Clinician Reviews

WASHINGTON – Ridinilazole, a novel, highly specific antibiotic, was safe and showed a sustained clinical response in patients with Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI), according to phase 3 trial results presented at an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDI is the top cause of antibiotic-associated diarrhea and one of the most common health care–associated infections in the United States. About 200,000 people in the United States are infected with C. difficile every year in the hospital or clinical care setting.

Most infections are currently treated with vancomycin. Although vancomycin has been shown to be more than 80% effective, it has been linked with recurrence rates ranging from 20% to 30% and interferes with the protective role of the gut microbiome against infection. The current study compared ridinilazole with vancomycin.

Results of the global, double-blinded, randomized trial were presented by Pablo C. Okhuysen, MD, professor of infectious disease at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Participants with CDI received a 10-day course of ridinilazole 200 mg twice a day plus placebo or vancomycin 125 mg four times a day. The primary endpoint was sustained clinical response, defined as a clinical response with no recurrent CDI through 30 days after the end of treatment. Recurrent CDI was defined as a new episode of diarrhea with confirmed positive free toxin test requiring additional therapy.

Of the 759 patients enrolled, 745 were included in the modified intention-to-treat  population (ridinilazole, n = 370; vancomycin, n = 375). Ridinilazole achieved a numerically higher rate of sustained clinical response than vancomycin (73.0% vs. 70.7%; P = .467), although the difference was not significant. Ridinilazole also resulted in a significant reduction in recurrence rate (8.1% vs. 17.3%; P < .001).

Ridinilazole’s effect was most notable in a subgroup of patients who were not receiving other antibiotics at time of enrollment – about 70% of participants. In that subgroup, the recurrence rate was 6.7% with ridinilazole versus 16.5% with vancomycin (P < .001), Dr. Okhuysen reported.

“That resulted in a relative risk reduction of 60%,” Dr. Okhuysen told this news organization.

Dr. Okhuysen pointed out that there are currently very few treatment options for CDI other than vancomycin.

“We need new agents to treat C. difficile,” he said, “particularly for those at risk of recurrence. In our study, we found that those exposed to vancomycin had very dramatic shifts in their microbiome.”

Vancomycin depletes the gut microbiome, which decreases the conversion of primary acids to secondary bile acids, the researchers noted.

“A dysbiotic microbiome is fertile ground for C. difficile to grow,” Dr. Okhuysen said. Ridinilazole does not disrupt the microbiome, he added.

Ridinilazole was well-tolerated in the study. The proportion of patients with at least one treatment-emergent adverse effect was 36.4% versus 35.5%, respectively, in the ridinilazole and vancomycin groups. And the proportion who stopped treatment because of treatment-related side effects was 0.8% versus 2.9%.

Mary Hayden, MD, pathology director in the division of infectious diseases at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, who was not involved with the study, said the results are encouraging as “alternative agents or strategies to prevent recurrence are important to reduce CDI morbidity.”

Its double-blind, randomized, multicenter design strengthens the findings, she explained, adding that “the secondary outcomes of higher concentrations of secondary bile acids and microbiota diversity and composition lend biological plausibility.”

Ridinilazole’s narrow spectrum of activity “should result in less disruption of the colonic microbiota, which has theoretical benefit for both reducing CDI recurrence and for reducing risk of acquisition of multidrug-resistant organisms,” Dr. Hayden said.

Dr. Okhuysen shared that the team is in talks with the Food and Drug Administration and is preparing a manuscript for publication.

The study was supported by Summit Pharmaceuticals and funded by the Biomedical and Advanced Research and Development Authority. Dr. Okhuysen has reported receiving research support from and/or consulting for Summit, Merck, Deinove, Melinta, and Ferring Pharmaceuticals. Some of the coauthors have financial relationships with or received research support from Summit. Dr. Hayden has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

WASHINGTON – Ridinilazole, a novel, highly specific antibiotic, was safe and showed a sustained clinical response in patients with Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI), according to phase 3 trial results presented at an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDI is the top cause of antibiotic-associated diarrhea and one of the most common health care–associated infections in the United States. About 200,000 people in the United States are infected with C. difficile every year in the hospital or clinical care setting.

Most infections are currently treated with vancomycin. Although vancomycin has been shown to be more than 80% effective, it has been linked with recurrence rates ranging from 20% to 30% and interferes with the protective role of the gut microbiome against infection. The current study compared ridinilazole with vancomycin.

Results of the global, double-blinded, randomized trial were presented by Pablo C. Okhuysen, MD, professor of infectious disease at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Participants with CDI received a 10-day course of ridinilazole 200 mg twice a day plus placebo or vancomycin 125 mg four times a day. The primary endpoint was sustained clinical response, defined as a clinical response with no recurrent CDI through 30 days after the end of treatment. Recurrent CDI was defined as a new episode of diarrhea with confirmed positive free toxin test requiring additional therapy.

Of the 759 patients enrolled, 745 were included in the modified intention-to-treat  population (ridinilazole, n = 370; vancomycin, n = 375). Ridinilazole achieved a numerically higher rate of sustained clinical response than vancomycin (73.0% vs. 70.7%; P = .467), although the difference was not significant. Ridinilazole also resulted in a significant reduction in recurrence rate (8.1% vs. 17.3%; P < .001).

Ridinilazole’s effect was most notable in a subgroup of patients who were not receiving other antibiotics at time of enrollment – about 70% of participants. In that subgroup, the recurrence rate was 6.7% with ridinilazole versus 16.5% with vancomycin (P < .001), Dr. Okhuysen reported.

“That resulted in a relative risk reduction of 60%,” Dr. Okhuysen told this news organization.

Dr. Okhuysen pointed out that there are currently very few treatment options for CDI other than vancomycin.

“We need new agents to treat C. difficile,” he said, “particularly for those at risk of recurrence. In our study, we found that those exposed to vancomycin had very dramatic shifts in their microbiome.”

Vancomycin depletes the gut microbiome, which decreases the conversion of primary acids to secondary bile acids, the researchers noted.

“A dysbiotic microbiome is fertile ground for C. difficile to grow,” Dr. Okhuysen said. Ridinilazole does not disrupt the microbiome, he added.

Ridinilazole was well-tolerated in the study. The proportion of patients with at least one treatment-emergent adverse effect was 36.4% versus 35.5%, respectively, in the ridinilazole and vancomycin groups. And the proportion who stopped treatment because of treatment-related side effects was 0.8% versus 2.9%.

Mary Hayden, MD, pathology director in the division of infectious diseases at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, who was not involved with the study, said the results are encouraging as “alternative agents or strategies to prevent recurrence are important to reduce CDI morbidity.”

Its double-blind, randomized, multicenter design strengthens the findings, she explained, adding that “the secondary outcomes of higher concentrations of secondary bile acids and microbiota diversity and composition lend biological plausibility.”

Ridinilazole’s narrow spectrum of activity “should result in less disruption of the colonic microbiota, which has theoretical benefit for both reducing CDI recurrence and for reducing risk of acquisition of multidrug-resistant organisms,” Dr. Hayden said.

Dr. Okhuysen shared that the team is in talks with the Food and Drug Administration and is preparing a manuscript for publication.

The study was supported by Summit Pharmaceuticals and funded by the Biomedical and Advanced Research and Development Authority. Dr. Okhuysen has reported receiving research support from and/or consulting for Summit, Merck, Deinove, Melinta, and Ferring Pharmaceuticals. Some of the coauthors have financial relationships with or received research support from Summit. Dr. Hayden has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

WASHINGTON – Ridinilazole, a novel, highly specific antibiotic, was safe and showed a sustained clinical response in patients with Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI), according to phase 3 trial results presented at an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDI is the top cause of antibiotic-associated diarrhea and one of the most common health care–associated infections in the United States. About 200,000 people in the United States are infected with C. difficile every year in the hospital or clinical care setting.

Most infections are currently treated with vancomycin. Although vancomycin has been shown to be more than 80% effective, it has been linked with recurrence rates ranging from 20% to 30% and interferes with the protective role of the gut microbiome against infection. The current study compared ridinilazole with vancomycin.

Results of the global, double-blinded, randomized trial were presented by Pablo C. Okhuysen, MD, professor of infectious disease at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Participants with CDI received a 10-day course of ridinilazole 200 mg twice a day plus placebo or vancomycin 125 mg four times a day. The primary endpoint was sustained clinical response, defined as a clinical response with no recurrent CDI through 30 days after the end of treatment. Recurrent CDI was defined as a new episode of diarrhea with confirmed positive free toxin test requiring additional therapy.

Of the 759 patients enrolled, 745 were included in the modified intention-to-treat  population (ridinilazole, n = 370; vancomycin, n = 375). Ridinilazole achieved a numerically higher rate of sustained clinical response than vancomycin (73.0% vs. 70.7%; P = .467), although the difference was not significant. Ridinilazole also resulted in a significant reduction in recurrence rate (8.1% vs. 17.3%; P < .001).

Ridinilazole’s effect was most notable in a subgroup of patients who were not receiving other antibiotics at time of enrollment – about 70% of participants. In that subgroup, the recurrence rate was 6.7% with ridinilazole versus 16.5% with vancomycin (P < .001), Dr. Okhuysen reported.

“That resulted in a relative risk reduction of 60%,” Dr. Okhuysen told this news organization.

Dr. Okhuysen pointed out that there are currently very few treatment options for CDI other than vancomycin.

“We need new agents to treat C. difficile,” he said, “particularly for those at risk of recurrence. In our study, we found that those exposed to vancomycin had very dramatic shifts in their microbiome.”

Vancomycin depletes the gut microbiome, which decreases the conversion of primary acids to secondary bile acids, the researchers noted.

“A dysbiotic microbiome is fertile ground for C. difficile to grow,” Dr. Okhuysen said. Ridinilazole does not disrupt the microbiome, he added.

Ridinilazole was well-tolerated in the study. The proportion of patients with at least one treatment-emergent adverse effect was 36.4% versus 35.5%, respectively, in the ridinilazole and vancomycin groups. And the proportion who stopped treatment because of treatment-related side effects was 0.8% versus 2.9%.

Mary Hayden, MD, pathology director in the division of infectious diseases at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, who was not involved with the study, said the results are encouraging as “alternative agents or strategies to prevent recurrence are important to reduce CDI morbidity.”

Its double-blind, randomized, multicenter design strengthens the findings, she explained, adding that “the secondary outcomes of higher concentrations of secondary bile acids and microbiota diversity and composition lend biological plausibility.”

Ridinilazole’s narrow spectrum of activity “should result in less disruption of the colonic microbiota, which has theoretical benefit for both reducing CDI recurrence and for reducing risk of acquisition of multidrug-resistant organisms,” Dr. Hayden said.

Dr. Okhuysen shared that the team is in talks with the Food and Drug Administration and is preparing a manuscript for publication.

The study was supported by Summit Pharmaceuticals and funded by the Biomedical and Advanced Research and Development Authority. Dr. Okhuysen has reported receiving research support from and/or consulting for Summit, Merck, Deinove, Melinta, and Ferring Pharmaceuticals. Some of the coauthors have financial relationships with or received research support from Summit. Dr. Hayden has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

In the United States and around the globe, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) remains one of the leading causes of death. In addition to new diagnostic guidelines, the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease 2022 Report, or GOLD report, sets forth recommendations for management and treatment. In 2022, a total of 160 new references were added to the previous year’s GOLD report.

