients, who had previously received a median of six prior therapies, achieved a complete response.

At the time of the Abecma approval, the lead investigator of the study, Nikhil Munshi, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, commented: “The results of this trial represent a true turning point in the treatment of this disease. In my 30 years of treating myeloma, I have not seen any other therapy as effective in this group of patients.”

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

Some patients with blood cancers for whom all other therapeutic options have been exhausted have one final chance of getting rid of their disease: treatment with chimeric antigen-receptor (CAR) T cells.

Described as a “living drug,” the treatment involves genetically engineering the patient’s own blood cells and reinfusing them back into their system. These CAR T cells then hunt down and destroy cancer cells; in some cases, they manage to eradicate the disease completely.

About half of patients with leukemia or lymphoma and about a third of those with multiple myeloma who receive this treatment have a complete remission and achieve a functional “cure.”

But not all patients who could benefit from this therapy are able to get it. Some are spending months on waiting lists, often deteriorating while they wait. These patients have exhausted all other therapeutic options, and many are facing hospice and death.

The scope of this problem was illustrated by a recent survey of the centers that are certified to deliver this complex therapy.

The survey was led by Yi Lin, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and medical director for the cellular therapy program. It was published as an abstract at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology recently, although it was not presented there.

“We wanted to find out just how widespread this problem is,” Dr. Lin said, adding: “There had been nothing in the literature thus far about it.”

The team contacted 20 centers across the United States and received responses from 17. Results showed that the median time on the waiting list was 6 months and that only 25% of patients eventually received CAR T-cell therapy. An additional 25% were able to enter a CAR T clinical trial. The remaining 50% of patients either were enrolled in a different type of trial, entered hospice, or died.

For patient selection, all centers reported using a committee of experienced physicians to ensure consistency. They employed different ethical principles for selection. Some centers sought to maximize the total benefit, such as selecting the patients most likely to achieve leukapheresis or a clinical response, while others based their decisions on the time patients spent on waiting list or gave priority to the patients who were the “worst off” with the most limited therapeutic options.
 

Shortage affecting mostly myeloma patients

The shortages in CAR T-cell therapies primarily involve the products used for patients with multiple myeloma.

The problem has not, as yet, noticeably spilled over to lymphoma and leukemia treatments, which use a slightly different type of CAR T-cell therapy (it targets CD19, whereas the cell therapies used for myeloma target BCMA).

“We have backlog of myeloma patients who don’t have access,” said Nina Shah, MD, a hematologist and professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco. “We have only four slots for the two myeloma products but about 50-60 eligible patients.”

Long waiting times for CAR T cells for myeloma have been an issue ever since the first of these products appeared on the market: idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel; Abecma), developed by Bluebird Bio and Bristol-Myers Squibb. “As soon as it became available in March 2021, we had people waiting and limits on our access to it,” Dr. Shah said.

A second CAR T-cell therapy for myeloma, ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel, Carvykti), developed by Janssen and Legend Biotech, received approval in February 2022. While that helped provide centers with a few more slots, it wasn’t sufficient to cut waiting times, and the demand for these myeloma therapies continues to outstrip the capacity to produce CAR-T products in a timely manner.

“For myeloma, the demand is very high, as most patients are not cured from any other existing myeloma therapies, and most patients will make it to fifth-line therapy where the two CAR T-cell products are approved right now,” said Krina K. Patel, MD, medical director of the department of lymphoma/myeloma in the division of cancer medicine at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

“We likely have 10 eligible CAR-T myeloma patients each month at our center,” she said, “but were getting two slots per month for the past 8 months, and now are getting four slots a month.”

“Our clinic has also experienced the impact of the low number of manufacturing slots offered to each cancer center for some CAR T-cell products,” said David Maloney, MD, PhD, medical director, Cellular Immunotherapy and Bezos Family Immunotherapy Clinic, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance.

He noted that, as with other cancer centers, for multiple myeloma they are provided a specific number of manufacturing slots for each treatment. “Our providers discuss which patients are most appropriate for available slots for that month,” said Dr. Maloney.

“Additionally, juggling patient schedules may be required to address the extended manufacturing time for some products. In some cases, clinical trials may be available in a more timely fashion for appropriate patients, and in some cases, switching to an alternative product is possible,” he commented.
 

Complex causes behind bottleneck

The cause of the current bottleneck for myeloma patients is complex. It stems from a shortage of raw materials and supply chain restraints, among other things.

While the biggest impact of shortages has been on patients with multiple myeloma, Dr. Patel pointed out that these constraints are also affecting patients with lymphoma at her institution, but to a lesser degree.

“This is multifactorial as to why, but most of the issues arise from manufacturing,” Dr. Patel said in an interview. “Initially, the FDA limited how many slots each new product could have per month, then there was a viral vector shortage, and then the quality-control process the FDA requires takes longer than the manufacturing of the cells actually do.”

On top of that, “we have about a 5% manufacturing fail rate so far,” she added. Such failures occur when the cells taken from a patient cannot be converted into CAR T cells for therapy.

Matthew J. Frigault, MD, from the Center for Cellular Therapies, Mass General Cancer Center, Boston, explained that the growing excitement about the potential for cellular therapy and recent approvals for these products for use in earlier lines of treatment have increased demand for them.

There are also problems regarding supply. Manufacture and delivery of CAR T is complicated and takes time to scale up, Dr. Frigault pointed out. “Therefore, we are seeing limited access, more so for the BCMA-directed therapies [which are used for myeloma].”

The shortages and delays likely involve two main factors. “For the newer indications, there is a significant backlog of patients who have been waiting for these therapies and have not been able to access them in the clinical trial setting, and manufacturing is extremely complicated and not easily scaled up,” he said.

“That being said, manufacturers are trying to increase the number of available manufacturing slots and decrease the time needed to manufacture cells,” Dr. Frigault commented.

Delays in access to myeloma CAR T-cell therapy are also affecting patient care at Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia. “We have had about one slot every 2 months for Abecma,” noted Henry Fung, MD, chair of the department of bone marrow transplant and cellular therapies at Fox Chase. “For Carvykti, there are only 32 certified centers in [the] U.S., and access is very limited.”

Dr. Fung explained that they have had to offer alternative treatments to many of their patients. “There are rumors that there’s shortage in obtaining raw materials, such as the virus used for transduction, although we have not encountered any problems in other CAR T products used for lymphomas.”
 

Pharma companies trying to meet the demand

This news organization reached out to the manufacturers of CAR T products. All have reported that they are doing what they feasibly can to ramp up production.

“The complexity of delivering CAR T-cell therapies is unlike any other traditional biologic or small-molecule medicine, using a patient’s own cells to start a highly sophisticated and personalized manufacturing process,” commented a spokesperson for BMS, which has two CAR T-cell products currently on the market.

“In this nascent field of cell therapy, we continue to evolve every day, addressing supply and manufacturing challenges head on by applying key learnings across our three state-of-the-art cell therapy facilities and two new facilities in progress.

“We have been encouraged by a steady increase in our manufacturing capacity, and we continue efforts to ramp up further to meet the demand for our cell therapies,” the BMS spokesperson commented. “We have already seen improvements in the stabilization of vector supply and expect additional improvements in capacity in the second half of 2022.”

Novartis said much the same thing. They have a “comprehensive, integrated global CAR-T manufacturing footprint that strengthens the flexibility, resilience, and sustainability of the Novartis manufacturing and supply chain. Together with an improved manufacturing process, we are confident in our ability to meet patient demand with timely delivery,” according to a Novartis spokesperson.

The spokesperson also pointed out that the company has continuously incorporated process improvements that have significantly increased manufacturing capacity and success rates for patients in need of CAR T cells.

“Data presented at [the] American Society of Hematology annual meeting in 2021 showed the Novartis Morris Plains facility, our flagship CAR T manufacturing site, had commercial manufacturing and shipping success rates of 96% and 99%, respectively, between January and August 2021,” according to the spokesperson.

Legend and Janssen, the companies behind Carvykti, one of the two approved cell products for myeloma, which launched earlier in 2022, said that they have continued to activate certified treatment centers in a phased approach that will enable them to expand availability throughout 2022 and beyond.

“This phased approach was designed to ensure the highest level of predictability and reliability for the patient and the certified treatment centers,” the spokesperson said. “We understand the urgency for patients in need of Carvyki and are committed to doing everything we can to accelerate our ability to deliver this important cell therapy in a reliable and timely manner.”

With regard to the industry-wide supply shortage of lentivirus, Legend and Janssen say they have put in place multiple processes to address the shortage, “including enhancing our own internal manufacturing capabilities of this essential drug substance, to ensure sufficient and sustained supply.”
 

Incredibly exciting potential

Given the immense potential of CAR T-cell therapy, the supply shortage that myeloma patients are experiencing is all the more poignant and distressing. While not everyone benefits, some patients for whom every other therapy failed and who were facing hospice have had dramatic results.

“Incredibly exciting with unbelievable potential” was how one expert described these new therapies when the first product was about to enter the marketplace. Since then, six CAR T-cell therapies have received regulatory approval for an ever-increasing range of hematologic malignancies.

But these CAR T-cell therapies have their own set of adverse events, which can be serious and even life-threatening. In addition, not all patients become cancer free, although long-term data are impressive.

A study that included one of the longest follow-ups to date was reported at the 2020 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. The researchers reported that remissions lasted over 9 years for patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell lymphoma or chronic lymphocytic leukemia who underwent treatment with Kite’s axicaptagene cilleucel (Yescarta). This review included 43 patients and showed an overall remission rate of 76%. Complete remission was achieved for 54% of patients, and partial remission was achieved for 22%.

The results with CAR T-cell therapy in multiple myeloma are not quite as impressive, but even so, the clinical data that supported the approval of Abecma showed that a third of patients, who had previously received a median of six prior therapies, achieved a complete response.

At the time of the Abecma approval, the lead investigator of the study, Nikhil Munshi, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, commented: “The results of this trial represent a true turning point in the treatment of this disease. In my 30 years of treating myeloma, I have not seen any other therapy as effective in this group of patients.”

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

Some patients with blood cancers for whom all other therapeutic options have been exhausted have one final chance of getting rid of their disease: treatment with chimeric antigen-receptor (CAR) T cells.

Described as a “living drug,” the treatment involves genetically engineering the patient’s own blood cells and reinfusing them back into their system. These CAR T cells then hunt down and destroy cancer cells; in some cases, they manage to eradicate the disease completely.

About half of patients with leukemia or lymphoma and about a third of those with multiple myeloma who receive this treatment have a complete remission and achieve a functional “cure.”

But not all patients who could benefit from this therapy are able to get it. Some are spending months on waiting lists, often deteriorating while they wait. These patients have exhausted all other therapeutic options, and many are facing hospice and death.

The scope of this problem was illustrated by a recent survey of the centers that are certified to deliver this complex therapy.

The survey was led by Yi Lin, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and medical director for the cellular therapy program. It was published as an abstract at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology recently, although it was not presented there.

“We wanted to find out just how widespread this problem is,” Dr. Lin said, adding: “There had been nothing in the literature thus far about it.”

The team contacted 20 centers across the United States and received responses from 17. Results showed that the median time on the waiting list was 6 months and that only 25% of patients eventually received CAR T-cell therapy. An additional 25% were able to enter a CAR T clinical trial. The remaining 50% of patients either were enrolled in a different type of trial, entered hospice, or died.

For patient selection, all centers reported using a committee of experienced physicians to ensure consistency. They employed different ethical principles for selection. Some centers sought to maximize the total benefit, such as selecting the patients most likely to achieve leukapheresis or a clinical response, while others based their decisions on the time patients spent on waiting list or gave priority to the patients who were the “worst off” with the most limited therapeutic options.
 

Shortage affecting mostly myeloma patients

The shortages in CAR T-cell therapies primarily involve the products used for patients with multiple myeloma.

The problem has not, as yet, noticeably spilled over to lymphoma and leukemia treatments, which use a slightly different type of CAR T-cell therapy (it targets CD19, whereas the cell therapies used for myeloma target BCMA).

“We have backlog of myeloma patients who don’t have access,” said Nina Shah, MD, a hematologist and professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco. “We have only four slots for the two myeloma products but about 50-60 eligible patients.”

Long waiting times for CAR T cells for myeloma have been an issue ever since the first of these products appeared on the market: idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel; Abecma), developed by Bluebird Bio and Bristol-Myers Squibb. “As soon as it became available in March 2021, we had people waiting and limits on our access to it,” Dr. Shah said.

A second CAR T-cell therapy for myeloma, ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel, Carvykti), developed by Janssen and Legend Biotech, received approval in February 2022. While that helped provide centers with a few more slots, it wasn’t sufficient to cut waiting times, and the demand for these myeloma therapies continues to outstrip the capacity to produce CAR-T products in a timely manner.

“For myeloma, the demand is very high, as most patients are not cured from any other existing myeloma therapies, and most patients will make it to fifth-line therapy where the two CAR T-cell products are approved right now,” said Krina K. Patel, MD, medical director of the department of lymphoma/myeloma in the division of cancer medicine at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

“We likely have 10 eligible CAR-T myeloma patients each month at our center,” she said, “but were getting two slots per month for the past 8 months, and now are getting four slots a month.”

“Our clinic has also experienced the impact of the low number of manufacturing slots offered to each cancer center for some CAR T-cell products,” said David Maloney, MD, PhD, medical director, Cellular Immunotherapy and Bezos Family Immunotherapy Clinic, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance.

He noted that, as with other cancer centers, for multiple myeloma they are provided a specific number of manufacturing slots for each treatment. “Our providers discuss which patients are most appropriate for available slots for that month,” said Dr. Maloney.

“Additionally, juggling patient schedules may be required to address the extended manufacturing time for some products. In some cases, clinical trials may be available in a more timely fashion for appropriate patients, and in some cases, switching to an alternative product is possible,” he commented.
 

Complex causes behind bottleneck

The cause of the current bottleneck for myeloma patients is complex. It stems from a shortage of raw materials and supply chain restraints, among other things.

While the biggest impact of shortages has been on patients with multiple myeloma, Dr. Patel pointed out that these constraints are also affecting patients with lymphoma at her institution, but to a lesser degree.

“This is multifactorial as to why, but most of the issues arise from manufacturing,” Dr. Patel said in an interview. “Initially, the FDA limited how many slots each new product could have per month, then there was a viral vector shortage, and then the quality-control process the FDA requires takes longer than the manufacturing of the cells actually do.”

On top of that, “we have about a 5% manufacturing fail rate so far,” she added. Such failures occur when the cells taken from a patient cannot be converted into CAR T cells for therapy.

Matthew J. Frigault, MD, from the Center for Cellular Therapies, Mass General Cancer Center, Boston, explained that the growing excitement about the potential for cellular therapy and recent approvals for these products for use in earlier lines of treatment have increased demand for them.

There are also problems regarding supply. Manufacture and delivery of CAR T is complicated and takes time to scale up, Dr. Frigault pointed out. “Therefore, we are seeing limited access, more so for the BCMA-directed therapies [which are used for myeloma].”

The shortages and delays likely involve two main factors. “For the newer indications, there is a significant backlog of patients who have been waiting for these therapies and have not been able to access them in the clinical trial setting, and manufacturing is extremely complicated and not easily scaled up,” he said.

“That being said, manufacturers are trying to increase the number of available manufacturing slots and decrease the time needed to manufacture cells,” Dr. Frigault commented.

Delays in access to myeloma CAR T-cell therapy are also affecting patient care at Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia. “We have had about one slot every 2 months for Abecma,” noted Henry Fung, MD, chair of the department of bone marrow transplant and cellular therapies at Fox Chase. “For Carvykti, there are only 32 certified centers in [the] U.S., and access is very limited.”

Dr. Fung explained that they have had to offer alternative treatments to many of their patients. “There are rumors that there’s shortage in obtaining raw materials, such as the virus used for transduction, although we have not encountered any problems in other CAR T products used for lymphomas.”
 

Pharma companies trying to meet the demand

This news organization reached out to the manufacturers of CAR T products. All have reported that they are doing what they feasibly can to ramp up production.

“The complexity of delivering CAR T-cell therapies is unlike any other traditional biologic or small-molecule medicine, using a patient’s own cells to start a highly sophisticated and personalized manufacturing process,” commented a spokesperson for BMS, which has two CAR T-cell products currently on the market.

“In this nascent field of cell therapy, we continue to evolve every day, addressing supply and manufacturing challenges head on by applying key learnings across our three state-of-the-art cell therapy facilities and two new facilities in progress.

“We have been encouraged by a steady increase in our manufacturing capacity, and we continue efforts to ramp up further to meet the demand for our cell therapies,” the BMS spokesperson commented. “We have already seen improvements in the stabilization of vector supply and expect additional improvements in capacity in the second half of 2022.”

Novartis said much the same thing. They have a “comprehensive, integrated global CAR-T manufacturing footprint that strengthens the flexibility, resilience, and sustainability of the Novartis manufacturing and supply chain. Together with an improved manufacturing process, we are confident in our ability to meet patient demand with timely delivery,” according to a Novartis spokesperson.

The spokesperson also pointed out that the company has continuously incorporated process improvements that have significantly increased manufacturing capacity and success rates for patients in need of CAR T cells.

“Data presented at [the] American Society of Hematology annual meeting in 2021 showed the Novartis Morris Plains facility, our flagship CAR T manufacturing site, had commercial manufacturing and shipping success rates of 96% and 99%, respectively, between January and August 2021,” according to the spokesperson.

Legend and Janssen, the companies behind Carvykti, one of the two approved cell products for myeloma, which launched earlier in 2022, said that they have continued to activate certified treatment centers in a phased approach that will enable them to expand availability throughout 2022 and beyond.

“This phased approach was designed to ensure the highest level of predictability and reliability for the patient and the certified treatment centers,” the spokesperson said. “We understand the urgency for patients in need of Carvyki and are committed to doing everything we can to accelerate our ability to deliver this important cell therapy in a reliable and timely manner.”

With regard to the industry-wide supply shortage of lentivirus, Legend and Janssen say they have put in place multiple processes to address the shortage, “including enhancing our own internal manufacturing capabilities of this essential drug substance, to ensure sufficient and sustained supply.”
 

Incredibly exciting potential

Given the immense potential of CAR T-cell therapy, the supply shortage that myeloma patients are experiencing is all the more poignant and distressing. While not everyone benefits, some patients for whom every other therapy failed and who were facing hospice have had dramatic results.

“Incredibly exciting with unbelievable potential” was how one expert described these new therapies when the first product was about to enter the marketplace. Since then, six CAR T-cell therapies have received regulatory approval for an ever-increasing range of hematologic malignancies.

But these CAR T-cell therapies have their own set of adverse events, which can be serious and even life-threatening. In addition, not all patients become cancer free, although long-term data are impressive.

A study that included one of the longest follow-ups to date was reported at the 2020 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. The researchers reported that remissions lasted over 9 years for patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell lymphoma or chronic lymphocytic leukemia who underwent treatment with Kite’s axicaptagene cilleucel (Yescarta). This review included 43 patients and showed an overall remission rate of 76%. Complete remission was achieved for 54% of patients, and partial remission was achieved for 22%.

The results with CAR T-cell therapy in multiple myeloma are not quite as impressive, but even so, the clinical data that supported the approval of Abecma showed that a third of patients, who had previously received a median of six prior therapies, achieved a complete response.

At the time of the Abecma approval, the lead investigator of the study, Nikhil Munshi, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, commented: “The results of this trial represent a true turning point in the treatment of this disease. In my 30 years of treating myeloma, I have not seen any other therapy as effective in this group of patients.”

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

A new blood test that analyzes DNA shed by metastatic cancers could reveal characteristics unique to each patient’s tumor and allow physicians to develop more personalized treatment plans, according to a new report.

The blood test focuses on circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). By sequencing the complete genome of ctDNA, researchers can learn about the different metastases spread throughout the body.

“A key goal in cancer research is to better understand metastatic cancer in each affected person so we can select the best treatments and avoid giving toxic therapies to people who will not derive benefit,” senior author Alexander Wyatt, MD, DPhil, assistant professor of genitourinary cancer genomics at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and senior research scientist at the Vancouver Prostate Center, told this news organization.

“However, biopsies of metastatic cancer are rarely performed since they are invasive and have risks of complications,” he said. “In the past, this major barrier has prevented the widespread study of metastatic cancer and progress to better treatment of this lethal disease.”

The study was published in Nature.
 

Test methods

Blood-based biopsy technology, also known as “liquid biopsy,” has emerged as a tool for clinical cancer genotyping and longitudinal disease monitoring. Tests that use ctDNA have begun to influence the clinical management of people with cancer, the study authors wrote, though the full potential for understanding metastatic cancer biology hasn’t yet been unlocked.

Dr. Wyatt and colleagues analyzed serial plasma and synchronous metastases in patients with aggressive, treatment-resistant prostate cancer through deep whole-genome sequencing, which allows for a comprehensive assessment of every part of the genetic code within the cancer cells.

The researchers assessed all classes of genomic alterations and found that ctDNA contains multiple dominant populations, indicating that most people with metastatic cancer have different metastases spread around the body. They found that the whole-genome sequencing process provides a host of information about these different metastases.

The research team used newly developed computer programs to provide information about the genetic makeup of each cancer population, which can tell researchers about a person’s overall disease rather than about one metastatic tumor. In the future, this information could allow clinicians to make better decisions about managing a patient’s cancer.

The researchers studied multiple ctDNA samples collected over time to understand how a patient’s cancer evolved in response to treatment. They focused on inhibitors of the androgen receptor pathway. They found that current therapies for metastatic prostate cancer actively change the composition of cancer populations in the body and that treatment often selects for biologically aggressive cancer populations that underlie clinical resistance. This allowed them to pinpoint new genetic resistance mechanisms to the most common treatments for metastatic prostate cancer. The technique could be applied to other cancers as well.

The research team used nucleosome footprints in ctDNA to infer mRNA expression in metastases upon which biopsies were synchronously performed. They identified treatment-induced changes in androgen receptor transcription factor signaling activity. This means whole-genome sequencing of ctDNA can reveal the active processes occurring within cells, allowing clinicians to predict which treatments will be effective or ineffective in each patient.

“Our research significantly expands the breadth of cancer information that can be obtained from only a few drops of blood,” said Dr. Wyatt. “From a clinical perspective, this extra information can be used in new clinical trials that are testing strategies to direct cancer treatments only to those whose quality or whose length of life will be improved.”
 

Clinical trials

The study authors wrote that whole-genome ctDNA sequencing technology, which is minimally invasive, inexpensive, and scalable, is now being deployed in large clinical trials to help discover new treatment resistance mechanisms. These include precision oncology clinical trials that are being conducted with Canadian cancer patients at the Vancouver Prostate Centre and BC Cancer.

The technology can also be implemented in existing commercial ctDNA testing platforms, which means that patients could soon directly benefit from more comprehensive liquid biopsy testing. The research team has made the methods and computer code publicly and freely available so that the technology can be applied to other cancer types and clinical settings.

“Understanding how clonal evolution occurs and what drives it is one of the key questions that need to be addressed in almost all cancers, and this study provides that level of insight for advanced prostate cancer, as well as a model and tools for how to carry out this work,” Christopher Mueller, MD, PhD, a cancer biologist and geneticist at Queen’s Cancer Research Institute and a professor of biomedical and molecular sciences at Queen’s University, both in Kingston, Ont., said in an interview.

Dr. Mueller, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched biomarkers and ctDNA as avenues for more precise management of advanced prostate cancer. He and his colleagues have developed blood tests for detecting and monitoring metastatic breast cancer, uveal melanoma, and prostate, pancreatic, and lung cancer.

“The expansion of treatment-resistant clones is how we lose almost all cancer patients, and they clearly demonstrate that in castrate-resistant prostate cancer, changes in the androgen receptor locus almost always drive this process,” Dr. Mueller said. “Understanding clonal evolution will allow us to design treatment strategies that overcome or limit their expansion, hopefully extending the lives of these patients.”

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute, the Prostate Cancer Foundation, Prostate Cancer Canada, the Movember Foundation, the Jane and Aatos Erkko Foundation, the Academy of Finland Center of Excellence program, the Terry Fox New Frontiers Program, and the BC Cancer Foundation. Dr. Wyatt has served on advisory boards or has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Astellas, Janssen, and Merck, and his research lab has a contract research agreement with ESSA Pharma. Dr. Mueller disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new blood test that analyzes DNA shed by metastatic cancers could reveal characteristics unique to each patient’s tumor and allow physicians to develop more personalized treatment plans, according to a new report.

The blood test focuses on circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). By sequencing the complete genome of ctDNA, researchers can learn about the different metastases spread throughout the body.

“A key goal in cancer research is to better understand metastatic cancer in each affected person so we can select the best treatments and avoid giving toxic therapies to people who will not derive benefit,” senior author Alexander Wyatt, MD, DPhil, assistant professor of genitourinary cancer genomics at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and senior research scientist at the Vancouver Prostate Center, told this news organization.

“However, biopsies of metastatic cancer are rarely performed since they are invasive and have risks of complications,” he said. “In the past, this major barrier has prevented the widespread study of metastatic cancer and progress to better treatment of this lethal disease.”

The study was published in Nature.
 

Test methods

Blood-based biopsy technology, also known as “liquid biopsy,” has emerged as a tool for clinical cancer genotyping and longitudinal disease monitoring. Tests that use ctDNA have begun to influence the clinical management of people with cancer, the study authors wrote, though the full potential for understanding metastatic cancer biology hasn’t yet been unlocked.

Dr. Wyatt and colleagues analyzed serial plasma and synchronous metastases in patients with aggressive, treatment-resistant prostate cancer through deep whole-genome sequencing, which allows for a comprehensive assessment of every part of the genetic code within the cancer cells.

The researchers assessed all classes of genomic alterations and found that ctDNA contains multiple dominant populations, indicating that most people with metastatic cancer have different metastases spread around the body. They found that the whole-genome sequencing process provides a host of information about these different metastases.

The research team used newly developed computer programs to provide information about the genetic makeup of each cancer population, which can tell researchers about a person’s overall disease rather than about one metastatic tumor. In the future, this information could allow clinicians to make better decisions about managing a patient’s cancer.

The researchers studied multiple ctDNA samples collected over time to understand how a patient’s cancer evolved in response to treatment. They focused on inhibitors of the androgen receptor pathway. They found that current therapies for metastatic prostate cancer actively change the composition of cancer populations in the body and that treatment often selects for biologically aggressive cancer populations that underlie clinical resistance. This allowed them to pinpoint new genetic resistance mechanisms to the most common treatments for metastatic prostate cancer. The technique could be applied to other cancers as well.

The research team used nucleosome footprints in ctDNA to infer mRNA expression in metastases upon which biopsies were synchronously performed. They identified treatment-induced changes in androgen receptor transcription factor signaling activity. This means whole-genome sequencing of ctDNA can reveal the active processes occurring within cells, allowing clinicians to predict which treatments will be effective or ineffective in each patient.

“Our research significantly expands the breadth of cancer information that can be obtained from only a few drops of blood,” said Dr. Wyatt. “From a clinical perspective, this extra information can be used in new clinical trials that are testing strategies to direct cancer treatments only to those whose quality or whose length of life will be improved.”
 

Clinical trials

The study authors wrote that whole-genome ctDNA sequencing technology, which is minimally invasive, inexpensive, and scalable, is now being deployed in large clinical trials to help discover new treatment resistance mechanisms. These include precision oncology clinical trials that are being conducted with Canadian cancer patients at the Vancouver Prostate Centre and BC Cancer.

The technology can also be implemented in existing commercial ctDNA testing platforms, which means that patients could soon directly benefit from more comprehensive liquid biopsy testing. The research team has made the methods and computer code publicly and freely available so that the technology can be applied to other cancer types and clinical settings.

“Understanding how clonal evolution occurs and what drives it is one of the key questions that need to be addressed in almost all cancers, and this study provides that level of insight for advanced prostate cancer, as well as a model and tools for how to carry out this work,” Christopher Mueller, MD, PhD, a cancer biologist and geneticist at Queen’s Cancer Research Institute and a professor of biomedical and molecular sciences at Queen’s University, both in Kingston, Ont., said in an interview.

Dr. Mueller, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched biomarkers and ctDNA as avenues for more precise management of advanced prostate cancer. He and his colleagues have developed blood tests for detecting and monitoring metastatic breast cancer, uveal melanoma, and prostate, pancreatic, and lung cancer.

“The expansion of treatment-resistant clones is how we lose almost all cancer patients, and they clearly demonstrate that in castrate-resistant prostate cancer, changes in the androgen receptor locus almost always drive this process,” Dr. Mueller said. “Understanding clonal evolution will allow us to design treatment strategies that overcome or limit their expansion, hopefully extending the lives of these patients.”