According to the GOLD report, initial management of COPD should aim at reducing exposure to risk factors such as smoking or other chemical exposures. In addition to medications, stable COPD patients should be evaluated for inhaler technique, adherence to prescribed therapies, smoking status, and continued exposure to other risk factors. Also, physical activity should be advised and pulmonary rehabilitation should be considered. Spirometry should be performed annually.

These guidelines offer very practical advice but often are difficult to implement in clinical practice. Everyone knows smoking is harmful and quitting provides huge health benefits, not only regarding COPD. However, nicotine is very addictive, and most smokers cannot just quit. Many need smoking cessation aids and counseling. Additionally, some smokers just don’t want to quit. Regarding workplace exposures, it often is not easy for someone just to change their job. Many are afraid to speak because they are afraid of losing their jobs. Everyone, not just patients with COPD, can benefit from increased physical activity, and all doctors know how difficult it is to motivate patients to do this.

The decision to initiate medications should be based on an individual patient’s symptoms and risk of exacerbations. In general, long-acting bronchodilators, including long-acting beta agonists (LABA) and long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA), are preferred except when immediate relief of dyspnea is needed, and then short-acting bronchodilators should be used. Either a single long-acting or dual long-acting bronchodilator can be initiated. If a patient continues to have dyspnea on a single long-acting bronchodilator, treatment should be switched to a dual therapy.

In general, inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are not recommended for stable COPD patients. If a patient has exacerbations despite appropriate treatment with LABAs, an ICS may be added to the LABA, the GOLD guidelines say. Oral corticosteroids are not recommended for long-term use. PDE4 inhibitors should be considered in patents with severe to very severe airflow obstruction, chronic bronchitis, and exacerbations. Macrolide antibiotics, especially azithromycin, can be considered in acute exacerbations. There is no evidence to support the use of antitussives and mucolytics are advised in only certain patients. Inhaled bronchodilators are advised over oral ones and theophylline is recommended when long-acting bronchodilators are unavailable or unaffordable.

In clinical practice, I see many patients treated based on symptomatology with spirometry testing not being done. This may help control many symptoms, but unless my patient has an accurate diagnosis, I won’t know if my patient is receiving the correct treatment.

It is important to keep in mind that COPD is a progressive disease and without appropriate treatment and monitoring, it will just get worse, and this is most likely to be irreversible.

Medications and treatment goals for patients with COPD

Patients with alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency may benefit from the addition of alpha-1 antitrypsin augmentation therapy, the new guidelines say. In patients with severe disease experiencing dyspnea, oral and parental opioids can be considered. Medications that are used to treat primary pulmonary hypertension are not advised to treat pulmonary hypertension secondary to COPD.

The treatment goals of COPD should be to decrease severity of symptoms, reduce the occurrence of exacerbations, and improve exercise tolerance. Peripheral eosinophil counts can be used to guide the use of ICS to prevent exacerbations. However, the best predictor of exacerbations is previous exacerbations. Frequent exacerbations are defined as two or more annually. Additionally, deteriorating airflow is correlated with increased risk of exacerbations, hospitalizations, and death. Forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) alone lacks precision to predict exacerbations or death.

Vaccines and pulmonary rehabilitation recommended

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and World Health Organization recommend several vaccines for stable patients with COPD. Influenza vaccine was shown to reduce serious complications in COPD patients. Pneumococcal vaccines (PCV13 and PPSV23) reduced the likelihood of COPD exacerbations. The COVID-19 vaccine also has been effective at reducing hospitalizations, in particular ICU admissions, and death in patients with COPD. The CDC also recommends TdaP and Zoster vaccines.

An acute exacerbation of COPD occurs when a patient experiences worsening of respiratory symptoms that requires additional treatment, according to the updated GOLD guidelines. They are usually associated with increased airway inflammation, mucous productions, and trapping of gases. They are often triggered by viral infections, but bacterial and environment factors play a role as well. Less commonly, fungi such as Aspergillus can be observed as well. COPD exacerbations contribute to overall progression of the disease.

In patients with hypoxemia, supplemental oxygen should be titrated to a target O₂ saturation of 88%-92%. It is important to follow blood gases to be sure adequate oxygenation is taking place while at the same time avoiding carbon dioxide retention and/or worsening acidosis. In patients with severe exacerbations whose dyspnea does not respond to initial emergency therapy, ICU admission is warranted. Other factors indicating the need for ICU admission include mental status changes, persistent or worsening hypoxemia, severe or worsening respiratory acidosis, the need for mechanical ventilation, and hemodynamic instability. Following an acute exacerbation, steps to prevent further exacerbations should be initiated.

Systemic glucocorticoids are indicated during acute exacerbations. They have been shown to hasten recovery time and improve functioning of the lungs as well as oxygenation. It is recommended to give prednisone 40 mg per day for 5 days. Antibiotics should be used in exacerbations if patients have dyspnea, sputum production, and purulence of the sputum or require mechanical ventilation. The choice of which antibiotic to use should be based on local bacterial resistance.

Pulmonary rehabilitation is an important component of COPD management. It incorporates exercise, education, and self-management aimed to change behavior and improve conditioning. The benefits of rehab have been shown to be considerable. The optimal length is 6-8 weeks. Palliative and end-of-life care are also very important factors to consider when treating COPD patients, according to the GOLD guidelines.

COPD is a very common disease and cause of mortality seen by family physicians. The GOLD report is an extensive document providing very clear guidelines and evidence to support these guidelines in every level of the treatment of COPD patients. As primary care doctors, we are often the first to treat patients with COPD and it is important to know the latest guidelines.

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. You can contact her at [email protected].

In the United States and around the globe, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) remains one of the leading causes of death. In addition to new diagnostic guidelines, the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease 2022 Report, or GOLD report, sets forth recommendations for management and treatment. In 2022, a total of 160 new references were added to the previous year’s GOLD report.

According to the GOLD report, initial management of COPD should aim at reducing exposure to risk factors such as smoking or other chemical exposures. In addition to medications, stable COPD patients should be evaluated for inhaler technique, adherence to prescribed therapies, smoking status, and continued exposure to other risk factors. Also, physical activity should be advised and pulmonary rehabilitation should be considered. Spirometry should be performed annually.

These guidelines offer very practical advice but often are difficult to implement in clinical practice. Everyone knows smoking is harmful and quitting provides huge health benefits, not only regarding COPD. However, nicotine is very addictive, and most smokers cannot just quit. Many need smoking cessation aids and counseling. Additionally, some smokers just don’t want to quit. Regarding workplace exposures, it often is not easy for someone just to change their job. Many are afraid to speak because they are afraid of losing their jobs. Everyone, not just patients with COPD, can benefit from increased physical activity, and all doctors know how difficult it is to motivate patients to do this.

The decision to initiate medications should be based on an individual patient’s symptoms and risk of exacerbations. In general, long-acting bronchodilators, including long-acting beta agonists (LABA) and long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA), are preferred except when immediate relief of dyspnea is needed, and then short-acting bronchodilators should be used. Either a single long-acting or dual long-acting bronchodilator can be initiated. If a patient continues to have dyspnea on a single long-acting bronchodilator, treatment should be switched to a dual therapy.

In general, inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are not recommended for stable COPD patients. If a patient has exacerbations despite appropriate treatment with LABAs, an ICS may be added to the LABA, the GOLD guidelines say. Oral corticosteroids are not recommended for long-term use. PDE4 inhibitors should be considered in patents with severe to very severe airflow obstruction, chronic bronchitis, and exacerbations. Macrolide antibiotics, especially azithromycin, can be considered in acute exacerbations. There is no evidence to support the use of antitussives and mucolytics are advised in only certain patients. Inhaled bronchodilators are advised over oral ones and theophylline is recommended when long-acting bronchodilators are unavailable or unaffordable.

In clinical practice, I see many patients treated based on symptomatology with spirometry testing not being done. This may help control many symptoms, but unless my patient has an accurate diagnosis, I won’t know if my patient is receiving the correct treatment.

It is important to keep in mind that COPD is a progressive disease and without appropriate treatment and monitoring, it will just get worse, and this is most likely to be irreversible.

Medications and treatment goals for patients with COPD

Patients with alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency may benefit from the addition of alpha-1 antitrypsin augmentation therapy, the new guidelines say. In patients with severe disease experiencing dyspnea, oral and parental opioids can be considered. Medications that are used to treat primary pulmonary hypertension are not advised to treat pulmonary hypertension secondary to COPD.

The treatment goals of COPD should be to decrease severity of symptoms, reduce the occurrence of exacerbations, and improve exercise tolerance. Peripheral eosinophil counts can be used to guide the use of ICS to prevent exacerbations. However, the best predictor of exacerbations is previous exacerbations. Frequent exacerbations are defined as two or more annually. Additionally, deteriorating airflow is correlated with increased risk of exacerbations, hospitalizations, and death. Forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) alone lacks precision to predict exacerbations or death.

Vaccines and pulmonary rehabilitation recommended

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and World Health Organization recommend several vaccines for stable patients with COPD. Influenza vaccine was shown to reduce serious complications in COPD patients. Pneumococcal vaccines (PCV13 and PPSV23) reduced the likelihood of COPD exacerbations. The COVID-19 vaccine also has been effective at reducing hospitalizations, in particular ICU admissions, and death in patients with COPD. The CDC also recommends TdaP and Zoster vaccines.

An acute exacerbation of COPD occurs when a patient experiences worsening of respiratory symptoms that requires additional treatment, according to the updated GOLD guidelines. They are usually associated with increased airway inflammation, mucous productions, and trapping of gases. They are often triggered by viral infections, but bacterial and environment factors play a role as well. Less commonly, fungi such as Aspergillus can be observed as well. COPD exacerbations contribute to overall progression of the disease.

In patients with hypoxemia, supplemental oxygen should be titrated to a target O₂ saturation of 88%-92%. It is important to follow blood gases to be sure adequate oxygenation is taking place while at the same time avoiding carbon dioxide retention and/or worsening acidosis. In patients with severe exacerbations whose dyspnea does not respond to initial emergency therapy, ICU admission is warranted. Other factors indicating the need for ICU admission include mental status changes, persistent or worsening hypoxemia, severe or worsening respiratory acidosis, the need for mechanical ventilation, and hemodynamic instability. Following an acute exacerbation, steps to prevent further exacerbations should be initiated.

Systemic glucocorticoids are indicated during acute exacerbations. They have been shown to hasten recovery time and improve functioning of the lungs as well as oxygenation. It is recommended to give prednisone 40 mg per day for 5 days. Antibiotics should be used in exacerbations if patients have dyspnea, sputum production, and purulence of the sputum or require mechanical ventilation. The choice of which antibiotic to use should be based on local bacterial resistance.

Pulmonary rehabilitation is an important component of COPD management. It incorporates exercise, education, and self-management aimed to change behavior and improve conditioning. The benefits of rehab have been shown to be considerable. The optimal length is 6-8 weeks. Palliative and end-of-life care are also very important factors to consider when treating COPD patients, according to the GOLD guidelines.

COPD is a very common disease and cause of mortality seen by family physicians. The GOLD report is an extensive document providing very clear guidelines and evidence to support these guidelines in every level of the treatment of COPD patients. As primary care doctors, we are often the first to treat patients with COPD and it is important to know the latest guidelines.

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. You can contact her at [email protected].

In the United States and around the globe, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) remains one of the leading causes of death. In addition to new diagnostic guidelines, the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease 2022 Report, or GOLD report, sets forth recommendations for management and treatment. In 2022, a total of 160 new references were added to the previous year’s GOLD report.