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute, the Prostate Cancer Foundation, Prostate Cancer Canada, the Movember Foundation, the Jane and Aatos Erkko Foundation, the Academy of Finland Center of Excellence program, the Terry Fox New Frontiers Program, and the BC Cancer Foundation. Dr. Wyatt has served on advisory boards or has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Astellas, Janssen, and Merck, and his research lab has a contract research agreement with ESSA Pharma. Dr. Mueller disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new blood test that analyzes DNA shed by metastatic cancers could reveal characteristics unique to each patient’s tumor and allow physicians to develop more personalized treatment plans, according to a new report.

The blood test focuses on circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). By sequencing the complete genome of ctDNA, researchers can learn about the different metastases spread throughout the body.

“A key goal in cancer research is to better understand metastatic cancer in each affected person so we can select the best treatments and avoid giving toxic therapies to people who will not derive benefit,” senior author Alexander Wyatt, MD, DPhil, assistant professor of genitourinary cancer genomics at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and senior research scientist at the Vancouver Prostate Center, told this news organization.

“However, biopsies of metastatic cancer are rarely performed since they are invasive and have risks of complications,” he said. “In the past, this major barrier has prevented the widespread study of metastatic cancer and progress to better treatment of this lethal disease.”

The study was published in Nature.
 

Test methods

Blood-based biopsy technology, also known as “liquid biopsy,” has emerged as a tool for clinical cancer genotyping and longitudinal disease monitoring. Tests that use ctDNA have begun to influence the clinical management of people with cancer, the study authors wrote, though the full potential for understanding metastatic cancer biology hasn’t yet been unlocked.

Dr. Wyatt and colleagues analyzed serial plasma and synchronous metastases in patients with aggressive, treatment-resistant prostate cancer through deep whole-genome sequencing, which allows for a comprehensive assessment of every part of the genetic code within the cancer cells.

The researchers assessed all classes of genomic alterations and found that ctDNA contains multiple dominant populations, indicating that most people with metastatic cancer have different metastases spread around the body. They found that the whole-genome sequencing process provides a host of information about these different metastases.

The research team used newly developed computer programs to provide information about the genetic makeup of each cancer population, which can tell researchers about a person’s overall disease rather than about one metastatic tumor. In the future, this information could allow clinicians to make better decisions about managing a patient’s cancer.

The researchers studied multiple ctDNA samples collected over time to understand how a patient’s cancer evolved in response to treatment. They focused on inhibitors of the androgen receptor pathway. They found that current therapies for metastatic prostate cancer actively change the composition of cancer populations in the body and that treatment often selects for biologically aggressive cancer populations that underlie clinical resistance. This allowed them to pinpoint new genetic resistance mechanisms to the most common treatments for metastatic prostate cancer. The technique could be applied to other cancers as well.

The research team used nucleosome footprints in ctDNA to infer mRNA expression in metastases upon which biopsies were synchronously performed. They identified treatment-induced changes in androgen receptor transcription factor signaling activity. This means whole-genome sequencing of ctDNA can reveal the active processes occurring within cells, allowing clinicians to predict which treatments will be effective or ineffective in each patient.

“Our research significantly expands the breadth of cancer information that can be obtained from only a few drops of blood,” said Dr. Wyatt. “From a clinical perspective, this extra information can be used in new clinical trials that are testing strategies to direct cancer treatments only to those whose quality or whose length of life will be improved.”
 

Clinical trials

The study authors wrote that whole-genome ctDNA sequencing technology, which is minimally invasive, inexpensive, and scalable, is now being deployed in large clinical trials to help discover new treatment resistance mechanisms. These include precision oncology clinical trials that are being conducted with Canadian cancer patients at the Vancouver Prostate Centre and BC Cancer.

The technology can also be implemented in existing commercial ctDNA testing platforms, which means that patients could soon directly benefit from more comprehensive liquid biopsy testing. The research team has made the methods and computer code publicly and freely available so that the technology can be applied to other cancer types and clinical settings.

“Understanding how clonal evolution occurs and what drives it is one of the key questions that need to be addressed in almost all cancers, and this study provides that level of insight for advanced prostate cancer, as well as a model and tools for how to carry out this work,” Christopher Mueller, MD, PhD, a cancer biologist and geneticist at Queen’s Cancer Research Institute and a professor of biomedical and molecular sciences at Queen’s University, both in Kingston, Ont., said in an interview.

Dr. Mueller, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched biomarkers and ctDNA as avenues for more precise management of advanced prostate cancer. He and his colleagues have developed blood tests for detecting and monitoring metastatic breast cancer, uveal melanoma, and prostate, pancreatic, and lung cancer.

“The expansion of treatment-resistant clones is how we lose almost all cancer patients, and they clearly demonstrate that in castrate-resistant prostate cancer, changes in the androgen receptor locus almost always drive this process,” Dr. Mueller said. “Understanding clonal evolution will allow us to design treatment strategies that overcome or limit their expansion, hopefully extending the lives of these patients.”

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute, the Prostate Cancer Foundation, Prostate Cancer Canada, the Movember Foundation, the Jane and Aatos Erkko Foundation, the Academy of Finland Center of Excellence program, the Terry Fox New Frontiers Program, and the BC Cancer Foundation. Dr. Wyatt has served on advisory boards or has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Astellas, Janssen, and Merck, and his research lab has a contract research agreement with ESSA Pharma. Dr. Mueller disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Adding to a growing body of evidence that elevated remnant cholesterol (remnant-C) provides additional and independent risk prediction for major cardiovascular events (MACE), a new analysis has this shown this biomarker has prognostic value specifically in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

In a post hoc analysis of the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial, each standard-deviation increase in remnant-C was associated with a 7% increased risk in MACE (P = .004) after adjustment for several risk factors including other cholesterol values.

“In type 2 diabetes, remnant-C levels are associated with MACE regardless of LDL-C,” reported a team of investigators led by Liyao Fu, MD, Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, China .

Remnant-C is one component of triglyceride-rich lipoproteins. Within triglyceride-rich lipoproteins, remnant-C has become a major focus of efforts to explain cardiovascular (CV) residual risk, according to the investigators.

Residual risk is a term used to explain why cardiovascular events occur after all known modifiable factors, such as LDL cholesterol (LDL-C), are controlled.

“Our primary findings indicate that baseline estimated remnant-C levels were associated with MACE regardless of clinical phenotypes, lifestyle confounders relative to CV risk, and lipid-lowering treatment,” said the authors of the analysis.

In the post hoc analysis of the ACCORD trial, which evaluated the effects of intensive glucose lowering in T2D more than 10 years ago, there were data on remnant-C over a median of 8.8 years of follow-up in 9,650 T2D patients. Over this period, 1,815 (17.8%) developed MACE.

Multiple analyses support prognostic value of remnant-C

In addition to the 7% rise in MACE for each standard-deviation increase in remnant-C when calculated as a continuous variable, other analyses told the same story.

This included an assessment by remnant-C tertiles. Not only was there a significant trend (P < .001) for greater risk with each higher baseline tertile of remnant-C, those in the highest tertile had a 38% greater risk of MACE relative to those in the lowest tertile (hazard ratio, 1.38; P < .001) after adjustment for confounders.

The same pattern was seen for several components of MACE, such as CV death and nonfatal myocardial infarction, when remnant-C tertiles were compared.

Visit-to-visit variability in remnant-C over the course of follow-up was also associated with greater risk of MACE. In logarithmic calculations, the risk of MACE climbed about 40% across all three models of risk adjustment. These models included adjustments for different sets of confounders, such as sex, age, blood pressure, CV disease history, and glucose levels. On an unadjusted basis, the risk was increased about 50% (HR, 1.52; P < .001).

For visit-to-visit variability in remnant-C, the greatest effect was on risk of nonfatal MI across models. In model 3, for example, which adjusted for the most confounders, the risk was nearly doubled (HR, 1.92; P < .001). In contrast, there did not appear to be a link between visit-to-visit variability and nonfatal stroke.

In a discordant analysis that was conducted to examine the relative risk of remnant-C independent of LDL-C, those who had a remnant-C level of at least 31 mg/dL were found to have a higher risk of MACE regardless of LDL-C level. Yet, the risk was higher if both remnant-C and LDL-C were elevated. For example, the risk was increased 22% for those with LDL-C at or below 100 mg/dL and remnant-C levels of at least 31 mg/dL (HR, 1.22; P = .015) but climbed to 37% for those with LDL-C above 100 mg/dL if remnant-C was at least 31 mg/dL (HR, 1.38; P = .007).
 

Remnant-C shows prognostic value in other risk groups

Although this study suggests an important prognostic value for remnant-C in T2D, there are numerous studies suggesting that it has prognostic value in other risk groups, such as those with a history of CV disease. This includes a study published earlier this year with 10 years of follow-up in 41,928 patients in Denmark. When combined with other risk factors, remnant-C substantially improved the accuracy of risk of events over time.

The investigators from this previous study, like the new study in patients with T2D, predict that remnant-C will be eventually included in guidelines.

According to Shi Tai, MD, a coauthor of the T2D study, remnant-C “may allow for the development of specific preventive and therapeutic approaches” to CV risk in patients with T2D.

T2D patients “with elevated plasma remnant-C levels represent a special population that deserves more attention regarding residual risk,” said Dr. Tai of the department of cardiovascular medicine at the Hospital of South Central China.
 

Great interest, but ready for guidelines?

This is an important direction of ongoing research, according to Christie M. Ballantyne, MD, professor of medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

“There is a great deal of interest from both clinicians and trialists to find a simple way to identify patients with high residual risk who are on statin therapy,” he said. He thinks remnant-C has promise in this regard.

“Remnant-C is not in current guidelines,” he said in an interview, but he suggested that there is now a substantial body of evidence to suggest that it might be added if validated in further studies.

“Remnant-C is easy to calculate and may be helpful in practice now to identify patients who need more aggressive therapy to reduce risk and may be useful to identify patients for clinical trials who will benefit from new therapies that are in development,” he said.

However, the clinical relevance of therapies addressed at triglyceride-rich lipoproteins in general or their components, including triglycerides or remnant-C, has never been demonstrated, pointed out Peter W.F. Wilson, MD, PhD.

“Higher fasting or nonfasting triglyceride levels or their surrogates have been shown to be associated with increased risk for cardiovascular disease events in observational studies, but the importance of such measurements in persons already treated with very aggressive LDL-C lowering therapy is not known,” commented Dr. Wilson, director of epidemiology and genomic medicine, Emory School of Medicine, Atlanta.

Dr. Wilson was the coauthor of an editorial that accompanied the previously published Danish study of remnant-C. In his editorial, he suggested that remnant-C has promise for better understanding residual risk, but when contacted about these latest data he emphasized a lack of support so far for clinical relevance.

“Unfortunately, clinical trials have generally not shown that triglyceride lowering [to favorably alter remnant-C] in this situation favorably affects the risk of CV disease events,” he said in an interview. This does not preclude remnant-C as a targetable risk factor, but these data are needed.

Dr. Fu, Dr. Tai, and Dr. Wilson report no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Ballantyne has financial relationships with more than 25 pharmaceutical companies, including several that produce products employed for the treatment of lipid abnormalities.

Adding to a growing body of evidence that elevated remnant cholesterol (remnant-C) provides additional and independent risk prediction for major cardiovascular events (MACE), a new analysis has this shown this biomarker has prognostic value specifically in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

In a post hoc analysis of the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial, each standard-deviation increase in remnant-C was associated with a 7% increased risk in MACE (P = .004) after adjustment for several risk factors including other cholesterol values.

“In type 2 diabetes, remnant-C levels are associated with MACE regardless of LDL-C,” reported a team of investigators led by Liyao Fu, MD, Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, China .

Remnant-C is one component of triglyceride-rich lipoproteins. Within triglyceride-rich lipoproteins, remnant-C has become a major focus of efforts to explain cardiovascular (CV) residual risk, according to the investigators.

Residual risk is a term used to explain why cardiovascular events occur after all known modifiable factors, such as LDL cholesterol (LDL-C), are controlled.

“Our primary findings indicate that baseline estimated remnant-C levels were associated with MACE regardless of clinical phenotypes, lifestyle confounders relative to CV risk, and lipid-lowering treatment,” said the authors of the analysis.

In the post hoc analysis of the ACCORD trial, which evaluated the effects of intensive glucose lowering in T2D more than 10 years ago, there were data on remnant-C over a median of 8.8 years of follow-up in 9,650 T2D patients. Over this period, 1,815 (17.8%) developed MACE.

Multiple analyses support prognostic value of remnant-C

In addition to the 7% rise in MACE for each standard-deviation increase in remnant-C when calculated as a continuous variable, other analyses told the same story.

This included an assessment by remnant-C tertiles. Not only was there a significant trend (P < .001) for greater risk with each higher baseline tertile of remnant-C, those in the highest tertile had a 38% greater risk of MACE relative to those in the lowest tertile (hazard ratio, 1.38; P < .001) after adjustment for confounders.

The same pattern was seen for several components of MACE, such as CV death and nonfatal myocardial infarction, when remnant-C tertiles were compared.

Visit-to-visit variability in remnant-C over the course of follow-up was also associated with greater risk of MACE. In logarithmic calculations, the risk of MACE climbed about 40% across all three models of risk adjustment. These models included adjustments for different sets of confounders, such as sex, age, blood pressure, CV disease history, and glucose levels. On an unadjusted basis, the risk was increased about 50% (HR, 1.52; P < .001).

For visit-to-visit variability in remnant-C, the greatest effect was on risk of nonfatal MI across models. In model 3, for example, which adjusted for the most confounders, the risk was nearly doubled (HR, 1.92; P < .001). In contrast, there did not appear to be a link between visit-to-visit variability and nonfatal stroke.

In a discordant analysis that was conducted to examine the relative risk of remnant-C independent of LDL-C, those who had a remnant-C level of at least 31 mg/dL were found to have a higher risk of MACE regardless of LDL-C level. Yet, the risk was higher if both remnant-C and LDL-C were elevated. For example, the risk was increased 22% for those with LDL-C at or below 100 mg/dL and remnant-C levels of at least 31 mg/dL (HR, 1.22; P = .015) but climbed to 37% for those with LDL-C above 100 mg/dL if remnant-C was at least 31 mg/dL (HR, 1.38; P = .007).
 

Remnant-C shows prognostic value in other risk groups

Although this study suggests an important prognostic value for remnant-C in T2D, there are numerous studies suggesting that it has prognostic value in other risk groups, such as those with a history of CV disease. This includes a study published earlier this year with 10 years of follow-up in 41,928 patients in Denmark. When combined with other risk factors, remnant-C substantially improved the accuracy of risk of events over time.

The investigators from this previous study, like the new study in patients with T2D, predict that remnant-C will be eventually included in guidelines.