According to the GOLD report, initial management of COPD should aim at reducing exposure to risk factors such as smoking or other chemical exposures. In addition to medications, stable COPD patients should be evaluated for inhaler technique, adherence to prescribed therapies, smoking status, and continued exposure to other risk factors. Also, physical activity should be advised and pulmonary rehabilitation should be considered. Spirometry should be performed annually.

These guidelines offer very practical advice but often are difficult to implement in clinical practice. Everyone knows smoking is harmful and quitting provides huge health benefits, not only regarding COPD. However, nicotine is very addictive, and most smokers cannot just quit. Many need smoking cessation aids and counseling. Additionally, some smokers just don’t want to quit. Regarding workplace exposures, it often is not easy for someone just to change their job. Many are afraid to speak because they are afraid of losing their jobs. Everyone, not just patients with COPD, can benefit from increased physical activity, and all doctors know how difficult it is to motivate patients to do this.

The decision to initiate medications should be based on an individual patient’s symptoms and risk of exacerbations. In general, long-acting bronchodilators, including long-acting beta agonists (LABA) and long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA), are preferred except when immediate relief of dyspnea is needed, and then short-acting bronchodilators should be used. Either a single long-acting or dual long-acting bronchodilator can be initiated. If a patient continues to have dyspnea on a single long-acting bronchodilator, treatment should be switched to a dual therapy.

In general, inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are not recommended for stable COPD patients. If a patient has exacerbations despite appropriate treatment with LABAs, an ICS may be added to the LABA, the GOLD guidelines say. Oral corticosteroids are not recommended for long-term use. PDE4 inhibitors should be considered in patents with severe to very severe airflow obstruction, chronic bronchitis, and exacerbations. Macrolide antibiotics, especially azithromycin, can be considered in acute exacerbations. There is no evidence to support the use of antitussives and mucolytics are advised in only certain patients. Inhaled bronchodilators are advised over oral ones and theophylline is recommended when long-acting bronchodilators are unavailable or unaffordable.

In clinical practice, I see many patients treated based on symptomatology with spirometry testing not being done. This may help control many symptoms, but unless my patient has an accurate diagnosis, I won’t know if my patient is receiving the correct treatment.

It is important to keep in mind that COPD is a progressive disease and without appropriate treatment and monitoring, it will just get worse, and this is most likely to be irreversible.

Medications and treatment goals for patients with COPD

Patients with alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency may benefit from the addition of alpha-1 antitrypsin augmentation therapy, the new guidelines say. In patients with severe disease experiencing dyspnea, oral and parental opioids can be considered. Medications that are used to treat primary pulmonary hypertension are not advised to treat pulmonary hypertension secondary to COPD.

The treatment goals of COPD should be to decrease severity of symptoms, reduce the occurrence of exacerbations, and improve exercise tolerance. Peripheral eosinophil counts can be used to guide the use of ICS to prevent exacerbations. However, the best predictor of exacerbations is previous exacerbations. Frequent exacerbations are defined as two or more annually. Additionally, deteriorating airflow is correlated with increased risk of exacerbations, hospitalizations, and death. Forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) alone lacks precision to predict exacerbations or death.

Vaccines and pulmonary rehabilitation recommended

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and World Health Organization recommend several vaccines for stable patients with COPD. Influenza vaccine was shown to reduce serious complications in COPD patients. Pneumococcal vaccines (PCV13 and PPSV23) reduced the likelihood of COPD exacerbations. The COVID-19 vaccine also has been effective at reducing hospitalizations, in particular ICU admissions, and death in patients with COPD. The CDC also recommends TdaP and Zoster vaccines.

An acute exacerbation of COPD occurs when a patient experiences worsening of respiratory symptoms that requires additional treatment, according to the updated GOLD guidelines. They are usually associated with increased airway inflammation, mucous productions, and trapping of gases. They are often triggered by viral infections, but bacterial and environment factors play a role as well. Less commonly, fungi such as Aspergillus can be observed as well. COPD exacerbations contribute to overall progression of the disease.

In patients with hypoxemia, supplemental oxygen should be titrated to a target O₂ saturation of 88%-92%. It is important to follow blood gases to be sure adequate oxygenation is taking place while at the same time avoiding carbon dioxide retention and/or worsening acidosis. In patients with severe exacerbations whose dyspnea does not respond to initial emergency therapy, ICU admission is warranted. Other factors indicating the need for ICU admission include mental status changes, persistent or worsening hypoxemia, severe or worsening respiratory acidosis, the need for mechanical ventilation, and hemodynamic instability. Following an acute exacerbation, steps to prevent further exacerbations should be initiated.

Systemic glucocorticoids are indicated during acute exacerbations. They have been shown to hasten recovery time and improve functioning of the lungs as well as oxygenation. It is recommended to give prednisone 40 mg per day for 5 days. Antibiotics should be used in exacerbations if patients have dyspnea, sputum production, and purulence of the sputum or require mechanical ventilation. The choice of which antibiotic to use should be based on local bacterial resistance.

Pulmonary rehabilitation is an important component of COPD management. It incorporates exercise, education, and self-management aimed to change behavior and improve conditioning. The benefits of rehab have been shown to be considerable. The optimal length is 6-8 weeks. Palliative and end-of-life care are also very important factors to consider when treating COPD patients, according to the GOLD guidelines.

COPD is a very common disease and cause of mortality seen by family physicians. The GOLD report is an extensive document providing very clear guidelines and evidence to support these guidelines in every level of the treatment of COPD patients. As primary care doctors, we are often the first to treat patients with COPD and it is important to know the latest guidelines.

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. You can contact her at [email protected].

Clarissa Ghazi gets lye relaxers, which contain the chemical sodium hydroxide, applied to her hair two to three times a year.

A recent study that made headlines over a potential link between hair straighteners and uterine cancer is not going to make her stop.

“This study is not enough to cause me to say I’ll stay away from this because [the researchers] don’t prove that using relaxers causes cancer,” Ms. Ghazi said.

Indeed, primary care doctors are unlikely to address the increased risk of uterine cancer in women who frequently use hair straighteners that the study reported.

Among frequent users of hair straighteners – meaning those who used them more than four times a year – the researchers found that women were 2.55 times more likely to be diagnosed with uterine cancer than those who never used these products.

In the recently published paper on this research, the authors said that they found an 80% higher adjusted risk of uterine cancer among women who had ever “straightened,” “relaxed,” or used “hair pressing products” in the 12 months before enrolling in their study.

This finding is “real, but small,” says internist Douglas S. Paauw, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Washington in Seattle.

Dr. Paauw is among several primary care doctors interviewed for this story who expressed little concern about the implications of this research for their patients.

“Since we have hundreds of things we are supposed to discuss at our 20-minute clinic visits, this would not make the cut,” Dr. Paauw said.

While it’s good to be able to answer questions a patient might ask about this new research, the study does not prove anything, he said.

Alan Nelson, MD, an internist-endocrinologist and former special adviser to the CEO of the American College of Physicians, said while the study is well done, the number of actual cases of uterine cancer found was small.

One of the reasons he would not recommend discussing the study with patients is that the brands of hair products used to straighten hair in the study were not identified.

Alexandra White, PhD, lead author of the study, said participants were simply asked, “In the past 12 months, how frequently have you or someone else straightened or relaxed your hair, or used hair pressing products?”

The terms “straightened,” “relaxed,” and “hair pressing products” were not defined, and “some women may have interpreted the term ‘pressing products’ to mean nonchemical products” such as flat irons, Dr. White, head of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences’ Environment and Cancer Epidemiology group, said in an email.

Dermatologist Crystal Aguh, MD, associate professor of dermatology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, tweeted the following advice in light of the new findings: “The overall risk of uterine cancer is quite low so it’s important to remember that. For now, if you want to change your routine, there’s no downside to decreasing your frequency of hair straightening to every 12 weeks or more, as that may lessen your risk.”

She also noted that “styles like relaxer, silk pressing, and keratin treatments should only be done by a professional, as this will decrease the likelihood of hair damage and scalp irritation.

“I also encourage women to look for hair products free of parabens and phthalates (which are generically listed as “fragrance”) on products to minimize exposure to hormone disrupting chemicals.”
 

Not ready to go curly

Ms. Ghazi said she decided to stop using keratin straighteners years ago after she learned they are made with several added ingredients. That includes the chemical formaldehyde, a known carcinogen, according to the American Cancer Society.

“People have been relaxing their hair for a very long time, and I feel more comfortable using [a relaxer] to straighten my hair than any of the others out there,” Ms. Ghazi said.

Janaki Ram, who has had her hair chemically straightened several times, said the findings have not made her worried that straightening will cause her to get uterine cancer specifically, but that they are a reminder that the chemicals in these products could harm her in some other way.

She said the new study findings, her knowledge of the damage straightening causes to hair, and the lengthy amount of time receiving a keratin treatment takes will lead her to reduce the frequency with which she gets her hair straightened.

“Going forward, I will have this done once a year instead of twice a year,” she said.

Dr. White, the author of the paper, said in an interview that the takeaway for consumers is that women who reported frequent use of hair straighteners/relaxers and pressing products were more than twice as likely to go on to develop uterine cancer compared to women who reported no use of these products in the previous year.

“However, uterine cancer is relatively rare, so these increases in risks are small,” she said. “Less frequent use of these products was not as strongly associated with risk, suggesting that decreasing use may be an option to reduce harmful exposure. Black women were the most frequent users of these products and therefore these findings are more relevant for Black women.”

In a statement, Dr. White noted, “We estimated that 1.64% of women who never used hair straighteners would go on to develop uterine cancer by the age of 70; but for frequent users, that risk goes up to 4.05%.”

The findings were based on the Sister Study, which enrolled women living in the United States, including Puerto Rico, between 2003 and 2009. Participants needed to have at least one sister who had been diagnosed with breast cancer, been breast cancer-free themselves, and aged 35-74 years. Women who reported a diagnosis of uterine cancer before enrollment, had an uncertain uterine cancer history, or had a hysterectomy were excluded from the study.

The researchers examined hair product usage and uterine cancer incidence during an 11-year period among 33 ,947 women. The analysis controlled for variables such as age, race, and risk factors. At baseline, participants were asked to complete a questionnaire on hair products use in the previous 12 months.

“One of the original aims of the study was to better understand the environmental and genetic causes of breast cancer, but we are also interested in studying ovarian cancer, uterine cancer, and many other cancers and chronic diseases,” Dr. White said.

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

Clarissa Ghazi gets lye relaxers, which contain the chemical sodium hydroxide, applied to her hair two to three times a year.

A recent study that made headlines over a potential link between hair straighteners and uterine cancer is not going to make her stop.

“This study is not enough to cause me to say I’ll stay away from this because [the researchers] don’t prove that using relaxers causes cancer,” Ms. Ghazi said.

Indeed, primary care doctors are unlikely to address the increased risk of uterine cancer in women who frequently use hair straighteners that the study reported.

Among frequent users of hair straighteners – meaning those who used them more than four times a year – the researchers found that women were 2.55 times more likely to be diagnosed with uterine cancer than those who never used these products.

In the recently published paper on this research, the authors said that they found an 80% higher adjusted risk of uterine cancer among women who had ever “straightened,” “relaxed,” or used “hair pressing products” in the 12 months before enrolling in their study.

This finding is “real, but small,” says internist Douglas S. Paauw, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Washington in Seattle.

Dr. Paauw is among several primary care doctors interviewed for this story who expressed little concern about the implications of this research for their patients.

“Since we have hundreds of things we are supposed to discuss at our 20-minute clinic visits, this would not make the cut,” Dr. Paauw said.

While it’s good to be able to answer questions a patient might ask about this new research, the study does not prove anything, he said.

Alan Nelson, MD, an internist-endocrinologist and former special adviser to the CEO of the American College of Physicians, said while the study is well done, the number of actual cases of uterine cancer found was small.

One of the reasons he would not recommend discussing the study with patients is that the brands of hair products used to straighten hair in the study were not identified.

Alexandra White, PhD, lead author of the study, said participants were simply asked, “In the past 12 months, how frequently have you or someone else straightened or relaxed your hair, or used hair pressing products?”

The terms “straightened,” “relaxed,” and “hair pressing products” were not defined, and “some women may have interpreted the term ‘pressing products’ to mean nonchemical products” such as flat irons, Dr. White, head of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences’ Environment and Cancer Epidemiology group, said in an email.

Dermatologist Crystal Aguh, MD, associate professor of dermatology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, tweeted the following advice in light of the new findings: “The overall risk of uterine cancer is quite low so it’s important to remember that. For now, if you want to change your routine, there’s no downside to decreasing your frequency of hair straightening to every 12 weeks or more, as that may lessen your risk.”

She also noted that “styles like relaxer, silk pressing, and keratin treatments should only be done by a professional, as this will decrease the likelihood of hair damage and scalp irritation.

“I also encourage women to look for hair products free of parabens and phthalates (which are generically listed as “fragrance”) on products to minimize exposure to hormone disrupting chemicals.”
 

Not ready to go curly

Ms. Ghazi said she decided to stop using keratin straighteners years ago after she learned they are made with several added ingredients. That includes the chemical formaldehyde, a known carcinogen, according to the American Cancer Society.

“People have been relaxing their hair for a very long time, and I feel more comfortable using [a relaxer] to straighten my hair than any of the others out there,” Ms. Ghazi said.

Janaki Ram, who has had her hair chemically straightened several times, said the findings have not made her worried that straightening will cause her to get uterine cancer specifically, but that they are a reminder that the chemicals in these products could harm her in some other way.

She said the new study findings, her knowledge of the damage straightening causes to hair, and the lengthy amount of time receiving a keratin treatment takes will lead her to reduce the frequency with which she gets her hair straightened.

“Going forward, I will have this done once a year instead of twice a year,” she said.

Dr. White, the author of the paper, said in an interview that the takeaway for consumers is that women who reported frequent use of hair straighteners/relaxers and pressing products were more than twice as likely to go on to develop uterine cancer compared to women who reported no use of these products in the previous year.

“However, uterine cancer is relatively rare, so these increases in risks are small,” she said. “Less frequent use of these products was not as strongly associated with risk, suggesting that decreasing use may be an option to reduce harmful exposure. Black women were the most frequent users of these products and therefore these findings are more relevant for Black women.”

In a statement, Dr. White noted, “We estimated that 1.64% of women who never used hair straighteners would go on to develop uterine cancer by the age of 70; but for frequent users, that risk goes up to 4.05%.”

The findings were based on the Sister Study, which enrolled women living in the United States, including Puerto Rico, between 2003 and 2009. Participants needed to have at least one sister who had been diagnosed with breast cancer, been breast cancer-free themselves, and aged 35-74 years. Women who reported a diagnosis of uterine cancer before enrollment, had an uncertain uterine cancer history, or had a hysterectomy were excluded from the study.

The researchers examined hair product usage and uterine cancer incidence during an 11-year period among 33 ,947 women. The analysis controlled for variables such as age, race, and risk factors. At baseline, participants were asked to complete a questionnaire on hair products use in the previous 12 months.

“One of the original aims of the study was to better understand the environmental and genetic causes of breast cancer, but we are also interested in studying ovarian cancer, uterine cancer, and many other cancers and chronic diseases,” Dr. White said.

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

Clarissa Ghazi gets lye relaxers, which contain the chemical sodium hydroxide, applied to her hair two to three times a year.

A recent study that made headlines over a potential link between hair straighteners and uterine cancer is not going to make her stop.

“This study is not enough to cause me to say I’ll stay away from this because [the researchers] don’t prove that using relaxers causes cancer,” Ms. Ghazi said.

Indeed, primary care doctors are unlikely to address the increased risk of uterine cancer in women who frequently use hair straighteners that the study reported.

Among frequent users of hair straighteners – meaning those who used them more than four times a year – the researchers found that women were 2.55 times more likely to be diagnosed with uterine cancer than those who never used these products.

In the recently published paper on this research, the authors said that they found an 80% higher adjusted risk of uterine cancer among women who had ever “straightened,” “relaxed,” or used “hair pressing products” in the 12 months before enrolling in their study.

This finding is “real, but small,” says internist Douglas S. Paauw, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Washington in Seattle.

Dr. Paauw is among several primary care doctors interviewed for this story who expressed little concern about the implications of this research for their patients.

“Since we have hundreds of things we are supposed to discuss at our 20-minute clinic visits, this would not make the cut,” Dr. Paauw said.

While it’s good to be able to answer questions a patient might ask about this new research, the study does not prove anything, he said.

Alan Nelson, MD, an internist-endocrinologist and former special adviser to the CEO of the American College of Physicians, said while the study is well done, the number of actual cases of uterine cancer found was small.

One of the reasons he would not recommend discussing the study with patients is that the brands of hair products used to straighten hair in the study were not identified.

Alexandra White, PhD, lead author of the study, said participants were simply asked, “In the past 12 months, how frequently have you or someone else straightened or relaxed your hair, or used hair pressing products?”

The terms “straightened,” “relaxed,” and “hair pressing products” were not defined, and “some women may have interpreted the term ‘pressing products’ to mean nonchemical products” such as flat irons, Dr. White, head of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences’ Environment and Cancer Epidemiology group, said in an email.

Dermatologist Crystal Aguh, MD, associate professor of dermatology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, tweeted the following advice in light of the new findings: “The overall risk of uterine cancer is quite low so it’s important to remember that. For now, if you want to change your routine, there’s no downside to decreasing your frequency of hair straightening to every 12 weeks or more, as that may lessen your risk.”

She also noted that “styles like relaxer, silk pressing, and keratin treatments should only be done by a professional, as this will decrease the likelihood of hair damage and scalp irritation.

“I also encourage women to look for hair products free of parabens and phthalates (which are generically listed as “fragrance”) on products to minimize exposure to hormone disrupting chemicals.”
 

Not ready to go curly

Ms. Ghazi said she decided to stop using keratin straighteners years ago after she learned they are made with several added ingredients. That includes the chemical formaldehyde, a known carcinogen, according to the American Cancer Society.

“People have been relaxing their hair for a very long time, and I feel more comfortable using [a relaxer] to straighten my hair than any of the others out there,” Ms. Ghazi said.

Janaki Ram, who has had her hair chemically straightened several times, said the findings have not made her worried that straightening will cause her to get uterine cancer specifically, but that they are a reminder that the chemicals in these products could harm her in some other way.

She said the new study findings, her knowledge of the damage straightening causes to hair, and the lengthy amount of time receiving a keratin treatment takes will lead her to reduce the frequency with which she gets her hair straightened.

“Going forward, I will have this done once a year instead of twice a year,” she said.

Dr. White, the author of the paper, said in an interview that the takeaway for consumers is that women who reported frequent use of hair straighteners/relaxers and pressing products were more than twice as likely to go on to develop uterine cancer compared to women who reported no use of these products in the previous year.

“However, uterine cancer is relatively rare, so these increases in risks are small,” she said. “Less frequent use of these products was not as strongly associated with risk, suggesting that decreasing use may be an option to reduce harmful exposure. Black women were the most frequent users of these products and therefore these findings are more relevant for Black women.”

In a statement, Dr. White noted, “We estimated that 1.64% of women who never used hair straighteners would go on to develop uterine cancer by the age of 70; but for frequent users, that risk goes up to 4.05%.”

The findings were based on the Sister Study, which enrolled women living in the United States, including Puerto Rico, between 2003 and 2009. Participants needed to have at least one sister who had been diagnosed with breast cancer, been breast cancer-free themselves, and aged 35-74 years. Women who reported a diagnosis of uterine cancer before enrollment, had an uncertain uterine cancer history, or had a hysterectomy were excluded from the study.

The researchers examined hair product usage and uterine cancer incidence during an 11-year period among 33 ,947 women. The analysis controlled for variables such as age, race, and risk factors. At baseline, participants were asked to complete a questionnaire on hair products use in the previous 12 months.

“One of the original aims of the study was to better understand the environmental and genetic causes of breast cancer, but we are also interested in studying ovarian cancer, uterine cancer, and many other cancers and chronic diseases,” Dr. White said.

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

Historically, the role of genetic testing has been to identify familial cancer syndromes and initiate cascade testing. If a germline pathogenic variant is found in an individual, cascade testing involves genetic counseling and testing of blood relatives, starting with those closest in relation to the proband, to identify other family members at high hereditary cancer risk. Once testing identifies those family members at higher cancer risk, these individuals can be referred for risk-reducing procedures. They can undergo screening tests starting at an earlier age and/or increased frequency to help prevent invasive cancer or diagnose it at an earlier stage.

Genetic testing can also inform prognosis. While women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation are at higher risk of developing ovarian cancer compared with the baseline population, the presence of a germline BRCA mutation has been shown to confer improved survival compared with no BRCA mutation (BRCA wild type). However, more recent data have shown that when long-term survival was analyzed, the prognostic benefit seen in patients with a germline BRCA mutation was lost. The initial survival advantage seen in this population may be related to increased sensitivity to treatment. There appears to be improved response to platinum therapy, which is the standard of care for upfront treatment, in germline BRCA mutation carriers.

Most recently, genetic testing has been used to guide treatment decisions in gynecologic cancers. In 2014, the first poly ADP-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, olaparib, received Food and Drug Administration approval for the treatment of recurrent ovarian cancer in the presence of a germline BRCA mutation. Now there are multiple PARP inhibitors that have FDA approval for ovarian cancer treatment, some as frontline treatment.

Previous data indicate that 13%-18% of women with ovarian cancer have a germline BRCA mutation that places them at increased risk of hereditary ovarian cancer.¹ Current guidelines from the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO), and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommend universal genetic counseling and testing for patients diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer. Despite these guidelines, rates of referral for genetic counseling and completion of genetic testing are low.

There has been improvement for both referrals and testing since the publication of the 2014 SGO clinical practice statement on genetic testing for ovarian cancer patients, which recommended that all women, even those without any significant family history, should receive genetic counseling and be offered genetic testing.² When including only studies that collected data after the publication of the 2014 SGO clinical practice statement on genetic testing, a recent systematic review found that 64% of patients were referred for genetic counseling and 63% underwent testing.³

Clinical interventions to target genetic evaluation appear to improve uptake of both counseling and testing. These interventions include using telemedicine to deliver genetic counseling services, mainstreaming (counseling and testing are provided in an oncology clinic by nongenetics specialists), having a genetic counselor within the clinic, and performing reflex testing. With limited numbers of genetic counselors (and even further limited numbers of cancer-specific genetic counselors),⁴ referral for genetic counseling before testing is often challenging and may not be feasible. There is continued need for strategies to help overcome the barrier to accessing genetic counseling.