According to Shi Tai, MD, a coauthor of the T2D study, remnant-C “may allow for the development of specific preventive and therapeutic approaches” to CV risk in patients with T2D.

T2D patients “with elevated plasma remnant-C levels represent a special population that deserves more attention regarding residual risk,” said Dr. Tai of the department of cardiovascular medicine at the Hospital of South Central China.
 

Great interest, but ready for guidelines?

This is an important direction of ongoing research, according to Christie M. Ballantyne, MD, professor of medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

“There is a great deal of interest from both clinicians and trialists to find a simple way to identify patients with high residual risk who are on statin therapy,” he said. He thinks remnant-C has promise in this regard.

“Remnant-C is not in current guidelines,” he said in an interview, but he suggested that there is now a substantial body of evidence to suggest that it might be added if validated in further studies.

“Remnant-C is easy to calculate and may be helpful in practice now to identify patients who need more aggressive therapy to reduce risk and may be useful to identify patients for clinical trials who will benefit from new therapies that are in development,” he said.

However, the clinical relevance of therapies addressed at triglyceride-rich lipoproteins in general or their components, including triglycerides or remnant-C, has never been demonstrated, pointed out Peter W.F. Wilson, MD, PhD.

“Higher fasting or nonfasting triglyceride levels or their surrogates have been shown to be associated with increased risk for cardiovascular disease events in observational studies, but the importance of such measurements in persons already treated with very aggressive LDL-C lowering therapy is not known,” commented Dr. Wilson, director of epidemiology and genomic medicine, Emory School of Medicine, Atlanta.

Dr. Wilson was the coauthor of an editorial that accompanied the previously published Danish study of remnant-C. In his editorial, he suggested that remnant-C has promise for better understanding residual risk, but when contacted about these latest data he emphasized a lack of support so far for clinical relevance.

“Unfortunately, clinical trials have generally not shown that triglyceride lowering [to favorably alter remnant-C] in this situation favorably affects the risk of CV disease events,” he said in an interview. This does not preclude remnant-C as a targetable risk factor, but these data are needed.

Dr. Fu, Dr. Tai, and Dr. Wilson report no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Ballantyne has financial relationships with more than 25 pharmaceutical companies, including several that produce products employed for the treatment of lipid abnormalities.

Adding to a growing body of evidence that elevated remnant cholesterol (remnant-C) provides additional and independent risk prediction for major cardiovascular events (MACE), a new analysis has this shown this biomarker has prognostic value specifically in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

In a post hoc analysis of the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial, each standard-deviation increase in remnant-C was associated with a 7% increased risk in MACE (P = .004) after adjustment for several risk factors including other cholesterol values.

“In type 2 diabetes, remnant-C levels are associated with MACE regardless of LDL-C,” reported a team of investigators led by Liyao Fu, MD, Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, China .

Remnant-C is one component of triglyceride-rich lipoproteins. Within triglyceride-rich lipoproteins, remnant-C has become a major focus of efforts to explain cardiovascular (CV) residual risk, according to the investigators.

Residual risk is a term used to explain why cardiovascular events occur after all known modifiable factors, such as LDL cholesterol (LDL-C), are controlled.

“Our primary findings indicate that baseline estimated remnant-C levels were associated with MACE regardless of clinical phenotypes, lifestyle confounders relative to CV risk, and lipid-lowering treatment,” said the authors of the analysis.

In the post hoc analysis of the ACCORD trial, which evaluated the effects of intensive glucose lowering in T2D more than 10 years ago, there were data on remnant-C over a median of 8.8 years of follow-up in 9,650 T2D patients. Over this period, 1,815 (17.8%) developed MACE.

Multiple analyses support prognostic value of remnant-C

In addition to the 7% rise in MACE for each standard-deviation increase in remnant-C when calculated as a continuous variable, other analyses told the same story.

This included an assessment by remnant-C tertiles. Not only was there a significant trend (P < .001) for greater risk with each higher baseline tertile of remnant-C, those in the highest tertile had a 38% greater risk of MACE relative to those in the lowest tertile (hazard ratio, 1.38; P < .001) after adjustment for confounders.

The same pattern was seen for several components of MACE, such as CV death and nonfatal myocardial infarction, when remnant-C tertiles were compared.

Visit-to-visit variability in remnant-C over the course of follow-up was also associated with greater risk of MACE. In logarithmic calculations, the risk of MACE climbed about 40% across all three models of risk adjustment. These models included adjustments for different sets of confounders, such as sex, age, blood pressure, CV disease history, and glucose levels. On an unadjusted basis, the risk was increased about 50% (HR, 1.52; P < .001).

For visit-to-visit variability in remnant-C, the greatest effect was on risk of nonfatal MI across models. In model 3, for example, which adjusted for the most confounders, the risk was nearly doubled (HR, 1.92; P < .001). In contrast, there did not appear to be a link between visit-to-visit variability and nonfatal stroke.

In a discordant analysis that was conducted to examine the relative risk of remnant-C independent of LDL-C, those who had a remnant-C level of at least 31 mg/dL were found to have a higher risk of MACE regardless of LDL-C level. Yet, the risk was higher if both remnant-C and LDL-C were elevated. For example, the risk was increased 22% for those with LDL-C at or below 100 mg/dL and remnant-C levels of at least 31 mg/dL (HR, 1.22; P = .015) but climbed to 37% for those with LDL-C above 100 mg/dL if remnant-C was at least 31 mg/dL (HR, 1.38; P = .007).
 

Remnant-C shows prognostic value in other risk groups

Although this study suggests an important prognostic value for remnant-C in T2D, there are numerous studies suggesting that it has prognostic value in other risk groups, such as those with a history of CV disease. This includes a study published earlier this year with 10 years of follow-up in 41,928 patients in Denmark. When combined with other risk factors, remnant-C substantially improved the accuracy of risk of events over time.

The investigators from this previous study, like the new study in patients with T2D, predict that remnant-C will be eventually included in guidelines.

According to Shi Tai, MD, a coauthor of the T2D study, remnant-C “may allow for the development of specific preventive and therapeutic approaches” to CV risk in patients with T2D.

T2D patients “with elevated plasma remnant-C levels represent a special population that deserves more attention regarding residual risk,” said Dr. Tai of the department of cardiovascular medicine at the Hospital of South Central China.
 

Great interest, but ready for guidelines?

This is an important direction of ongoing research, according to Christie M. Ballantyne, MD, professor of medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

“There is a great deal of interest from both clinicians and trialists to find a simple way to identify patients with high residual risk who are on statin therapy,” he said. He thinks remnant-C has promise in this regard.

“Remnant-C is not in current guidelines,” he said in an interview, but he suggested that there is now a substantial body of evidence to suggest that it might be added if validated in further studies.

“Remnant-C is easy to calculate and may be helpful in practice now to identify patients who need more aggressive therapy to reduce risk and may be useful to identify patients for clinical trials who will benefit from new therapies that are in development,” he said.

However, the clinical relevance of therapies addressed at triglyceride-rich lipoproteins in general or their components, including triglycerides or remnant-C, has never been demonstrated, pointed out Peter W.F. Wilson, MD, PhD.

“Higher fasting or nonfasting triglyceride levels or their surrogates have been shown to be associated with increased risk for cardiovascular disease events in observational studies, but the importance of such measurements in persons already treated with very aggressive LDL-C lowering therapy is not known,” commented Dr. Wilson, director of epidemiology and genomic medicine, Emory School of Medicine, Atlanta.

Dr. Wilson was the coauthor of an editorial that accompanied the previously published Danish study of remnant-C. In his editorial, he suggested that remnant-C has promise for better understanding residual risk, but when contacted about these latest data he emphasized a lack of support so far for clinical relevance.

“Unfortunately, clinical trials have generally not shown that triglyceride lowering [to favorably alter remnant-C] in this situation favorably affects the risk of CV disease events,” he said in an interview. This does not preclude remnant-C as a targetable risk factor, but these data are needed.

Dr. Fu, Dr. Tai, and Dr. Wilson report no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Ballantyne has financial relationships with more than 25 pharmaceutical companies, including several that produce products employed for the treatment of lipid abnormalities.

U.S. Medicare beneficiaries with type 2 diabetes who had health coverage through a Medicare Advantage (MA) plan received treatment with an sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor or glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist significantly less often than patients with traditional fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare coverage in 2014-2019, according to a study of more than 411,000 patients.

“MA beneficiaries had modestly but significantly poorer intermediate health outcomes and were less likely to be treated with newer evidence-based antihyperglycemic therapies, compared with Medicare FFS beneficiaries,” concluded Utibe R. Essien, MD, and coauthors in a study published in Diabetes Care.

The report comes as the U.S. Congress is looking closely at the MA program and evidence that insurance companies that provide these policies sometimes impose inappropriate barriers on enrolled beneficiaries by denying or limiting access to treatments and interventions in ways that run counter to Medicare’s coverage policies.

According to Representative Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), who chaired a hearing on MA plans on June 28 by the House of Representatives’ Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, beneficiaries who are covered through an MA plan “do not always get the care that they are entitled to.”

The study by Dr. Essien and colleagues also documents some positives of care delivered through MA plans for patients with type 2 diabetes, compared with what FFS Medicare beneficiaries generally receive, such as significantly higher rates of screening for nephropathy and ophthalmologic disorders, and foot examinations.

But the apparently dampened use of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists among MA beneficiaries stand out as notable shortcomings, Dr. Essien maintained.
 

Cost containment may limit use

“The differences in health outcomes and in treatments in MA plans are important to highlight,” Dr. Essien said in an interview. “We worry that the cost-containment challenges [associated with MA plans] may be limiting use of these newer treatments.”

The study was based on 2014-2019 data from the Diabetes Collaborative Registry, which collects information from more than 5,000 U.S. clinicians whose practices include patients with diabetes, as well as claims data recorded by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services during 2014-2017.

The main analysis focused on 345,911 Medicare beneficiaries with diabetes, which included 34% with MA coverage and 66% with FFS coverage. The two subgroups had similar ages, about 75 years old, and roughly half were women in both subgroups. The rate at which both subgroups received statin treatment was nearly the same: 72% for those with MA coverage and 71% for those with FFS Medicare.

But MA beneficiaries differed from those with FFS coverage in several other ways. MA beneficiaries had a higher prevalence of Medicaid eligibility than the FFS group (20% vs 12%) and lower rates of consultations with cardiologists (41% vs. 45%) or endocrinologists (7% vs. 10%).

Some of the positive differences in the care received by MA beneficiaries, compared with FFS beneficiaries, after adjustment for potential clinical and sociodemographic confounders, included:

• Screening for nephropathy, at a significant 14% higher relative rate.
• Screening for ophthalmologic disorders, at a significant 8% higher relative rate.
• Undergoing a diabetic foot examination, at a significant 13% higher relative rate.
• Receiving smoking-cessation counseling, at a significant 5% higher relative rate.
• Receiving treatment with an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin-receptor blocker (87% vs. 81%).
• More consistently receiving treatment with metformin, with rates of 72% versus 69% in 2017.

However, these positive differences were accompanied by these relative shortcomings for those with MA, compared with FFS coverage:

• Lower rates of treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor (5.4% vs. 6.7%), a significant 9% relative difference after adjustment.
• Lower rates of treatment with a GLP-1 agonist (6.9% vs. 9.0%), a significant 20% relative difference after adjustment.
• Higher average levels of LDL cholesterol (81.5 vs. 78.9 mg/dL), a significantly higher average hemoglobin A1c level (7.1% vs. 7.0%), and a trend toward a lower prevalence of blood pressure control (70.3% vs. 71.5%).

Researchers also highlight that the lower rate at which people with MA coverage received SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists was consistent in patients with established cardiovascular or kidney disease, for whom these agents are particularly recommended.

In addition, a secondary analysis of data for another 65,000 Medicare beneficiaries in 2018 and 2019 showed the disparity in use of agents from these two drug classes continued.
 

Low systemic use of SGLT2 inhibitors, GLP-1 agonists

Dr. Essien acknowledged that, even in people with FFS Medicare coverage, use of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists was low, but the difference between those with MA coverage is “important.”

Researchers offered four factors that might drive reduced prescribing of agents from these two classes for patients with type 2 diabetes with MA coverage: cost-containment strategies put in place by MA plans; the lower rate of consultations with specialists (cardiologists and endocrinologists); possible exclusion of clinicians from MA provider networks who tend to prescribe these higher-price agents; and lower household incomes of people with MA plans, which may lead to cost-related nonadherence.

Most SGLT2 inhibitors have an average retail cost of about $6,000/year, and some GLP-1 agonists cost more than $10,000/year.

In general, MA coverage includes more oversight of care and its cost than occurs with FFS coverage, noted Dr. Essien, an internal medicine physician at the University of Pittsburgh and a researcher at the Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion of the VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System.

“Incentives for using these more expensive treatments may not be there in MA plans,” he explained. Overcoming cost-related barriers is a challenge that will require “bold policy changes,” as well as better education of clinicians so they make correct treatment decisions, and of patients to resolve possible concerns about treatment safety.

Rep. DeGette hinted during her remarks at the June hearing that policy changes may be coming from Congress.

“Our seniors and their doctors should not be required to jump through numerous hoops to get coverage for straightforward and medically necessary procedures,” she said.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Essien reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

U.S. Medicare beneficiaries with type 2 diabetes who had health coverage through a Medicare Advantage (MA) plan received treatment with an sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor or glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist significantly less often than patients with traditional fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare coverage in 2014-2019, according to a study of more than 411,000 patients.

“MA beneficiaries had modestly but significantly poorer intermediate health outcomes and were less likely to be treated with newer evidence-based antihyperglycemic therapies, compared with Medicare FFS beneficiaries,” concluded Utibe R. Essien, MD, and coauthors in a study published in Diabetes Care.

The report comes as the U.S. Congress is looking closely at the MA program and evidence that insurance companies that provide these policies sometimes impose inappropriate barriers on enrolled beneficiaries by denying or limiting access to treatments and interventions in ways that run counter to Medicare’s coverage policies.

According to Representative Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), who chaired a hearing on MA plans on June 28 by the House of Representatives’ Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, beneficiaries who are covered through an MA plan “do not always get the care that they are entitled to.”

The study by Dr. Essien and colleagues also documents some positives of care delivered through MA plans for patients with type 2 diabetes, compared with what FFS Medicare beneficiaries generally receive, such as significantly higher rates of screening for nephropathy and ophthalmologic disorders, and foot examinations.

But the apparently dampened use of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists among MA beneficiaries stand out as notable shortcomings, Dr. Essien maintained.
 

Cost containment may limit use

“The differences in health outcomes and in treatments in MA plans are important to highlight,” Dr. Essien said in an interview. “We worry that the cost-containment challenges [associated with MA plans] may be limiting use of these newer treatments.”