While the data are limited, there appear to be significant disparities in rates of genetic testing. Genetic counseling and testing were completed by White (43% and 40%) patients more frequently than by either Black (24% and 26%) or Asian (23% and 14%) patients.⁴ Uninsured patients were about half as likely (23% vs. 47%) to complete genetic testing as were those with private insurance.⁴

Genetic testing is an important tool to help identify individuals and families at risk of having hereditary cancer syndromes. This identification allows us to prevent many cancers and identify others while still early stage, significantly decreasing the health care and financial burden on our society and improving outcomes for patients. While we have seen improvement in rates of referral for genetic counseling and testing, we are still falling short. Given the shortage of genetic counselors, it is imperative that we find solutions to ensure continued and improved access to genetic testing for our patients.
 

Dr. Tucker is assistant professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

References

1. Norquist BM et al. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2(4):482-90.

2. SGO Clinical Practice Statement. 2014 Oct 1.

3. Lin J et al. Gynecol Oncol. 2021;162(2):506-16.

4. American Society of Clinical Oncology. J Oncol Pract. 2016 Apr;12(4):339-83.

Historically, the role of genetic testing has been to identify familial cancer syndromes and initiate cascade testing. If a germline pathogenic variant is found in an individual, cascade testing involves genetic counseling and testing of blood relatives, starting with those closest in relation to the proband, to identify other family members at high hereditary cancer risk. Once testing identifies those family members at higher cancer risk, these individuals can be referred for risk-reducing procedures. They can undergo screening tests starting at an earlier age and/or increased frequency to help prevent invasive cancer or diagnose it at an earlier stage.

Genetic testing can also inform prognosis. While women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation are at higher risk of developing ovarian cancer compared with the baseline population, the presence of a germline BRCA mutation has been shown to confer improved survival compared with no BRCA mutation (BRCA wild type). However, more recent data have shown that when long-term survival was analyzed, the prognostic benefit seen in patients with a germline BRCA mutation was lost. The initial survival advantage seen in this population may be related to increased sensitivity to treatment. There appears to be improved response to platinum therapy, which is the standard of care for upfront treatment, in germline BRCA mutation carriers.

Most recently, genetic testing has been used to guide treatment decisions in gynecologic cancers. In 2014, the first poly ADP-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, olaparib, received Food and Drug Administration approval for the treatment of recurrent ovarian cancer in the presence of a germline BRCA mutation. Now there are multiple PARP inhibitors that have FDA approval for ovarian cancer treatment, some as frontline treatment.

Previous data indicate that 13%-18% of women with ovarian cancer have a germline BRCA mutation that places them at increased risk of hereditary ovarian cancer.¹ Current guidelines from the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO), and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommend universal genetic counseling and testing for patients diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer. Despite these guidelines, rates of referral for genetic counseling and completion of genetic testing are low.

There has been improvement for both referrals and testing since the publication of the 2014 SGO clinical practice statement on genetic testing for ovarian cancer patients, which recommended that all women, even those without any significant family history, should receive genetic counseling and be offered genetic testing.² When including only studies that collected data after the publication of the 2014 SGO clinical practice statement on genetic testing, a recent systematic review found that 64% of patients were referred for genetic counseling and 63% underwent testing.³

Clinical interventions to target genetic evaluation appear to improve uptake of both counseling and testing. These interventions include using telemedicine to deliver genetic counseling services, mainstreaming (counseling and testing are provided in an oncology clinic by nongenetics specialists), having a genetic counselor within the clinic, and performing reflex testing. With limited numbers of genetic counselors (and even further limited numbers of cancer-specific genetic counselors),⁴ referral for genetic counseling before testing is often challenging and may not be feasible. There is continued need for strategies to help overcome the barrier to accessing genetic counseling.

While the data are limited, there appear to be significant disparities in rates of genetic testing. Genetic counseling and testing were completed by White (43% and 40%) patients more frequently than by either Black (24% and 26%) or Asian (23% and 14%) patients.⁴ Uninsured patients were about half as likely (23% vs. 47%) to complete genetic testing as were those with private insurance.⁴

Genetic testing is an important tool to help identify individuals and families at risk of having hereditary cancer syndromes. This identification allows us to prevent many cancers and identify others while still early stage, significantly decreasing the health care and financial burden on our society and improving outcomes for patients. While we have seen improvement in rates of referral for genetic counseling and testing, we are still falling short. Given the shortage of genetic counselors, it is imperative that we find solutions to ensure continued and improved access to genetic testing for our patients.
 

Dr. Tucker is assistant professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

References

1. Norquist BM et al. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2(4):482-90.

2. SGO Clinical Practice Statement. 2014 Oct 1.

3. Lin J et al. Gynecol Oncol. 2021;162(2):506-16.

4. American Society of Clinical Oncology. J Oncol Pract. 2016 Apr;12(4):339-83.

Historically, the role of genetic testing has been to identify familial cancer syndromes and initiate cascade testing. If a germline pathogenic variant is found in an individual, cascade testing involves genetic counseling and testing of blood relatives, starting with those closest in relation to the proband, to identify other family members at high hereditary cancer risk. Once testing identifies those family members at higher cancer risk, these individuals can be referred for risk-reducing procedures. They can undergo screening tests starting at an earlier age and/or increased frequency to help prevent invasive cancer or diagnose it at an earlier stage.

Genetic testing can also inform prognosis. While women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation are at higher risk of developing ovarian cancer compared with the baseline population, the presence of a germline BRCA mutation has been shown to confer improved survival compared with no BRCA mutation (BRCA wild type). However, more recent data have shown that when long-term survival was analyzed, the prognostic benefit seen in patients with a germline BRCA mutation was lost. The initial survival advantage seen in this population may be related to increased sensitivity to treatment. There appears to be improved response to platinum therapy, which is the standard of care for upfront treatment, in germline BRCA mutation carriers.

Most recently, genetic testing has been used to guide treatment decisions in gynecologic cancers. In 2014, the first poly ADP-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, olaparib, received Food and Drug Administration approval for the treatment of recurrent ovarian cancer in the presence of a germline BRCA mutation. Now there are multiple PARP inhibitors that have FDA approval for ovarian cancer treatment, some as frontline treatment.

Previous data indicate that 13%-18% of women with ovarian cancer have a germline BRCA mutation that places them at increased risk of hereditary ovarian cancer.¹ Current guidelines from the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO), and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommend universal genetic counseling and testing for patients diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer. Despite these guidelines, rates of referral for genetic counseling and completion of genetic testing are low.

There has been improvement for both referrals and testing since the publication of the 2014 SGO clinical practice statement on genetic testing for ovarian cancer patients, which recommended that all women, even those without any significant family history, should receive genetic counseling and be offered genetic testing.² When including only studies that collected data after the publication of the 2014 SGO clinical practice statement on genetic testing, a recent systematic review found that 64% of patients were referred for genetic counseling and 63% underwent testing.³

Clinical interventions to target genetic evaluation appear to improve uptake of both counseling and testing. These interventions include using telemedicine to deliver genetic counseling services, mainstreaming (counseling and testing are provided in an oncology clinic by nongenetics specialists), having a genetic counselor within the clinic, and performing reflex testing. With limited numbers of genetic counselors (and even further limited numbers of cancer-specific genetic counselors),⁴ referral for genetic counseling before testing is often challenging and may not be feasible. There is continued need for strategies to help overcome the barrier to accessing genetic counseling.

While the data are limited, there appear to be significant disparities in rates of genetic testing. Genetic counseling and testing were completed by White (43% and 40%) patients more frequently than by either Black (24% and 26%) or Asian (23% and 14%) patients.⁴ Uninsured patients were about half as likely (23% vs. 47%) to complete genetic testing as were those with private insurance.⁴

Genetic testing is an important tool to help identify individuals and families at risk of having hereditary cancer syndromes. This identification allows us to prevent many cancers and identify others while still early stage, significantly decreasing the health care and financial burden on our society and improving outcomes for patients. While we have seen improvement in rates of referral for genetic counseling and testing, we are still falling short. Given the shortage of genetic counselors, it is imperative that we find solutions to ensure continued and improved access to genetic testing for our patients.
 

Dr. Tucker is assistant professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

References

1. Norquist BM et al. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2(4):482-90.

2. SGO Clinical Practice Statement. 2014 Oct 1.

3. Lin J et al. Gynecol Oncol. 2021;162(2):506-16.

4. American Society of Clinical Oncology. J Oncol Pract. 2016 Apr;12(4):339-83.

People taking methotrexate for immunomodulatory diseases can skip one or two scheduled doses after they get an mRNA-based vaccine booster for COVID-19 and achieve a level of immunity against Omicron variants that’s comparable to people who aren’t immunosuppressed, a small observational cohort study from Germany reported.

Kmatta/Moment/Getty Images

“In general, the data suggest that pausing methotrexate is feasible, and it’s sufficient if the last dose occurs 1-3 days before the vaccination,” study coauthor Gerd Burmester, MD, a senior professor of rheumatology and immunology at the University of Medicine Berlin, told this news organization. “In pragmatic terms: pausing the methotrexate injection just twice after the vaccine is finished and, interestingly, not prior to the vaccination.”

Study results

The study found that serum neutralizing activity against the Omicron BA.1 variant, measured as geometric mean 50% inhibitory serum dilution (ID50s), wasn’t significantly different between the methotrexate and the nonimmunosuppressed groups before getting their mRNA booster (P = .657). However, 4 weeks after getting the booster, the nonimmunosuppressed group had a 68-fold increase in antibody activity versus a 20-fold increase in the methotrexate patients. After 12 weeks, ID50s in both groups decreased by about half (P = .001).

The methotrexate patients who continued therapy after the booster had significantly lower neutralization against Omicron BA.1 at both 4 weeks and 12 weeks than did their counterparts who paused therapy, as well as control patients.

The results were very similar in the same group comparisons of the serum neutralizing activity against the Omicron BA.2 variant at 4 and 12 weeks after booster vaccination.
 

Expert commentary

This study is noteworthy because it used SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirus neutralization assays to evaluate antibody levels, Kevin Winthrop, MD, MPH, professor of infectious disease and public health at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, who was not involved in the study, said. “A lot of studies don’t look at neutralizing antibody titers, and that’s really what we care about,” Dr. Winthrop said. “What we want are functional antibodies that are doing something, and the only way to do that is to test them.”

The study is “confirmatory” of other studies that call for pausing methotrexate after vaccination, Dr. Winthrop said, including a study he coauthored, and which the German researchers cited, that found pausing methotrexate for a week or so after the influenza vaccination in RA patients improved vaccine immunogenicity. He added that the findings with the early Omicron variants are important because the newest boosters target the later Omicron variants, BA.4 and BA.5.

“The bottom line is that when someone comes in for a COVID-19 vaccination, tell them to be off of methotrexate for 7-10 days,” Dr. Winthrop said. “This is for the booster, but it raises the question: If you go out to three, four, or five vaccinations, does this matter anymore? With the flu vaccine, most people are out to 10 or 15 boosters, and we haven’t seen any significant increase in disease flares.”

The study received funding from Medac, Gilead/Galapagos, and Friends and Sponsors of Berlin Charity. Dr. Burmester reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Winthrop is a research consultant to Pfizer.

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

People taking methotrexate for immunomodulatory diseases can skip one or two scheduled doses after they get an mRNA-based vaccine booster for COVID-19 and achieve a level of immunity against Omicron variants that’s comparable to people who aren’t immunosuppressed, a small observational cohort study from Germany reported.

Kmatta/Moment/Getty Images

“In general, the data suggest that pausing methotrexate is feasible, and it’s sufficient if the last dose occurs 1-3 days before the vaccination,” study coauthor Gerd Burmester, MD, a senior professor of rheumatology and immunology at the University of Medicine Berlin, told this news organization. “In pragmatic terms: pausing the methotrexate injection just twice after the vaccine is finished and, interestingly, not prior to the vaccination.”

Study results

The study found that serum neutralizing activity against the Omicron BA.1 variant, measured as geometric mean 50% inhibitory serum dilution (ID50s), wasn’t significantly different between the methotrexate and the nonimmunosuppressed groups before getting their mRNA booster (P = .657). However, 4 weeks after getting the booster, the nonimmunosuppressed group had a 68-fold increase in antibody activity versus a 20-fold increase in the methotrexate patients. After 12 weeks, ID50s in both groups decreased by about half (P = .001).

The methotrexate patients who continued therapy after the booster had significantly lower neutralization against Omicron BA.1 at both 4 weeks and 12 weeks than did their counterparts who paused therapy, as well as control patients.

The results were very similar in the same group comparisons of the serum neutralizing activity against the Omicron BA.2 variant at 4 and 12 weeks after booster vaccination.
 

Expert commentary

This study is noteworthy because it used SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirus neutralization assays to evaluate antibody levels, Kevin Winthrop, MD, MPH, professor of infectious disease and public health at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, who was not involved in the study, said. “A lot of studies don’t look at neutralizing antibody titers, and that’s really what we care about,” Dr. Winthrop said. “What we want are functional antibodies that are doing something, and the only way to do that is to test them.”

The study is “confirmatory” of other studies that call for pausing methotrexate after vaccination, Dr. Winthrop said, including a study he coauthored, and which the German researchers cited, that found pausing methotrexate for a week or so after the influenza vaccination in RA patients improved vaccine immunogenicity. He added that the findings with the early Omicron variants are important because the newest boosters target the later Omicron variants, BA.4 and BA.5.

“The bottom line is that when someone comes in for a COVID-19 vaccination, tell them to be off of methotrexate for 7-10 days,” Dr. Winthrop said. “This is for the booster, but it raises the question: If you go out to three, four, or five vaccinations, does this matter anymore? With the flu vaccine, most people are out to 10 or 15 boosters, and we haven’t seen any significant increase in disease flares.”

The study received funding from Medac, Gilead/Galapagos, and Friends and Sponsors of Berlin Charity. Dr. Burmester reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Winthrop is a research consultant to Pfizer.

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

People taking methotrexate for immunomodulatory diseases can skip one or two scheduled doses after they get an mRNA-based vaccine booster for COVID-19 and achieve a level of immunity against Omicron variants that’s comparable to people who aren’t immunosuppressed, a small observational cohort study from Germany reported.

Kmatta/Moment/Getty Images

“In general, the data suggest that pausing methotrexate is feasible, and it’s sufficient if the last dose occurs 1-3 days before the vaccination,” study coauthor Gerd Burmester, MD, a senior professor of rheumatology and immunology at the University of Medicine Berlin, told this news organization. “In pragmatic terms: pausing the methotrexate injection just twice after the vaccine is finished and, interestingly, not prior to the vaccination.”

Study results

The study found that serum neutralizing activity against the Omicron BA.1 variant, measured as geometric mean 50% inhibitory serum dilution (ID50s), wasn’t significantly different between the methotrexate and the nonimmunosuppressed groups before getting their mRNA booster (P = .657). However, 4 weeks after getting the booster, the nonimmunosuppressed group had a 68-fold increase in antibody activity versus a 20-fold increase in the methotrexate patients. After 12 weeks, ID50s in both groups decreased by about half (P = .001).

The methotrexate patients who continued therapy after the booster had significantly lower neutralization against Omicron BA.1 at both 4 weeks and 12 weeks than did their counterparts who paused therapy, as well as control patients.

The results were very similar in the same group comparisons of the serum neutralizing activity against the Omicron BA.2 variant at 4 and 12 weeks after booster vaccination.
 

Expert commentary

This study is noteworthy because it used SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirus neutralization assays to evaluate antibody levels, Kevin Winthrop, MD, MPH, professor of infectious disease and public health at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, who was not involved in the study, said. “A lot of studies don’t look at neutralizing antibody titers, and that’s really what we care about,” Dr. Winthrop said. “What we want are functional antibodies that are doing something, and the only way to do that is to test them.”

The study is “confirmatory” of other studies that call for pausing methotrexate after vaccination, Dr. Winthrop said, including a study he coauthored, and which the German researchers cited, that found pausing methotrexate for a week or so after the influenza vaccination in RA patients improved vaccine immunogenicity. He added that the findings with the early Omicron variants are important because the newest boosters target the later Omicron variants, BA.4 and BA.5.

“The bottom line is that when someone comes in for a COVID-19 vaccination, tell them to be off of methotrexate for 7-10 days,” Dr. Winthrop said. “This is for the booster, but it raises the question: If you go out to three, four, or five vaccinations, does this matter anymore? With the flu vaccine, most people are out to 10 or 15 boosters, and we haven’t seen any significant increase in disease flares.”

The study received funding from Medac, Gilead/Galapagos, and Friends and Sponsors of Berlin Charity. Dr. Burmester reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Winthrop is a research consultant to Pfizer.

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

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

One of the more baffling decisions the CDC made during this pandemic was when they reduced the duration of isolation after a positive COVID test from 10 days to 5 days and did not require a negative antigen test to end isolation.

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. His science communication work can be found in the Huffington Post, on NPR, and on Medscape. He tweets @fperrywilson and hosts a repository of his communication work at www.methodsman.com. He disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

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

One of the more baffling decisions the CDC made during this pandemic was when they reduced the duration of isolation after a positive COVID test from 10 days to 5 days and did not require a negative antigen test to end isolation.

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. His science communication work can be found in the Huffington Post, on NPR, and on Medscape. He tweets @fperrywilson and hosts a repository of his communication work at www.methodsman.com. He disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

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

One of the more baffling decisions the CDC made during this pandemic was when they reduced the duration of isolation after a positive COVID test from 10 days to 5 days and did not require a negative antigen test to end isolation.

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. His science communication work can be found in the Huffington Post, on NPR, and on Medscape. He tweets @fperrywilson and hosts a repository of his communication work at www.methodsman.com. He disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Visits to the emergency department for asthma increase more than a year before a failed inspection by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), according to a new study presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Emergency Physicians.

While links between asthma and low-quality housing prone to harboring allergens have been well-documented, the current study takes the extra step of looking at housing down to the level of individual land parcels and suggests that asthma hospital visits can be used to identify hazardous housing earlier.

“Emergency department visits for asthma provide a leading indicator that can be used by health departments or housing authorities to direct housing inspections and remediation of poor housing conditions, track improvements in housing quality, measure housing department performance, support resident grievances, and inform funding allocation decisions,” said the study’s lead researcher, Elizabeth Samuels, MD, who is assistant professor of epidemiology and emergency medicine at Brown University, Providence, R.I.

Researchers retrospectively looked at cases of children and adults in the Greater New Haven area of Connecticut seen at the Yale New Haven Hospital ED for asthma-related problems between March 2013 and August 2017. The region has the fifth-highest prevalence of asthma in the United States, the researchers point out, due to its air quality, pollens, and quality of its housing. More than half of residences were built before 1,940, compared with about 13% nationally. Patient addresses were matched with HUD inspection records.

The review encompassed 11,429 ED visits by 6,366 individuals; 54% were insured by Medicaid, and 42% were Black. Controlling for patient and neighborhood data, researchers found that increased asthma ED visits at the parcel level were associated with decreased HUD inspection scores to a highly significant degree (P < .001).

They also found that there was a relationship in terms of timing between asthma ED visits and inspection scores: asthma ED visits increased more than 1 year before a failed HUD inspection. They also found that asthma ED visits were not elevated at housing units that passed inspection. Using asthma ED visits to predict failed housing inspections produced a specificity rate of 92.3% in an adjusted model, Dr. Samuels noted.

“This approach represents a novel method of early identification of dangerous housing conditions, which could aid in the prevention of asthma-related morbidity and mortality,” Dr. Samuels said.

The investigators noted that, of the parcels with the top three incidence rates of asthma ED visits, “all of them have been closed or demolished.”

In addition to limiting exposure of patients with asthma to the allergens of mold, mice and rats, and cockroaches, improving poor-quality housing earlier could help asthma by reducing stress, she said.

“There is also an increasing evidence base that psychosocial stress increases the risk of asthma attacks, and it’s therefore possible that living in poor housing conditions – often highly stressful situations – drives exacerbation risk via this pathway,” she said. “Synergistic effects between these pathways are also possible or even likely.”

Neeta Thakur, MD, associate professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, who researches asthma, said the findings could lead to a strategy for improving poor-quality housing more quickly. As it is, inspections are too infrequent, often prompted by resident complaints.

“Once the complaints get to a certain threshold, then there might be an inspection that happens, and if there is a periodic review of the buildings, they often happen few and far between,” she said. “We could actually use some of the information that we’re already getting from something like ED visits and see if there is a pattern.”

An important follow-up would be to see whether asthma outcomes improve after housing deficiencies are addressed and whether the predictive capacity of ED visits occurs in other places.

“Would you then see a decline in the ED visit rates from individuals living in those buildings?” Dr. Thakur said. “It’s important to find a leading indicator, but you want to be sure that that leading indicator is useful as something that can be intervened upon.”

Dr. Samuels and Dr. Thakur have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Visits to the emergency department for asthma increase more than a year before a failed inspection by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), according to a new study presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Emergency Physicians.

While links between asthma and low-quality housing prone to harboring allergens have been well-documented, the current study takes the extra step of looking at housing down to the level of individual land parcels and suggests that asthma hospital visits can be used to identify hazardous housing earlier.

“Emergency department visits for asthma provide a leading indicator that can be used by health departments or housing authorities to direct housing inspections and remediation of poor housing conditions, track improvements in housing quality, measure housing department performance, support resident grievances, and inform funding allocation decisions,” said the study’s lead researcher, Elizabeth Samuels, MD, who is assistant professor of epidemiology and emergency medicine at Brown University, Providence, R.I.

Researchers retrospectively looked at cases of children and adults in the Greater New Haven area of Connecticut seen at the Yale New Haven Hospital ED for asthma-related problems between March 2013 and August 2017. The region has the fifth-highest prevalence of asthma in the United States, the researchers point out, due to its air quality, pollens, and quality of its housing. More than half of residences were built before 1,940, compared with about 13% nationally. Patient addresses were matched with HUD inspection records.

The review encompassed 11,429 ED visits by 6,366 individuals; 54% were insured by Medicaid, and 42% were Black. Controlling for patient and neighborhood data, researchers found that increased asthma ED visits at the parcel level were associated with decreased HUD inspection scores to a highly significant degree (P < .001).

They also found that there was a relationship in terms of timing between asthma ED visits and inspection scores: asthma ED visits increased more than 1 year before a failed HUD inspection. They also found that asthma ED visits were not elevated at housing units that passed inspection. Using asthma ED visits to predict failed housing inspections produced a specificity rate of 92.3% in an adjusted model, Dr. Samuels noted.

“This approach represents a novel method of early identification of dangerous housing conditions, which could aid in the prevention of asthma-related morbidity and mortality,” Dr. Samuels said.

The investigators noted that, of the parcels with the top three incidence rates of asthma ED visits, “all of them have been closed or demolished.”

In addition to limiting exposure of patients with asthma to the allergens of mold, mice and rats, and cockroaches, improving poor-quality housing earlier could help asthma by reducing stress, she said.

“There is also an increasing evidence base that psychosocial stress increases the risk of asthma attacks, and it’s therefore possible that living in poor housing conditions – often highly stressful situations – drives exacerbation risk via this pathway,” she said. “Synergistic effects between these pathways are also possible or even likely.”