The study was based on 2014-2019 data from the Diabetes Collaborative Registry, which collects information from more than 5,000 U.S. clinicians whose practices include patients with diabetes, as well as claims data recorded by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services during 2014-2017.

The main analysis focused on 345,911 Medicare beneficiaries with diabetes, which included 34% with MA coverage and 66% with FFS coverage. The two subgroups had similar ages, about 75 years old, and roughly half were women in both subgroups. The rate at which both subgroups received statin treatment was nearly the same: 72% for those with MA coverage and 71% for those with FFS Medicare.

But MA beneficiaries differed from those with FFS coverage in several other ways. MA beneficiaries had a higher prevalence of Medicaid eligibility than the FFS group (20% vs 12%) and lower rates of consultations with cardiologists (41% vs. 45%) or endocrinologists (7% vs. 10%).

Some of the positive differences in the care received by MA beneficiaries, compared with FFS beneficiaries, after adjustment for potential clinical and sociodemographic confounders, included:

• Screening for nephropathy, at a significant 14% higher relative rate.
• Screening for ophthalmologic disorders, at a significant 8% higher relative rate.
• Undergoing a diabetic foot examination, at a significant 13% higher relative rate.
• Receiving smoking-cessation counseling, at a significant 5% higher relative rate.
• Receiving treatment with an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin-receptor blocker (87% vs. 81%).
• More consistently receiving treatment with metformin, with rates of 72% versus 69% in 2017.

However, these positive differences were accompanied by these relative shortcomings for those with MA, compared with FFS coverage:

• Lower rates of treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor (5.4% vs. 6.7%), a significant 9% relative difference after adjustment.
• Lower rates of treatment with a GLP-1 agonist (6.9% vs. 9.0%), a significant 20% relative difference after adjustment.
• Higher average levels of LDL cholesterol (81.5 vs. 78.9 mg/dL), a significantly higher average hemoglobin A1c level (7.1% vs. 7.0%), and a trend toward a lower prevalence of blood pressure control (70.3% vs. 71.5%).

Researchers also highlight that the lower rate at which people with MA coverage received SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists was consistent in patients with established cardiovascular or kidney disease, for whom these agents are particularly recommended.

In addition, a secondary analysis of data for another 65,000 Medicare beneficiaries in 2018 and 2019 showed the disparity in use of agents from these two drug classes continued.
 

Low systemic use of SGLT2 inhibitors, GLP-1 agonists

Dr. Essien acknowledged that, even in people with FFS Medicare coverage, use of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists was low, but the difference between those with MA coverage is “important.”

Researchers offered four factors that might drive reduced prescribing of agents from these two classes for patients with type 2 diabetes with MA coverage: cost-containment strategies put in place by MA plans; the lower rate of consultations with specialists (cardiologists and endocrinologists); possible exclusion of clinicians from MA provider networks who tend to prescribe these higher-price agents; and lower household incomes of people with MA plans, which may lead to cost-related nonadherence.

Most SGLT2 inhibitors have an average retail cost of about $6,000/year, and some GLP-1 agonists cost more than $10,000/year.

In general, MA coverage includes more oversight of care and its cost than occurs with FFS coverage, noted Dr. Essien, an internal medicine physician at the University of Pittsburgh and a researcher at the Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion of the VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System.

“Incentives for using these more expensive treatments may not be there in MA plans,” he explained. Overcoming cost-related barriers is a challenge that will require “bold policy changes,” as well as better education of clinicians so they make correct treatment decisions, and of patients to resolve possible concerns about treatment safety.

Rep. DeGette hinted during her remarks at the June hearing that policy changes may be coming from Congress.

“Our seniors and their doctors should not be required to jump through numerous hoops to get coverage for straightforward and medically necessary procedures,” she said.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Essien reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

U.S. Medicare beneficiaries with type 2 diabetes who had health coverage through a Medicare Advantage (MA) plan received treatment with an sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor or glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist significantly less often than patients with traditional fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare coverage in 2014-2019, according to a study of more than 411,000 patients.

“MA beneficiaries had modestly but significantly poorer intermediate health outcomes and were less likely to be treated with newer evidence-based antihyperglycemic therapies, compared with Medicare FFS beneficiaries,” concluded Utibe R. Essien, MD, and coauthors in a study published in Diabetes Care.

The report comes as the U.S. Congress is looking closely at the MA program and evidence that insurance companies that provide these policies sometimes impose inappropriate barriers on enrolled beneficiaries by denying or limiting access to treatments and interventions in ways that run counter to Medicare’s coverage policies.

According to Representative Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), who chaired a hearing on MA plans on June 28 by the House of Representatives’ Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, beneficiaries who are covered through an MA plan “do not always get the care that they are entitled to.”

The study by Dr. Essien and colleagues also documents some positives of care delivered through MA plans for patients with type 2 diabetes, compared with what FFS Medicare beneficiaries generally receive, such as significantly higher rates of screening for nephropathy and ophthalmologic disorders, and foot examinations.

But the apparently dampened use of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists among MA beneficiaries stand out as notable shortcomings, Dr. Essien maintained.
 

Cost containment may limit use

“The differences in health outcomes and in treatments in MA plans are important to highlight,” Dr. Essien said in an interview. “We worry that the cost-containment challenges [associated with MA plans] may be limiting use of these newer treatments.”

The study was based on 2014-2019 data from the Diabetes Collaborative Registry, which collects information from more than 5,000 U.S. clinicians whose practices include patients with diabetes, as well as claims data recorded by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services during 2014-2017.

The main analysis focused on 345,911 Medicare beneficiaries with diabetes, which included 34% with MA coverage and 66% with FFS coverage. The two subgroups had similar ages, about 75 years old, and roughly half were women in both subgroups. The rate at which both subgroups received statin treatment was nearly the same: 72% for those with MA coverage and 71% for those with FFS Medicare.

But MA beneficiaries differed from those with FFS coverage in several other ways. MA beneficiaries had a higher prevalence of Medicaid eligibility than the FFS group (20% vs 12%) and lower rates of consultations with cardiologists (41% vs. 45%) or endocrinologists (7% vs. 10%).

Some of the positive differences in the care received by MA beneficiaries, compared with FFS beneficiaries, after adjustment for potential clinical and sociodemographic confounders, included:

• Screening for nephropathy, at a significant 14% higher relative rate.
• Screening for ophthalmologic disorders, at a significant 8% higher relative rate.
• Undergoing a diabetic foot examination, at a significant 13% higher relative rate.
• Receiving smoking-cessation counseling, at a significant 5% higher relative rate.
• Receiving treatment with an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin-receptor blocker (87% vs. 81%).
• More consistently receiving treatment with metformin, with rates of 72% versus 69% in 2017.

However, these positive differences were accompanied by these relative shortcomings for those with MA, compared with FFS coverage:

• Lower rates of treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor (5.4% vs. 6.7%), a significant 9% relative difference after adjustment.
• Lower rates of treatment with a GLP-1 agonist (6.9% vs. 9.0%), a significant 20% relative difference after adjustment.
• Higher average levels of LDL cholesterol (81.5 vs. 78.9 mg/dL), a significantly higher average hemoglobin A1c level (7.1% vs. 7.0%), and a trend toward a lower prevalence of blood pressure control (70.3% vs. 71.5%).

Researchers also highlight that the lower rate at which people with MA coverage received SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists was consistent in patients with established cardiovascular or kidney disease, for whom these agents are particularly recommended.

In addition, a secondary analysis of data for another 65,000 Medicare beneficiaries in 2018 and 2019 showed the disparity in use of agents from these two drug classes continued.
 

Low systemic use of SGLT2 inhibitors, GLP-1 agonists

Dr. Essien acknowledged that, even in people with FFS Medicare coverage, use of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists was low, but the difference between those with MA coverage is “important.”

Researchers offered four factors that might drive reduced prescribing of agents from these two classes for patients with type 2 diabetes with MA coverage: cost-containment strategies put in place by MA plans; the lower rate of consultations with specialists (cardiologists and endocrinologists); possible exclusion of clinicians from MA provider networks who tend to prescribe these higher-price agents; and lower household incomes of people with MA plans, which may lead to cost-related nonadherence.

Most SGLT2 inhibitors have an average retail cost of about $6,000/year, and some GLP-1 agonists cost more than $10,000/year.

In general, MA coverage includes more oversight of care and its cost than occurs with FFS coverage, noted Dr. Essien, an internal medicine physician at the University of Pittsburgh and a researcher at the Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion of the VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System.

“Incentives for using these more expensive treatments may not be there in MA plans,” he explained. Overcoming cost-related barriers is a challenge that will require “bold policy changes,” as well as better education of clinicians so they make correct treatment decisions, and of patients to resolve possible concerns about treatment safety.

Rep. DeGette hinted during her remarks at the June hearing that policy changes may be coming from Congress.

“Our seniors and their doctors should not be required to jump through numerous hoops to get coverage for straightforward and medically necessary procedures,” she said.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Essien reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Ongoing follow-up and lifestyle interventions are needed in lean patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), suggests a panel of experts in a recent review.

They also urge screening for NAFLD in individuals who are older than 40 years with type 2 diabetes, even if they are not overweight.

NAFLD is a leading cause of chronic liver disease that affects more than 25% of the United States and worldwide populations, note lead author Michelle T. Long, MD, Boston Medical Center, Boston University, and colleagues.

Evidence-based approaches

The 15 best practice advice statements covered a wide range of clinical areas, first defining lean as a body mass index (BMI) less than 25 in non-Asian persons and less than 23 in Asian persons.

The authors go on to stipulate, for example, that lean individuals in the general population should not be screened for NAFLD but that screening should be considered for individuals older than 40 years with type 2 diabetes.

More broadly, they write that the condition should be considered in lean individuals with metabolic diseases, such as type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension, as well as elevated values on liver biochemical tests or incidentally noted hepatic steatosis.

After other causes of liver diseases are ruled out, the authors note that clinicians should consider liver biopsy as the reference test if uncertainties remain about liver injury causes and/or liver fibrosis staging.

They also write that the NAFLD fibrosis score and Fibrosis-4 score, along with imaging techniques, may be used as alternatives to biopsy for staging and during follow-up.

The authors, who provide a diagnosis and management algorithm to aid clinicians, suggest that lean patients with NAFLD follow lifestyle interventions, such as exercise, diet modification, and avoidance of fructose- and sugar-sweetened drinks, to achieve weight loss of 3%-5%.

Vitamin E may be considered, they continue, in patients with biopsy-confirmed nonalcoholic steatohepatitis but without type 2 diabetes or cirrhosis. Additionally, oral pioglitazone may be considered in lean persons with biopsy-confirmed nonalcoholic steatohepatitis without cirrhosis.

In contrast, they write that the role of glucagonlike peptide 1 agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors requires further investigation.

The advice also says that lean patients with NAFLD should be routinely evaluated for comorbid conditions, such as type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension, and risk-stratified for hepatic fibrosis to identify those with advanced fibrosis or cirrhosis.

For lean patients with NAFLD and clinical markers compatible with liver cirrhosis, twice-yearly surveillance for hepatocellular carcinoma is also advised.

Fatty liver disease in lean people with metabolic conditions

Approached for comment, Liyun Yuan, MD, PhD, assistant professor of clinical medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said it is very important to have uniform guidelines for general practitioners and other specialties on NAFLD in lean individuals.

Dr. Yuan, who was not involved in the review, told this news organization that it is crucial to raise awareness of NAFLD, just like awareness of breast cancer screening among women of a certain age was increased, so that individuals are screened for metabolic conditions regardless of whether they have obesity or overweight.

Zobair Younossi, MD, MPH, professor of medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Inova Campus, Falls Church, Va., added that there is a lack of awareness that NAFLD occurs in lean individuals, especially in those who have diabetes.

He said in an interview that although it is accurate to define individuals as being lean in terms of their BMI, the best way is to look not only at BMI but also at waist circumference.

Dr. Younossi said that he and his colleagues have shown that when BMI is combined with waist circumference, the prediction of mortality risk in NAFLD is affected, such that lean individuals with an obese waist circumference have a higher risk for all-cause mortality.

Dr. Long is supported in part by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, Gilead Sciences Research Scholars Award, Boston University School of Medicine Department of Medicine Career Investment Award, and Boston University Clinical Translational Science Institute. Dr. Long declares relationships with Novo Nordisk, Echosens Corporation, and Gilead Sciences. Dr. Yuan declares relationships with Genfit, Intercept, and Gilead Sciences. Dr. Younossi declares no relevant relationships.

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

*This article was updated on July 27, 2022.

Ongoing follow-up and lifestyle interventions are needed in lean patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), suggests a panel of experts in a recent review.

They also urge screening for NAFLD in individuals who are older than 40 years with type 2 diabetes, even if they are not overweight.

NAFLD is a leading cause of chronic liver disease that affects more than 25% of the United States and worldwide populations, note lead author Michelle T. Long, MD, Boston Medical Center, Boston University, and colleagues.

Evidence-based approaches

The 15 best practice advice statements covered a wide range of clinical areas, first defining lean as a body mass index (BMI) less than 25 in non-Asian persons and less than 23 in Asian persons.

The authors go on to stipulate, for example, that lean individuals in the general population should not be screened for NAFLD but that screening should be considered for individuals older than 40 years with type 2 diabetes.

More broadly, they write that the condition should be considered in lean individuals with metabolic diseases, such as type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension, as well as elevated values on liver biochemical tests or incidentally noted hepatic steatosis.

After other causes of liver diseases are ruled out, the authors note that clinicians should consider liver biopsy as the reference test if uncertainties remain about liver injury causes and/or liver fibrosis staging.

They also write that the NAFLD fibrosis score and Fibrosis-4 score, along with imaging techniques, may be used as alternatives to biopsy for staging and during follow-up.

The authors, who provide a diagnosis and management algorithm to aid clinicians, suggest that lean patients with NAFLD follow lifestyle interventions, such as exercise, diet modification, and avoidance of fructose- and sugar-sweetened drinks, to achieve weight loss of 3%-5%.

Vitamin E may be considered, they continue, in patients with biopsy-confirmed nonalcoholic steatohepatitis but without type 2 diabetes or cirrhosis. Additionally, oral pioglitazone may be considered in lean persons with biopsy-confirmed nonalcoholic steatohepatitis without cirrhosis.

In contrast, they write that the role of glucagonlike peptide 1 agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors requires further investigation.

The advice also says that lean patients with NAFLD should be routinely evaluated for comorbid conditions, such as type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension, and risk-stratified for hepatic fibrosis to identify those with advanced fibrosis or cirrhosis.