Neeta Thakur, MD, associate professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, who researches asthma, said the findings could lead to a strategy for improving poor-quality housing more quickly. As it is, inspections are too infrequent, often prompted by resident complaints.

“Once the complaints get to a certain threshold, then there might be an inspection that happens, and if there is a periodic review of the buildings, they often happen few and far between,” she said. “We could actually use some of the information that we’re already getting from something like ED visits and see if there is a pattern.”

An important follow-up would be to see whether asthma outcomes improve after housing deficiencies are addressed and whether the predictive capacity of ED visits occurs in other places.

“Would you then see a decline in the ED visit rates from individuals living in those buildings?” Dr. Thakur said. “It’s important to find a leading indicator, but you want to be sure that that leading indicator is useful as something that can be intervened upon.”

Dr. Samuels and Dr. Thakur have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Visits to the emergency department for asthma increase more than a year before a failed inspection by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), according to a new study presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Emergency Physicians.

While links between asthma and low-quality housing prone to harboring allergens have been well-documented, the current study takes the extra step of looking at housing down to the level of individual land parcels and suggests that asthma hospital visits can be used to identify hazardous housing earlier.

“Emergency department visits for asthma provide a leading indicator that can be used by health departments or housing authorities to direct housing inspections and remediation of poor housing conditions, track improvements in housing quality, measure housing department performance, support resident grievances, and inform funding allocation decisions,” said the study’s lead researcher, Elizabeth Samuels, MD, who is assistant professor of epidemiology and emergency medicine at Brown University, Providence, R.I.

Researchers retrospectively looked at cases of children and adults in the Greater New Haven area of Connecticut seen at the Yale New Haven Hospital ED for asthma-related problems between March 2013 and August 2017. The region has the fifth-highest prevalence of asthma in the United States, the researchers point out, due to its air quality, pollens, and quality of its housing. More than half of residences were built before 1,940, compared with about 13% nationally. Patient addresses were matched with HUD inspection records.

The review encompassed 11,429 ED visits by 6,366 individuals; 54% were insured by Medicaid, and 42% were Black. Controlling for patient and neighborhood data, researchers found that increased asthma ED visits at the parcel level were associated with decreased HUD inspection scores to a highly significant degree (P < .001).

They also found that there was a relationship in terms of timing between asthma ED visits and inspection scores: asthma ED visits increased more than 1 year before a failed HUD inspection. They also found that asthma ED visits were not elevated at housing units that passed inspection. Using asthma ED visits to predict failed housing inspections produced a specificity rate of 92.3% in an adjusted model, Dr. Samuels noted.

“This approach represents a novel method of early identification of dangerous housing conditions, which could aid in the prevention of asthma-related morbidity and mortality,” Dr. Samuels said.

The investigators noted that, of the parcels with the top three incidence rates of asthma ED visits, “all of them have been closed or demolished.”

In addition to limiting exposure of patients with asthma to the allergens of mold, mice and rats, and cockroaches, improving poor-quality housing earlier could help asthma by reducing stress, she said.

“There is also an increasing evidence base that psychosocial stress increases the risk of asthma attacks, and it’s therefore possible that living in poor housing conditions – often highly stressful situations – drives exacerbation risk via this pathway,” she said. “Synergistic effects between these pathways are also possible or even likely.”

Neeta Thakur, MD, associate professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, who researches asthma, said the findings could lead to a strategy for improving poor-quality housing more quickly. As it is, inspections are too infrequent, often prompted by resident complaints.

“Once the complaints get to a certain threshold, then there might be an inspection that happens, and if there is a periodic review of the buildings, they often happen few and far between,” she said. “We could actually use some of the information that we’re already getting from something like ED visits and see if there is a pattern.”

An important follow-up would be to see whether asthma outcomes improve after housing deficiencies are addressed and whether the predictive capacity of ED visits occurs in other places.

“Would you then see a decline in the ED visit rates from individuals living in those buildings?” Dr. Thakur said. “It’s important to find a leading indicator, but you want to be sure that that leading indicator is useful as something that can be intervened upon.”

Dr. Samuels and Dr. Thakur have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

“I’m not getting the vaccine. Nobody knows the long-term effects, and I heard that people are getting clots.”

We were screening patients at a low-cost clinic in Philadelphia for concerns surrounding social determinants of health. During one patient visit, in addition to concerns including housing, medication affordability, and transportation, we found that she had not received the COVID-19 vaccine, and we asked if she was interested in being immunized.

News reports have endlessly covered antivaccine sentiment, but this personal encounter hit home. From simple face masks to groundbreaking vaccines, we failed as physicians to encourage widespread uptake of health-protective measures despite strong scientific backing.

Large swaths of the public deny these tools’ importance or question their safety. This is ultimately rooted in the inability of community leaders and health care professionals to communicate with the public.

Science communication is inherently difficult. Scientists use complex language, and it is hard to evaluate the lay public’s baseline knowledge. Moreover, we are trained to speak with qualifications, encourage doubt, and accept change and evolution of fact. These qualities contrast the definitive messaging necessary in public settings. COVID-19 highlighted these gaps, where regardless of novel scientific solutions, poor communication led to a resistance to accept the tested scientific solution, which ultimately was the rate-limiting factor for overcoming the virus.

As directors of Physician Executive Leadership, an organization that trains future physicians at Thomas Jefferson University to tackle emerging health care issues, we hosted Paul Offit, MD, a national media figure and vaccine advocate. Dr. Offit shared his personal growth during the pandemic, from being abruptly thrown into the spotlight to eventually honing his communication skills. Dr. Offit discussed the challenges of sharing medical knowledge with laypeople and adaptations that are necessary. We found this transformative, realizing the importance of science communication training early in medical education.

Emphasizing the humanities and building soft skills will improve outcomes and benefit broader society by producing physician-leaders in public health and policy. We hope to improve our own communication skills and work in medical education to incorporate similar training into education paradigms for future students.

As seen in our patient interaction, strong science alone will not drive patient adherence; instead, we must work at personal and system levels to induce change. Physicians have a unique opportunity to generate trust and guide evidence-based policy. We must communicate, whether one-on-one with patients, or to millions of viewers via media or policymaker settings. We hope to not only be doctors, but to be advocates, leaders, and trusted advisers for the public.

Mr. Kieran and Mr. Shah are second-year medical students at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia. Neither disclosed any relevant conflicts of interest. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

“I’m not getting the vaccine. Nobody knows the long-term effects, and I heard that people are getting clots.”

We were screening patients at a low-cost clinic in Philadelphia for concerns surrounding social determinants of health. During one patient visit, in addition to concerns including housing, medication affordability, and transportation, we found that she had not received the COVID-19 vaccine, and we asked if she was interested in being immunized.

News reports have endlessly covered antivaccine sentiment, but this personal encounter hit home. From simple face masks to groundbreaking vaccines, we failed as physicians to encourage widespread uptake of health-protective measures despite strong scientific backing.

Large swaths of the public deny these tools’ importance or question their safety. This is ultimately rooted in the inability of community leaders and health care professionals to communicate with the public.

Science communication is inherently difficult. Scientists use complex language, and it is hard to evaluate the lay public’s baseline knowledge. Moreover, we are trained to speak with qualifications, encourage doubt, and accept change and evolution of fact. These qualities contrast the definitive messaging necessary in public settings. COVID-19 highlighted these gaps, where regardless of novel scientific solutions, poor communication led to a resistance to accept the tested scientific solution, which ultimately was the rate-limiting factor for overcoming the virus.

As directors of Physician Executive Leadership, an organization that trains future physicians at Thomas Jefferson University to tackle emerging health care issues, we hosted Paul Offit, MD, a national media figure and vaccine advocate. Dr. Offit shared his personal growth during the pandemic, from being abruptly thrown into the spotlight to eventually honing his communication skills. Dr. Offit discussed the challenges of sharing medical knowledge with laypeople and adaptations that are necessary. We found this transformative, realizing the importance of science communication training early in medical education.

Emphasizing the humanities and building soft skills will improve outcomes and benefit broader society by producing physician-leaders in public health and policy. We hope to improve our own communication skills and work in medical education to incorporate similar training into education paradigms for future students.

As seen in our patient interaction, strong science alone will not drive patient adherence; instead, we must work at personal and system levels to induce change. Physicians have a unique opportunity to generate trust and guide evidence-based policy. We must communicate, whether one-on-one with patients, or to millions of viewers via media or policymaker settings. We hope to not only be doctors, but to be advocates, leaders, and trusted advisers for the public.

Mr. Kieran and Mr. Shah are second-year medical students at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia. Neither disclosed any relevant conflicts of interest. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

“I’m not getting the vaccine. Nobody knows the long-term effects, and I heard that people are getting clots.”

We were screening patients at a low-cost clinic in Philadelphia for concerns surrounding social determinants of health. During one patient visit, in addition to concerns including housing, medication affordability, and transportation, we found that she had not received the COVID-19 vaccine, and we asked if she was interested in being immunized.

News reports have endlessly covered antivaccine sentiment, but this personal encounter hit home. From simple face masks to groundbreaking vaccines, we failed as physicians to encourage widespread uptake of health-protective measures despite strong scientific backing.

Large swaths of the public deny these tools’ importance or question their safety. This is ultimately rooted in the inability of community leaders and health care professionals to communicate with the public.

Science communication is inherently difficult. Scientists use complex language, and it is hard to evaluate the lay public’s baseline knowledge. Moreover, we are trained to speak with qualifications, encourage doubt, and accept change and evolution of fact. These qualities contrast the definitive messaging necessary in public settings. COVID-19 highlighted these gaps, where regardless of novel scientific solutions, poor communication led to a resistance to accept the tested scientific solution, which ultimately was the rate-limiting factor for overcoming the virus.

As directors of Physician Executive Leadership, an organization that trains future physicians at Thomas Jefferson University to tackle emerging health care issues, we hosted Paul Offit, MD, a national media figure and vaccine advocate. Dr. Offit shared his personal growth during the pandemic, from being abruptly thrown into the spotlight to eventually honing his communication skills. Dr. Offit discussed the challenges of sharing medical knowledge with laypeople and adaptations that are necessary. We found this transformative, realizing the importance of science communication training early in medical education.

Emphasizing the humanities and building soft skills will improve outcomes and benefit broader society by producing physician-leaders in public health and policy. We hope to improve our own communication skills and work in medical education to incorporate similar training into education paradigms for future students.

As seen in our patient interaction, strong science alone will not drive patient adherence; instead, we must work at personal and system levels to induce change. Physicians have a unique opportunity to generate trust and guide evidence-based policy. We must communicate, whether one-on-one with patients, or to millions of viewers via media or policymaker settings. We hope to not only be doctors, but to be advocates, leaders, and trusted advisers for the public.

Mr. Kieran and Mr. Shah are second-year medical students at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia. Neither disclosed any relevant conflicts of interest. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

There does not appear to be a definitive clinical link between new-onset parkinsonism and SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) infection, a multinational team of researchers reported at the International Congress of Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders.

SARS-CoV-2 led to numerous discussions about a potential post–COVID-19 emergence of new-onset parkinsonism in susceptible individuals, often referred to in the literature as a “perfect storm” or a “wave” of parkinsonism, according to lead study author Iro Boura, MD.
 

Postviral precedence

“Although pathogens have been associated both with parkinsonism cases and Parkinson’s disease pathogenesis, the main concern of a potential connection between COVID-19 and new-onset parkinsonism arose from the historically documented parkinsonism cases appearing with encephalitis lethargica,” said Dr. Boura, a PhD candidate with the University of Crete in Greece and ex-fellow at King’s College London.