For lean patients with NAFLD and clinical markers compatible with liver cirrhosis, twice-yearly surveillance for hepatocellular carcinoma is also advised.

Fatty liver disease in lean people with metabolic conditions

Approached for comment, Liyun Yuan, MD, PhD, assistant professor of clinical medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said it is very important to have uniform guidelines for general practitioners and other specialties on NAFLD in lean individuals.

Dr. Yuan, who was not involved in the review, told this news organization that it is crucial to raise awareness of NAFLD, just like awareness of breast cancer screening among women of a certain age was increased, so that individuals are screened for metabolic conditions regardless of whether they have obesity or overweight.

Zobair Younossi, MD, MPH, professor of medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Inova Campus, Falls Church, Va., added that there is a lack of awareness that NAFLD occurs in lean individuals, especially in those who have diabetes.

He said in an interview that although it is accurate to define individuals as being lean in terms of their BMI, the best way is to look not only at BMI but also at waist circumference.

Dr. Younossi said that he and his colleagues have shown that when BMI is combined with waist circumference, the prediction of mortality risk in NAFLD is affected, such that lean individuals with an obese waist circumference have a higher risk for all-cause mortality.

Dr. Long is supported in part by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, Gilead Sciences Research Scholars Award, Boston University School of Medicine Department of Medicine Career Investment Award, and Boston University Clinical Translational Science Institute. Dr. Long declares relationships with Novo Nordisk, Echosens Corporation, and Gilead Sciences. Dr. Yuan declares relationships with Genfit, Intercept, and Gilead Sciences. Dr. Younossi declares no relevant relationships.

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

*This article was updated on July 27, 2022.

Ongoing follow-up and lifestyle interventions are needed in lean patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), suggests a panel of experts in a recent review.

They also urge screening for NAFLD in individuals who are older than 40 years with type 2 diabetes, even if they are not overweight.

NAFLD is a leading cause of chronic liver disease that affects more than 25% of the United States and worldwide populations, note lead author Michelle T. Long, MD, Boston Medical Center, Boston University, and colleagues.

Evidence-based approaches

The 15 best practice advice statements covered a wide range of clinical areas, first defining lean as a body mass index (BMI) less than 25 in non-Asian persons and less than 23 in Asian persons.

The authors go on to stipulate, for example, that lean individuals in the general population should not be screened for NAFLD but that screening should be considered for individuals older than 40 years with type 2 diabetes.

More broadly, they write that the condition should be considered in lean individuals with metabolic diseases, such as type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension, as well as elevated values on liver biochemical tests or incidentally noted hepatic steatosis.

After other causes of liver diseases are ruled out, the authors note that clinicians should consider liver biopsy as the reference test if uncertainties remain about liver injury causes and/or liver fibrosis staging.

They also write that the NAFLD fibrosis score and Fibrosis-4 score, along with imaging techniques, may be used as alternatives to biopsy for staging and during follow-up.

The authors, who provide a diagnosis and management algorithm to aid clinicians, suggest that lean patients with NAFLD follow lifestyle interventions, such as exercise, diet modification, and avoidance of fructose- and sugar-sweetened drinks, to achieve weight loss of 3%-5%.

Vitamin E may be considered, they continue, in patients with biopsy-confirmed nonalcoholic steatohepatitis but without type 2 diabetes or cirrhosis. Additionally, oral pioglitazone may be considered in lean persons with biopsy-confirmed nonalcoholic steatohepatitis without cirrhosis.

In contrast, they write that the role of glucagonlike peptide 1 agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors requires further investigation.

The advice also says that lean patients with NAFLD should be routinely evaluated for comorbid conditions, such as type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension, and risk-stratified for hepatic fibrosis to identify those with advanced fibrosis or cirrhosis.

For lean patients with NAFLD and clinical markers compatible with liver cirrhosis, twice-yearly surveillance for hepatocellular carcinoma is also advised.

Fatty liver disease in lean people with metabolic conditions

Approached for comment, Liyun Yuan, MD, PhD, assistant professor of clinical medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said it is very important to have uniform guidelines for general practitioners and other specialties on NAFLD in lean individuals.

Dr. Yuan, who was not involved in the review, told this news organization that it is crucial to raise awareness of NAFLD, just like awareness of breast cancer screening among women of a certain age was increased, so that individuals are screened for metabolic conditions regardless of whether they have obesity or overweight.

Zobair Younossi, MD, MPH, professor of medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Inova Campus, Falls Church, Va., added that there is a lack of awareness that NAFLD occurs in lean individuals, especially in those who have diabetes.

He said in an interview that although it is accurate to define individuals as being lean in terms of their BMI, the best way is to look not only at BMI but also at waist circumference.

Dr. Younossi said that he and his colleagues have shown that when BMI is combined with waist circumference, the prediction of mortality risk in NAFLD is affected, such that lean individuals with an obese waist circumference have a higher risk for all-cause mortality.

Dr. Long is supported in part by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, Gilead Sciences Research Scholars Award, Boston University School of Medicine Department of Medicine Career Investment Award, and Boston University Clinical Translational Science Institute. Dr. Long declares relationships with Novo Nordisk, Echosens Corporation, and Gilead Sciences. Dr. Yuan declares relationships with Genfit, Intercept, and Gilead Sciences. Dr. Younossi declares no relevant relationships.

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

*This article was updated on July 27, 2022.

More than half of studies testing anticancer drugs against each other have rules with regard to dose modification and growth support that favor the experimental drug arm, a new analysis suggests.

“We found it sobering that this practice is so common,” Timothée Olivier, MD, with Geneva University Hospital and the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview.

Trials may be “rigged” in a way where the new therapy appears more effective than if the trial would have been designed with fairer rules, he explained.

This leaves open the question of whether new drugs are truly superior to older ones or if instead different outcomes are caused by more aggressive dosing or growth factor support, the investigators said.

Dr. Olivier, with UCSF coinvestigators Alyson Haslam, PhD, and Vinay Prasad, MD, reported their findings online in the European Journal of Cancer.

‘Highly concerning’

Different drug modification rules or growth factor support guidance may affect the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of testing new cancer agents.

For their study, Dr. Olivier and colleagues did a cross-sectional analysis of all 62 head-to-head registration RCTs that led to Food and Drug Administration approval between 2009 and 2021.

All of the trials examined anticancer drugs in the advanced or metastatic setting where a comparison was made between arms regarding either dose modification rules or myeloid growth factors recommendations.

The researchers assessed imbalance in drug modification rules, myeloid growth factor recommendations, or both, according to prespecified rules.

They discovered that 40 of the 62 trials (65%) had unequal rules for dose medication, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) use, or both.

Six trials (10%) had rules favoring the control arm, while 34 (55%) had rules favoring the experimental arm. Among these, 50% had unequal drug modification rules, 41% had unequal G-CSF rules, and 9% had both.

Dr. Olivier said in an interview the results are “highly concerning because when you are investigating the effect of a new drug, you don’t want to have a false sense of a drug’s effect because of other factors not directly related to the drug’s efficacy.”

“If you introduce unfair rules about dose modification or supporting medication that favors the new drug, then you don’t know if a positive trial is due to the effect of the new drug or to the effect of differential dosing or supporting medication,” he added.
 

Blame industry?

Dr. Olivier said the fact that most registration trials are industry-sponsored is likely the primary explanation of the findings.

“Industry-sponsored trials may be designed so that the new drug has the best chance to get the largest ‘win,’ because this means more market share and more profit for the company that manufactures the drug. This is not a criticism of the industry, which runs on a business model that naturally aims to gain more market share and more profit,” Dr. Olivier said.

“However, it is the role and duty of regulators to reconcile industry incentives with the patients’ best interests, and there is accumulating data showing the regulators are failing to do so,” he added.

Addressing this problem will likely take buy-in from multiple stakeholders.

Awareness of the problem is a first step and understanding the influence of commercial incentives in drug development is also key, Dr. Olivier said.

Institutional review boards and drug regulators could also systematically evaluate drug dosing modification and supportive medication rules before a trial gets underway.

Regulators could also incentivize companies to implement balanced rules between arms by not granting drug approval based on trials suffering from such flaws.

“However, financial conflict of interest is present at many levels of drug development, including in drug regulation,” Dr. Olivier noted.

He pointed to a recent study that found when hematology-oncology medical reviewers working at the FDA leave the agency, more than half end up working or consulting for the pharmaceutical industry.

Dr. Olivier wondered: “How can one fairly and independently appraise a medical intervention if one’s current or future revenue depends on its source?”

The study was funded by Arnold Ventures, through a grant paid to UCSF. Dr. Olivier and Dr. Haslam had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Prasad reported receiving royalties from Arnold Ventures.

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

More than half of studies testing anticancer drugs against each other have rules with regard to dose modification and growth support that favor the experimental drug arm, a new analysis suggests.

“We found it sobering that this practice is so common,” Timothée Olivier, MD, with Geneva University Hospital and the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview.

Trials may be “rigged” in a way where the new therapy appears more effective than if the trial would have been designed with fairer rules, he explained.

This leaves open the question of whether new drugs are truly superior to older ones or if instead different outcomes are caused by more aggressive dosing or growth factor support, the investigators said.

Dr. Olivier, with UCSF coinvestigators Alyson Haslam, PhD, and Vinay Prasad, MD, reported their findings online in the European Journal of Cancer.

‘Highly concerning’

Different drug modification rules or growth factor support guidance may affect the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of testing new cancer agents.

For their study, Dr. Olivier and colleagues did a cross-sectional analysis of all 62 head-to-head registration RCTs that led to Food and Drug Administration approval between 2009 and 2021.

All of the trials examined anticancer drugs in the advanced or metastatic setting where a comparison was made between arms regarding either dose modification rules or myeloid growth factors recommendations.

The researchers assessed imbalance in drug modification rules, myeloid growth factor recommendations, or both, according to prespecified rules.

They discovered that 40 of the 62 trials (65%) had unequal rules for dose medication, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) use, or both.

Six trials (10%) had rules favoring the control arm, while 34 (55%) had rules favoring the experimental arm. Among these, 50% had unequal drug modification rules, 41% had unequal G-CSF rules, and 9% had both.

Dr. Olivier said in an interview the results are “highly concerning because when you are investigating the effect of a new drug, you don’t want to have a false sense of a drug’s effect because of other factors not directly related to the drug’s efficacy.”

“If you introduce unfair rules about dose modification or supporting medication that favors the new drug, then you don’t know if a positive trial is due to the effect of the new drug or to the effect of differential dosing or supporting medication,” he added.
 

Blame industry?

Dr. Olivier said the fact that most registration trials are industry-sponsored is likely the primary explanation of the findings.

“Industry-sponsored trials may be designed so that the new drug has the best chance to get the largest ‘win,’ because this means more market share and more profit for the company that manufactures the drug. This is not a criticism of the industry, which runs on a business model that naturally aims to gain more market share and more profit,” Dr. Olivier said.

“However, it is the role and duty of regulators to reconcile industry incentives with the patients’ best interests, and there is accumulating data showing the regulators are failing to do so,” he added.

Addressing this problem will likely take buy-in from multiple stakeholders.

Awareness of the problem is a first step and understanding the influence of commercial incentives in drug development is also key, Dr. Olivier said.

Institutional review boards and drug regulators could also systematically evaluate drug dosing modification and supportive medication rules before a trial gets underway.

Regulators could also incentivize companies to implement balanced rules between arms by not granting drug approval based on trials suffering from such flaws.

“However, financial conflict of interest is present at many levels of drug development, including in drug regulation,” Dr. Olivier noted.

He pointed to a recent study that found when hematology-oncology medical reviewers working at the FDA leave the agency, more than half end up working or consulting for the pharmaceutical industry.

Dr. Olivier wondered: “How can one fairly and independently appraise a medical intervention if one’s current or future revenue depends on its source?”

The study was funded by Arnold Ventures, through a grant paid to UCSF. Dr. Olivier and Dr. Haslam had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Prasad reported receiving royalties from Arnold Ventures.

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

More than half of studies testing anticancer drugs against each other have rules with regard to dose modification and growth support that favor the experimental drug arm, a new analysis suggests.

“We found it sobering that this practice is so common,” Timothée Olivier, MD, with Geneva University Hospital and the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview.

Trials may be “rigged” in a way where the new therapy appears more effective than if the trial would have been designed with fairer rules, he explained.

This leaves open the question of whether new drugs are truly superior to older ones or if instead different outcomes are caused by more aggressive dosing or growth factor support, the investigators said.

Dr. Olivier, with UCSF coinvestigators Alyson Haslam, PhD, and Vinay Prasad, MD, reported their findings online in the European Journal of Cancer.

‘Highly concerning’

Different drug modification rules or growth factor support guidance may affect the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of testing new cancer agents.

For their study, Dr. Olivier and colleagues did a cross-sectional analysis of all 62 head-to-head registration RCTs that led to Food and Drug Administration approval between 2009 and 2021.

All of the trials examined anticancer drugs in the advanced or metastatic setting where a comparison was made between arms regarding either dose modification rules or myeloid growth factors recommendations.

The researchers assessed imbalance in drug modification rules, myeloid growth factor recommendations, or both, according to prespecified rules.

They discovered that 40 of the 62 trials (65%) had unequal rules for dose medication, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) use, or both.

Six trials (10%) had rules favoring the control arm, while 34 (55%) had rules favoring the experimental arm. Among these, 50% had unequal drug modification rules, 41% had unequal G-CSF rules, and 9% had both.

Dr. Olivier said in an interview the results are “highly concerning because when you are investigating the effect of a new drug, you don’t want to have a false sense of a drug’s effect because of other factors not directly related to the drug’s efficacy.”

“If you introduce unfair rules about dose modification or supporting medication that favors the new drug, then you don’t know if a positive trial is due to the effect of the new drug or to the effect of differential dosing or supporting medication,” he added.
 

Blame industry?

Dr. Olivier said the fact that most registration trials are industry-sponsored is likely the primary explanation of the findings.

“Industry-sponsored trials may be designed so that the new drug has the best chance to get the largest ‘win,’ because this means more market share and more profit for the company that manufactures the drug. This is not a criticism of the industry, which runs on a business model that naturally aims to gain more market share and more profit,” Dr. Olivier said.

“However, it is the role and duty of regulators to reconcile industry incentives with the patients’ best interests, and there is accumulating data showing the regulators are failing to do so,” he added.

Addressing this problem will likely take buy-in from multiple stakeholders.

Awareness of the problem is a first step and understanding the influence of commercial incentives in drug development is also key, Dr. Olivier said.

Institutional review boards and drug regulators could also systematically evaluate drug dosing modification and supportive medication rules before a trial gets underway.

Regulators could also incentivize companies to implement balanced rules between arms by not granting drug approval based on trials suffering from such flaws.

“However, financial conflict of interest is present at many levels of drug development, including in drug regulation,” Dr. Olivier noted.

He pointed to a recent study that found when hematology-oncology medical reviewers working at the FDA leave the agency, more than half end up working or consulting for the pharmaceutical industry.

Dr. Olivier wondered: “How can one fairly and independently appraise a medical intervention if one’s current or future revenue depends on its source?”

The study was funded by Arnold Ventures, through a grant paid to UCSF. Dr. Olivier and Dr. Haslam had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Prasad reported receiving royalties from Arnold Ventures.

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

Emma Sherman, a 13-year-old girl in Ascot, England, woke up to a dizzying aura of blind spots and flashing lights in her field of vision. It was May 2020, and she also had crippling nausea and headaches. By August, her dizziness was so overwhelming, she couldn’t hold her head up, lying in her mother’s lap for hours, too fatigued to attend school.

The former competitive gymnast, who had hoped to try out for the cheerleading squad, now used a wheelchair and was a shadow of her former self. She had been diagnosed with COVID-induced postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, a condition often caused by an infection that results in a higher heart rate, extreme nausea, dizziness, and fatigue.

“I was so into sports before I got long COVID, and afterwards I could barely walk,” Emma said.

Even minor movements sent her heart rate sky-high. Her long chestnut hair turned gray and fell out in clumps. In the hospital, she was pricked and prodded, her blood tested for numerous conditions.

“They ran every scan known to man and took an MRI of her brain,” said Emma’s mother, Marie Sherman. “All was clear.”

Emma’s pediatrician determined that the teen had long COVID after having had a mild case of the virus in March, about 2 months before her puzzling symptoms began. But beyond a positive antibody test, doctors have found little evidence of what was causing Emma’s symptoms.

For Emma and others with long COVID, there are no medications shown to directly target the condition. Instead, caregivers target their symptoms, which include nausea, dizziness, fatigue, headaches, and a racing heart, said Laura Malone, MD, codirector of the Johns Hopkins Kennedy Krieger Pediatric Post–COVID-19 Rehabilitation Clinic in Baltimore.

“Right now, it’s a rehabilitation-based approach focused on improving symptoms and functioning so that kids can go back to their usual activities as much as possible,” she says.

Depression and anxiety are common, although doctors are struggling to figure out whether COVID is changing the brain or whether mental health symptoms result from all the life disruptions. There’s little research to show how may kids have depression because of long COVID. Dr. Malone said about half of her patients at the Kennedy Krieger Institute›s long COVID clinic are also dealing with mental health issues.

Patients with headaches, dizziness, and nausea are given pain and nausea medications and recommendations for a healthy diet with added fruits and vegetables, monounsaturated fats, lower sodium, unprocessed foods, and whole grains. Kids with irregular or racing heart rates are referred to cardiologists and potentially prescribed beta-blockers to treat their heart arrhythmias, while children with breathing problems may be referred to pulmonologists and those with depression to a psychiatrist.

Still, many patients like Emma go to their doctors with phantom symptoms that don’t show up on scans or blood tests.

“We’re not seeing any evidence of structural damage to the brain, for example,” said Dr. Malone. “When we do MRIs, they often come out normal.”

It’s possible that the virus lingers in some patients, said Rajeev Fernando, MD, an infectious disease specialist and a fellow at Harvard Medical School, Boston. Kids’ strong immune systems often fend off problems that can be noticed. But on the inside, dead fragments of the virus persist, floating in hidden parts of the body and activating the immune system long after the threat has passed.

The virus can be in the gut and in the brain, which may help explain why symptoms like brain fog and nausea can linger in children.

“The immune system doesn’t recognize whether fragments of the virus are dead or alive. It continues to think it’s fighting active COVID,” said Dr. Fernando.

There is little data on how long symptoms last, Dr. Fernando said, as well as how many kids get them and why some are more vulnerable than others. Some research has found that about 5%-15% of children with COVID may get long COVID, but the statistics vary globally.

“Children with long COVID have largely been ignored. And while we’re talking about it now, we’ve got some work to do,” said Dr. Fernando.

As for Emma, she recovered in January of 2021, heading back to school and her friends, although her cardiologist advised her to skip gym classes.

“For the first time in months, I was feeling like myself again,” she said.

But the coronavirus found its way to Emma again. Although she was fully vaccinated in the fall of 2021, when the Omicron variant swept the world late that year, she was infected again.

“When the wave of Omicron descended, Emma was like a sitting duck,” her mother said.

She was bedridden with a high fever and cough. The cold-like symptoms eventually went away, but the issues in her gut stuck around. Since then, Emma has had extreme nausea, losing most of the weight she had gained back.

For her part, Ms. Sherman has found solace in a group called Long COVID Kids, a nonprofit in Europe and the United States. The group is raising awareness about the condition in kids to increase funding, boost understanding, and improve treatment and outcomes.

“There’s nothing worse than watching your child suffer and not being able to do anything about it,” she said. “I tell Emma all the time: If I could just crawl in your body and take it, I would do it in a second.”

Emma is hoping for a fresh start with her family’s move in the coming weeks to Sotogrande in southern Spain.

“I miss the simplest things like going for a run, going to the fair with my friends, and just feeling well,” she said. “I have a long list of things I’ll do once this is all done.”

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

Emma Sherman, a 13-year-old girl in Ascot, England, woke up to a dizzying aura of blind spots and flashing lights in her field of vision. It was May 2020, and she also had crippling nausea and headaches. By August, her dizziness was so overwhelming, she couldn’t hold her head up, lying in her mother’s lap for hours, too fatigued to attend school.

The former competitive gymnast, who had hoped to try out for the cheerleading squad, now used a wheelchair and was a shadow of her former self. She had been diagnosed with COVID-induced postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, a condition often caused by an infection that results in a higher heart rate, extreme nausea, dizziness, and fatigue.

“I was so into sports before I got long COVID, and afterwards I could barely walk,” Emma said.

Even minor movements sent her heart rate sky-high. Her long chestnut hair turned gray and fell out in clumps. In the hospital, she was pricked and prodded, her blood tested for numerous conditions.

“They ran every scan known to man and took an MRI of her brain,” said Emma’s mother, Marie Sherman. “All was clear.”

Emma’s pediatrician determined that the teen had long COVID after having had a mild case of the virus in March, about 2 months before her puzzling symptoms began. But beyond a positive antibody test, doctors have found little evidence of what was causing Emma’s symptoms.

For Emma and others with long COVID, there are no medications shown to directly target the condition. Instead, caregivers target their symptoms, which include nausea, dizziness, fatigue, headaches, and a racing heart, said Laura Malone, MD, codirector of the Johns Hopkins Kennedy Krieger Pediatric Post–COVID-19 Rehabilitation Clinic in Baltimore.

“Right now, it’s a rehabilitation-based approach focused on improving symptoms and functioning so that kids can go back to their usual activities as much as possible,” she says.

Depression and anxiety are common, although doctors are struggling to figure out whether COVID is changing the brain or whether mental health symptoms result from all the life disruptions. There’s little research to show how may kids have depression because of long COVID. Dr. Malone said about half of her patients at the Kennedy Krieger Institute›s long COVID clinic are also dealing with mental health issues.

Patients with headaches, dizziness, and nausea are given pain and nausea medications and recommendations for a healthy diet with added fruits and vegetables, monounsaturated fats, lower sodium, unprocessed foods, and whole grains. Kids with irregular or racing heart rates are referred to cardiologists and potentially prescribed beta-blockers to treat their heart arrhythmias, while children with breathing problems may be referred to pulmonologists and those with depression to a psychiatrist.

Still, many patients like Emma go to their doctors with phantom symptoms that don’t show up on scans or blood tests.

“We’re not seeing any evidence of structural damage to the brain, for example,” said Dr. Malone. “When we do MRIs, they often come out normal.”

It’s possible that the virus lingers in some patients, said Rajeev Fernando, MD, an infectious disease specialist and a fellow at Harvard Medical School, Boston. Kids’ strong immune systems often fend off problems that can be noticed. But on the inside, dead fragments of the virus persist, floating in hidden parts of the body and activating the immune system long after the threat has passed.

The virus can be in the gut and in the brain, which may help explain why symptoms like brain fog and nausea can linger in children.

“The immune system doesn’t recognize whether fragments of the virus are dead or alive. It continues to think it’s fighting active COVID,” said Dr. Fernando.

There is little data on how long symptoms last, Dr. Fernando said, as well as how many kids get them and why some are more vulnerable than others. Some research has found that about 5%-15% of children with COVID may get long COVID, but the statistics vary globally.

“Children with long COVID have largely been ignored. And while we’re talking about it now, we’ve got some work to do,” said Dr. Fernando.

As for Emma, she recovered in January of 2021, heading back to school and her friends, although her cardiologist advised her to skip gym classes.

“For the first time in months, I was feeling like myself again,” she said.

But the coronavirus found its way to Emma again. Although she was fully vaccinated in the fall of 2021, when the Omicron variant swept the world late that year, she was infected again.

“When the wave of Omicron descended, Emma was like a sitting duck,” her mother said.

She was bedridden with a high fever and cough. The cold-like symptoms eventually went away, but the issues in her gut stuck around. Since then, Emma has had extreme nausea, losing most of the weight she had gained back.

For her part, Ms. Sherman has found solace in a group called Long COVID Kids, a nonprofit in Europe and the United States. The group is raising awareness about the condition in kids to increase funding, boost understanding, and improve treatment and outcomes.

“There’s nothing worse than watching your child suffer and not being able to do anything about it,” she said. “I tell Emma all the time: If I could just crawl in your body and take it, I would do it in a second.”

Emma is hoping for a fresh start with her family’s move in the coming weeks to Sotogrande in southern Spain.

“I miss the simplest things like going for a run, going to the fair with my friends, and just feeling well,” she said. “I have a long list of things I’ll do once this is all done.”

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

Emma Sherman, a 13-year-old girl in Ascot, England, woke up to a dizzying aura of blind spots and flashing lights in her field of vision. It was May 2020, and she also had crippling nausea and headaches. By August, her dizziness was so overwhelming, she couldn’t hold her head up, lying in her mother’s lap for hours, too fatigued to attend school.

The former competitive gymnast, who had hoped to try out for the cheerleading squad, now used a wheelchair and was a shadow of her former self. She had been diagnosed with COVID-induced postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, a condition often caused by an infection that results in a higher heart rate, extreme nausea, dizziness, and fatigue.

“I was so into sports before I got long COVID, and afterwards I could barely walk,” Emma said.

Even minor movements sent her heart rate sky-high. Her long chestnut hair turned gray and fell out in clumps. In the hospital, she was pricked and prodded, her blood tested for numerous conditions.

“They ran every scan known to man and took an MRI of her brain,” said Emma’s mother, Marie Sherman. “All was clear.”

Emma’s pediatrician determined that the teen had long COVID after having had a mild case of the virus in March, about 2 months before her puzzling symptoms began. But beyond a positive antibody test, doctors have found little evidence of what was causing Emma’s symptoms.

For Emma and others with long COVID, there are no medications shown to directly target the condition. Instead, caregivers target their symptoms, which include nausea, dizziness, fatigue, headaches, and a racing heart, said Laura Malone, MD, codirector of the Johns Hopkins Kennedy Krieger Pediatric Post–COVID-19 Rehabilitation Clinic in Baltimore.

“Right now, it’s a rehabilitation-based approach focused on improving symptoms and functioning so that kids can go back to their usual activities as much as possible,” she says.

Depression and anxiety are common, although doctors are struggling to figure out whether COVID is changing the brain or whether mental health symptoms result from all the life disruptions. There’s little research to show how may kids have depression because of long COVID. Dr. Malone said about half of her patients at the Kennedy Krieger Institute›s long COVID clinic are also dealing with mental health issues.

Patients with headaches, dizziness, and nausea are given pain and nausea medications and recommendations for a healthy diet with added fruits and vegetables, monounsaturated fats, lower sodium, unprocessed foods, and whole grains. Kids with irregular or racing heart rates are referred to cardiologists and potentially prescribed beta-blockers to treat their heart arrhythmias, while children with breathing problems may be referred to pulmonologists and those with depression to a psychiatrist.

Still, many patients like Emma go to their doctors with phantom symptoms that don’t show up on scans or blood tests.

“We’re not seeing any evidence of structural damage to the brain, for example,” said Dr. Malone. “When we do MRIs, they often come out normal.”

It’s possible that the virus lingers in some patients, said Rajeev Fernando, MD, an infectious disease specialist and a fellow at Harvard Medical School, Boston. Kids’ strong immune systems often fend off problems that can be noticed. But on the inside, dead fragments of the virus persist, floating in hidden parts of the body and activating the immune system long after the threat has passed.

The virus can be in the gut and in the brain, which may help explain why symptoms like brain fog and nausea can linger in children.

“The immune system doesn’t recognize whether fragments of the virus are dead or alive. It continues to think it’s fighting active COVID,” said Dr. Fernando.

There is little data on how long symptoms last, Dr. Fernando said, as well as how many kids get them and why some are more vulnerable than others. Some research has found that about 5%-15% of children with COVID may get long COVID, but the statistics vary globally.

“Children with long COVID have largely been ignored. And while we’re talking about it now, we’ve got some work to do,” said Dr. Fernando.

As for Emma, she recovered in January of 2021, heading back to school and her friends, although her cardiologist advised her to skip gym classes.

“For the first time in months, I was feeling like myself again,” she said.

But the coronavirus found its way to Emma again. Although she was fully vaccinated in the fall of 2021, when the Omicron variant swept the world late that year, she was infected again.

“When the wave of Omicron descended, Emma was like a sitting duck,” her mother said.

She was bedridden with a high fever and cough. The cold-like symptoms eventually went away, but the issues in her gut stuck around. Since then, Emma has had extreme nausea, losing most of the weight she had gained back.

For her part, Ms. Sherman has found solace in a group called Long COVID Kids, a nonprofit in Europe and the United States. The group is raising awareness about the condition in kids to increase funding, boost understanding, and improve treatment and outcomes.

“There’s nothing worse than watching your child suffer and not being able to do anything about it,” she said. “I tell Emma all the time: If I could just crawl in your body and take it, I would do it in a second.”

Emma is hoping for a fresh start with her family’s move in the coming weeks to Sotogrande in southern Spain.

“I miss the simplest things like going for a run, going to the fair with my friends, and just feeling well,” she said. “I have a long list of things I’ll do once this is all done.”

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

Researchers have developed a hypothesis that may explain how chronic neuroinflammation contributes to conditions such as myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection through a continuing relapse-recovery cycle.

ME/CFS has been established as resulting from infections, environmental exposures, stressors, and surgery. Similarities have been drawn during the COVID-19 pandemic between ME/CFS and a large subgroup of patients with post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection – also known as post-COVID conditions, or long COVID – who continue to have viral fatigue and other lingering symptoms after their infection resolves.

What has been less clearly understood, the researchers said, is the reason behind why ME/CFS and other postviral fatigue tends to be chronic and can sometime develop into a lifelong condition.

“These diseases are very closely related, and it is clear the biological basis of long COVID is unequivocally connected to the original COVID infection – so there should no longer be any debate and doubt about the fact that postviral fatigue syndromes like ME/CFS are biologically based and involve much disturbed physiology,” Warren Tate, MSc, PhD, emeritus professor in the department of biochemistry at the University of Otago in Dunedin, New Zealand, stated in a press release.

Their hypothesis, set forth in a study published in Frontiers of Neurology, proposes that the systemic immune/inflammatory response that occurs after an infection or stressful event does not revolve, which results in a “fluctuating chronic neuroinflammation that sustains and controls the complex neurological symptoms of ME/CFS and long COVID and facilitates frequent more serious relapses in response to life stress, as evidenced from a comprehensive disruption to the cellular molecular biology and body’s physiological pathways.”

Dr. Tate and colleagues said that it is still unclear how the neuroinflammation occurs, why it’s persistent in ME/CFS, and how it causes symptoms associated with ME/CFS. In their hypothesis, “abnormal signaling or transport of molecules/cells occurs through one or both of neurovascular pathways and/or a dysfunctional blood brain barrier,” they said, noting “the normally separate and contained brain/CNS compartment in the healthy person becomes more porous.” The neurological symptoms associated with ME/CFS occur due to strong signals sent because of persistent “inflammatory signals or immune cells/molecules migrating into the brain,” they explained.

This results in a continuous loop where the central nervous system sends signals back to the body through the hypothalamus/paraventricular nucleus and the brain stem. “The resulting symptoms and the neurologically driven ‘sickness response’ for the ME/CFS patient would persist, preventing healing and a return to the preinfectious/stress-related state,” Dr. Tate and colleagues said.
 

Lingering inflammation may be the culprit

Commenting on the study, Achillefs Ntranos, MD, a board-certified neurologist in private practice in Scarsdale, N.Y., who was not involved with the research, said previous studies have shown that long COVID is linked to chronic activation of microglia in the brain, which has also been seen to activate in patients with ME/CFS.

“The hypothesis that lingering inflammation in the brain is the culprit behind the neurological symptoms of long COVID and ME/CFS is valid,” he said. “If these cells remain activated in the brain, they can cause a state of increased and lingering inflammation, which can interfere with the function of neurons, thus producing neurological symptoms. Since the neurological symptoms are similar between these entities, the mechanisms that produce them might also be similar.”

While the exact cause of ME/CFS is still unclear, it is often tied to the aftereffects of a flu-like illness, Dr. Ntranos said. “This has led researchers to propose that it arises after a viral infection, with many different types of viruses being associated with it. Other ways researchers think ME/CFS is being brought on after a viral illness is via changes in the immune system, such as chronic production of cytokines, neuroinflammation, and disruption of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, which regulates the body’s response to stress,” he explained.

While a newer condition, long COVID is not all that different from ME/CFS, Dr. Ntranos noted, sharing the catalyst of a viral infection and core neurological symptoms such as fatigue, postexertional malaise, a “brain fog” that makes thinking or concentrating difficult, sleep problems, and lightheadedness, but there are differences that set it apart from ME/CFS.

“Long COVID is unique in having additional symptoms that are specific to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, such as respiratory and cardiovascular symptoms and loss of smell and taste. However most central nervous system effects are the same between these two entities,” he said.

Dr. Ntranos said long COVID’s neurological symptoms are similar to that of multiple sclerosis (MS), such as “brain fog” and postexertional malaise. “Since MS only affects the brain and spinal cord, there are no symptoms from other organ systems, such as the lungs, heart, or digestive system, contrary to long COVID. Furthermore, MS rarely affects smell and taste, making these symptoms unique to COVID,” he said.

However, he pointed out that brain fog and fatigue symptoms on their own can be nonspecific and attributed to many different conditions, such as obstructive sleep apnea, migraines, depression, anxiety, thyroid problems, vitamin deficiencies, dehydration, sleep disorders, and side effects of medications.

“More research needs to be done to understand how these cells are being activated, how they interfere with neuronal function, and why they remain in that state in some people, who then go on to develop fatigue and brain fog,” he said.

This study was funded by the Healthcare Otago Charitable Trust, the Associated New Zealand Myalgic Encephalomyelitis Society, and donations from families of patients with ME/CFS. The authors and Dr. Ntranos report no relevant financial disclosures.

Researchers have developed a hypothesis that may explain how chronic neuroinflammation contributes to conditions such as myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection through a continuing relapse-recovery cycle.

ME/CFS has been established as resulting from infections, environmental exposures, stressors, and surgery. Similarities have been drawn during the COVID-19 pandemic between ME/CFS and a large subgroup of patients with post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection – also known as post-COVID conditions, or long COVID – who continue to have viral fatigue and other lingering symptoms after their infection resolves.

What has been less clearly understood, the researchers said, is the reason behind why ME/CFS and other postviral fatigue tends to be chronic and can sometime develop into a lifelong condition.

“These diseases are very closely related, and it is clear the biological basis of long COVID is unequivocally connected to the original COVID infection – so there should no longer be any debate and doubt about the fact that postviral fatigue syndromes like ME/CFS are biologically based and involve much disturbed physiology,” Warren Tate, MSc, PhD, emeritus professor in the department of biochemistry at the University of Otago in Dunedin, New Zealand, stated in a press release.

Their hypothesis, set forth in a study published in Frontiers of Neurology, proposes that the systemic immune/inflammatory response that occurs after an infection or stressful event does not revolve, which results in a “fluctuating chronic neuroinflammation that sustains and controls the complex neurological symptoms of ME/CFS and long COVID and facilitates frequent more serious relapses in response to life stress, as evidenced from a comprehensive disruption to the cellular molecular biology and body’s physiological pathways.”

Dr. Tate and colleagues said that it is still unclear how the neuroinflammation occurs, why it’s persistent in ME/CFS, and how it causes symptoms associated with ME/CFS. In their hypothesis, “abnormal signaling or transport of molecules/cells occurs through one or both of neurovascular pathways and/or a dysfunctional blood brain barrier,” they said, noting “the normally separate and contained brain/CNS compartment in the healthy person becomes more porous.” The neurological symptoms associated with ME/CFS occur due to strong signals sent because of persistent “inflammatory signals or immune cells/molecules migrating into the brain,” they explained.

This results in a continuous loop where the central nervous system sends signals back to the body through the hypothalamus/paraventricular nucleus and the brain stem. “The resulting symptoms and the neurologically driven ‘sickness response’ for the ME/CFS patient would persist, preventing healing and a return to the preinfectious/stress-related state,” Dr. Tate and colleagues said.
 

Lingering inflammation may be the culprit

Commenting on the study, Achillefs Ntranos, MD, a board-certified neurologist in private practice in Scarsdale, N.Y., who was not involved with the research, said previous studies have shown that long COVID is linked to chronic activation of microglia in the brain, which has also been seen to activate in patients with ME/CFS.

“The hypothesis that lingering inflammation in the brain is the culprit behind the neurological symptoms of long COVID and ME/CFS is valid,” he said. “If these cells remain activated in the brain, they can cause a state of increased and lingering inflammation, which can interfere with the function of neurons, thus producing neurological symptoms. Since the neurological symptoms are similar between these entities, the mechanisms that produce them might also be similar.”

While the exact cause of ME/CFS is still unclear, it is often tied to the aftereffects of a flu-like illness, Dr. Ntranos said. “This has led researchers to propose that it arises after a viral infection, with many different types of viruses being associated with it. Other ways researchers think ME/CFS is being brought on after a viral illness is via changes in the immune system, such as chronic production of cytokines, neuroinflammation, and disruption of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, which regulates the body’s response to stress,” he explained.

While a newer condition, long COVID is not all that different from ME/CFS, Dr. Ntranos noted, sharing the catalyst of a viral infection and core neurological symptoms such as fatigue, postexertional malaise, a “brain fog” that makes thinking or concentrating difficult, sleep problems, and lightheadedness, but there are differences that set it apart from ME/CFS.

“Long COVID is unique in having additional symptoms that are specific to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, such as respiratory and cardiovascular symptoms and loss of smell and taste. However most central nervous system effects are the same between these two entities,” he said.

Dr. Ntranos said long COVID’s neurological symptoms are similar to that of multiple sclerosis (MS), such as “brain fog” and postexertional malaise. “Since MS only affects the brain and spinal cord, there are no symptoms from other organ systems, such as the lungs, heart, or digestive system, contrary to long COVID. Furthermore, MS rarely affects smell and taste, making these symptoms unique to COVID,” he said.

However, he pointed out that brain fog and fatigue symptoms on their own can be nonspecific and attributed to many different conditions, such as obstructive sleep apnea, migraines, depression, anxiety, thyroid problems, vitamin deficiencies, dehydration, sleep disorders, and side effects of medications.

“More research needs to be done to understand how these cells are being activated, how they interfere with neuronal function, and why they remain in that state in some people, who then go on to develop fatigue and brain fog,” he said.

This study was funded by the Healthcare Otago Charitable Trust, the Associated New Zealand Myalgic Encephalomyelitis Society, and donations from families of patients with ME/CFS. The authors and Dr. Ntranos report no relevant financial disclosures.

Researchers have developed a hypothesis that may explain how chronic neuroinflammation contributes to conditions such as myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection through a continuing relapse-recovery cycle.

ME/CFS has been established as resulting from infections, environmental exposures, stressors, and surgery. Similarities have been drawn during the COVID-19 pandemic between ME/CFS and a large subgroup of patients with post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection – also known as post-COVID conditions, or long COVID – who continue to have viral fatigue and other lingering symptoms after their infection resolves.

What has been less clearly understood, the researchers said, is the reason behind why ME/CFS and other postviral fatigue tends to be chronic and can sometime develop into a lifelong condition.

“These diseases are very closely related, and it is clear the biological basis of long COVID is unequivocally connected to the original COVID infection – so there should no longer be any debate and doubt about the fact that postviral fatigue syndromes like ME/CFS are biologically based and involve much disturbed physiology,” Warren Tate, MSc, PhD, emeritus professor in the department of biochemistry at the University of Otago in Dunedin, New Zealand, stated in a press release.

Their hypothesis, set forth in a study published in Frontiers of Neurology, proposes that the systemic immune/inflammatory response that occurs after an infection or stressful event does not revolve, which results in a “fluctuating chronic neuroinflammation that sustains and controls the complex neurological symptoms of ME/CFS and long COVID and facilitates frequent more serious relapses in response to life stress, as evidenced from a comprehensive disruption to the cellular molecular biology and body’s physiological pathways.”

Dr. Tate and colleagues said that it is still unclear how the neuroinflammation occurs, why it’s persistent in ME/CFS, and how it causes symptoms associated with ME/CFS. In their hypothesis, “abnormal signaling or transport of molecules/cells occurs through one or both of neurovascular pathways and/or a dysfunctional blood brain barrier,” they said, noting “the normally separate and contained brain/CNS compartment in the healthy person becomes more porous.” The neurological symptoms associated with ME/CFS occur due to strong signals sent because of persistent “inflammatory signals or immune cells/molecules migrating into the brain,” they explained.

This results in a continuous loop where the central nervous system sends signals back to the body through the hypothalamus/paraventricular nucleus and the brain stem. “The resulting symptoms and the neurologically driven ‘sickness response’ for the ME/CFS patient would persist, preventing healing and a return to the preinfectious/stress-related state,” Dr. Tate and colleagues said.
 

Lingering inflammation may be the culprit

Commenting on the study, Achillefs Ntranos, MD, a board-certified neurologist in private practice in Scarsdale, N.Y., who was not involved with the research, said previous studies have shown that long COVID is linked to chronic activation of microglia in the brain, which has also been seen to activate in patients with ME/CFS.

“The hypothesis that lingering inflammation in the brain is the culprit behind the neurological symptoms of long COVID and ME/CFS is valid,” he said. “If these cells remain activated in the brain, they can cause a state of increased and lingering inflammation, which can interfere with the function of neurons, thus producing neurological symptoms. Since the neurological symptoms are similar between these entities, the mechanisms that produce them might also be similar.”

While the exact cause of ME/CFS is still unclear, it is often tied to the aftereffects of a flu-like illness, Dr. Ntranos said. “This has led researchers to propose that it arises after a viral infection, with many different types of viruses being associated with it. Other ways researchers think ME/CFS is being brought on after a viral illness is via changes in the immune system, such as chronic production of cytokines, neuroinflammation, and disruption of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, which regulates the body’s response to stress,” he explained.

While a newer condition, long COVID is not all that different from ME/CFS, Dr. Ntranos noted, sharing the catalyst of a viral infection and core neurological symptoms such as fatigue, postexertional malaise, a “brain fog” that makes thinking or concentrating difficult, sleep problems, and lightheadedness, but there are differences that set it apart from ME/CFS.

“Long COVID is unique in having additional symptoms that are specific to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, such as respiratory and cardiovascular symptoms and loss of smell and taste. However most central nervous system effects are the same between these two entities,” he said.

Dr. Ntranos said long COVID’s neurological symptoms are similar to that of multiple sclerosis (MS), such as “brain fog” and postexertional malaise. “Since MS only affects the brain and spinal cord, there are no symptoms from other organ systems, such as the lungs, heart, or digestive system, contrary to long COVID. Furthermore, MS rarely affects smell and taste, making these symptoms unique to COVID,” he said.

However, he pointed out that brain fog and fatigue symptoms on their own can be nonspecific and attributed to many different conditions, such as obstructive sleep apnea, migraines, depression, anxiety, thyroid problems, vitamin deficiencies, dehydration, sleep disorders, and side effects of medications.

“More research needs to be done to understand how these cells are being activated, how they interfere with neuronal function, and why they remain in that state in some people, who then go on to develop fatigue and brain fog,” he said.

This study was funded by the Healthcare Otago Charitable Trust, the Associated New Zealand Myalgic Encephalomyelitis Society, and donations from families of patients with ME/CFS. The authors and Dr. Ntranos report no relevant financial disclosures.