Encephalitis lethargica appeared between 1916 and 1930 and has been epidemiologically related to the Spanish influenza pandemic, “although this link has been strongly debated by other researchers,” she added.

Because the connection of COVID-19 and parkinsonism seemed highly speculative, Dr. Boura and movement disorder specialist Kallol Ray Chaudhuri DSc, FRCP, MD, decided to search for any data supporting this notion. “Such a possibility would have a significant impact on everyday practice, including long follow-up neurological assessments of COVID-19 patients, along with greater vigilance in recognizing potential symptoms,” said Dr. Boura.  

They found no organized research exploring this link, aside from published case reports.
 

Scant evidence of a parkinsonism wave

The investigators conducted a review of the literature up to February 2022 to identify and analyze published cases of new-onset parkinsonism following a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in otherwise healthy individuals. They ended up with 20 such cases.

Although some cases presented during or shortly after a COVID-19 infection, “the numbers are currently quite low to draw safe conclusions and generalize these findings as a risk of parkinsonism for the general population,” said Dr. Boura. Overall, parkinsonism appeared in the context of encephalopathy in 11 patients. Four patients developed postinfectious parkinsonism without encephalopathy. Another four had phenotypic similarities to idiopathic Parkinson’s disease. 

Nine patients were responsive to levodopa, while four required immunomodulatory treatment.

Although cases have already been reported, current data do not yet justify the concept of a post–COVID-19 parkinsonism wave. However, long-term surveillance is crucial to ensure that reports of further cases are carefully documented and analyzed.

Dr. Chaudhuri’s research team recently wrote a book exploring the numerous aspects of COVID-19 and parkinsonism, including Parkinson’s disease, said Dr. Boura.

“Moreover, the COVID-19 Clinical Neuroscience Study (COVID-CNS), with serial follow-up visits for COVID-19 patients, including imaging, is currently running in the United Kingdom with the active participation of Prof Chaudhuri’s team, aiming at revealing any potential parkinsonism cases after a COVID-19 infection,” she said.

There does not appear to be a definitive clinical link between new-onset parkinsonism and SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) infection, a multinational team of researchers reported at the International Congress of Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders.

SARS-CoV-2 led to numerous discussions about a potential post–COVID-19 emergence of new-onset parkinsonism in susceptible individuals, often referred to in the literature as a “perfect storm” or a “wave” of parkinsonism, according to lead study author Iro Boura, MD.
 

Postviral precedence

“Although pathogens have been associated both with parkinsonism cases and Parkinson’s disease pathogenesis, the main concern of a potential connection between COVID-19 and new-onset parkinsonism arose from the historically documented parkinsonism cases appearing with encephalitis lethargica,” said Dr. Boura, a PhD candidate with the University of Crete in Greece and ex-fellow at King’s College London.

Encephalitis lethargica appeared between 1916 and 1930 and has been epidemiologically related to the Spanish influenza pandemic, “although this link has been strongly debated by other researchers,” she added.

Because the connection of COVID-19 and parkinsonism seemed highly speculative, Dr. Boura and movement disorder specialist Kallol Ray Chaudhuri DSc, FRCP, MD, decided to search for any data supporting this notion. “Such a possibility would have a significant impact on everyday practice, including long follow-up neurological assessments of COVID-19 patients, along with greater vigilance in recognizing potential symptoms,” said Dr. Boura.  

They found no organized research exploring this link, aside from published case reports.
 

Scant evidence of a parkinsonism wave

The investigators conducted a review of the literature up to February 2022 to identify and analyze published cases of new-onset parkinsonism following a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in otherwise healthy individuals. They ended up with 20 such cases.

Although some cases presented during or shortly after a COVID-19 infection, “the numbers are currently quite low to draw safe conclusions and generalize these findings as a risk of parkinsonism for the general population,” said Dr. Boura. Overall, parkinsonism appeared in the context of encephalopathy in 11 patients. Four patients developed postinfectious parkinsonism without encephalopathy. Another four had phenotypic similarities to idiopathic Parkinson’s disease. 

Nine patients were responsive to levodopa, while four required immunomodulatory treatment.

Although cases have already been reported, current data do not yet justify the concept of a post–COVID-19 parkinsonism wave. However, long-term surveillance is crucial to ensure that reports of further cases are carefully documented and analyzed.

Dr. Chaudhuri’s research team recently wrote a book exploring the numerous aspects of COVID-19 and parkinsonism, including Parkinson’s disease, said Dr. Boura.

“Moreover, the COVID-19 Clinical Neuroscience Study (COVID-CNS), with serial follow-up visits for COVID-19 patients, including imaging, is currently running in the United Kingdom with the active participation of Prof Chaudhuri’s team, aiming at revealing any potential parkinsonism cases after a COVID-19 infection,” she said.

There does not appear to be a definitive clinical link between new-onset parkinsonism and SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) infection, a multinational team of researchers reported at the International Congress of Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders.

SARS-CoV-2 led to numerous discussions about a potential post–COVID-19 emergence of new-onset parkinsonism in susceptible individuals, often referred to in the literature as a “perfect storm” or a “wave” of parkinsonism, according to lead study author Iro Boura, MD.
 

Postviral precedence

“Although pathogens have been associated both with parkinsonism cases and Parkinson’s disease pathogenesis, the main concern of a potential connection between COVID-19 and new-onset parkinsonism arose from the historically documented parkinsonism cases appearing with encephalitis lethargica,” said Dr. Boura, a PhD candidate with the University of Crete in Greece and ex-fellow at King’s College London.

Encephalitis lethargica appeared between 1916 and 1930 and has been epidemiologically related to the Spanish influenza pandemic, “although this link has been strongly debated by other researchers,” she added.

Because the connection of COVID-19 and parkinsonism seemed highly speculative, Dr. Boura and movement disorder specialist Kallol Ray Chaudhuri DSc, FRCP, MD, decided to search for any data supporting this notion. “Such a possibility would have a significant impact on everyday practice, including long follow-up neurological assessments of COVID-19 patients, along with greater vigilance in recognizing potential symptoms,” said Dr. Boura.  

They found no organized research exploring this link, aside from published case reports.
 

Scant evidence of a parkinsonism wave

The investigators conducted a review of the literature up to February 2022 to identify and analyze published cases of new-onset parkinsonism following a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in otherwise healthy individuals. They ended up with 20 such cases.

Although some cases presented during or shortly after a COVID-19 infection, “the numbers are currently quite low to draw safe conclusions and generalize these findings as a risk of parkinsonism for the general population,” said Dr. Boura. Overall, parkinsonism appeared in the context of encephalopathy in 11 patients. Four patients developed postinfectious parkinsonism without encephalopathy. Another four had phenotypic similarities to idiopathic Parkinson’s disease. 

Nine patients were responsive to levodopa, while four required immunomodulatory treatment.

Although cases have already been reported, current data do not yet justify the concept of a post–COVID-19 parkinsonism wave. However, long-term surveillance is crucial to ensure that reports of further cases are carefully documented and analyzed.

Dr. Chaudhuri’s research team recently wrote a book exploring the numerous aspects of COVID-19 and parkinsonism, including Parkinson’s disease, said Dr. Boura.

“Moreover, the COVID-19 Clinical Neuroscience Study (COVID-CNS), with serial follow-up visits for COVID-19 patients, including imaging, is currently running in the United Kingdom with the active participation of Prof Chaudhuri’s team, aiming at revealing any potential parkinsonism cases after a COVID-19 infection,” she said.

A new study underscores the importance of COVID-19 and regular COVID-19 testing among adults with a recent cancer diagnosis.

The Indiana statewide study, conducted at the beginning of the pandemic, found that unvaccinated adults with cancer and SARS-CoV-2 infection were nearly seven times more likely to die from any cause than uninfected adults with cancer.

“This analysis provides additional empirical evidence on the magnitude of risk to patients with cancer whose immune systems are often weakened either by the disease or treatment,” the study team wrote.

The study was published online in JMIR Cancer.

Although evidence has consistently revealed similar findings, the risk of death among unvaccinated people with cancer and COVID-19 has not been nearly as high in previous studies, lead author Brian E. Dixon, PhD, MBA, with Indiana University Richard M. Fairbanks School of Public Health, Indianapolis, said in a statement. Previous studies from China, for instance, reported a two- to threefold greater risk of all-cause mortality among unvaccinated adults with cancer and COVID-19.

A potential reason for this discrepancy, Dr. Dixon noted, is that earlier studies were “generally smaller and made calculations based on data from a single cancer center or health system.”

Another reason is testing for COVID-19 early in the pandemic was limited to symptomatic individuals who may have had more severe infections, possibly leading to an overestimate of the association between SARS-CoV-2 infection, cancer, and all-cause mortality.

In the current analysis, researchers used electronic health records linked to Indiana’s statewide SARS-CoV-2 testing database and state vital records to evaluate the association between SARS-CoV-2 infection and all-cause mortality among 41,924 adults newly diagnosed with cancer between Jan. 1, 2019, and Dec. 31, 2020.

Most people with cancer were White (78.4%) and about half were male. At the time of diagnosis, 17% had one comorbid condition and about 10% had two or more. Most patients had breast cancer (14%), prostate cancer (13%), or melanoma (13%).

During the study period, 2,894 patients (7%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.

In multivariate adjusted analysis, the risk of death among those newly diagnosed with cancer increased by 91% (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.91) during the first year of the pandemic before vaccines were available, compared with the year before (January 2019 to Jan. 14, 2020).

During the pandemic period, the risk of death was roughly threefold higher among adults 65 years old and older, compared with adults 18-44 years old (aHR, 3.35).

When looking at the time from a cancer diagnosis to SARS-CoV-2 infection, infection was associated with an almost sevenfold increase in all-cause mortality (aHR, 6.91). Adults 65 years old and older had an almost threefold increased risk of dying, compared with their younger peers (aHR, 2.74).

Dr. Dixon and colleagues also observed an increased risk of death in men with cancer and COVID, compared with women (aHR, 1.23) and those with at least two comorbid conditions versus none (aHR, 2.12). In addition, the risk of dying was 9% higher among Indiana’s rural population than urban dwellers.

Compared with other cancer types, individuals with lung cancer and other digestive cancers had the highest risk of death after SARS-CoV-2 infection (aHR, 1.45 and 1.80, respectively).

“Our findings highlight the increased risk of death for adult cancer patients who test positive for COVID and underscore the importance to cancer patients – including those in remission – of vaccinations, boosters, and regular COVID testing,” Dr. Dixon commented.

“Our results should encourage individuals diagnosed with cancer not only to take preventive action, but also to expeditiously seek out treatments available in the marketplace should they test positive for COVID,” he added.

Support for the study was provided by Indiana University Simon Cancer Center and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new study underscores the importance of COVID-19 and regular COVID-19 testing among adults with a recent cancer diagnosis.

The Indiana statewide study, conducted at the beginning of the pandemic, found that unvaccinated adults with cancer and SARS-CoV-2 infection were nearly seven times more likely to die from any cause than uninfected adults with cancer.

“This analysis provides additional empirical evidence on the magnitude of risk to patients with cancer whose immune systems are often weakened either by the disease or treatment,” the study team wrote.

The study was published online in JMIR Cancer.

Although evidence has consistently revealed similar findings, the risk of death among unvaccinated people with cancer and COVID-19 has not been nearly as high in previous studies, lead author Brian E. Dixon, PhD, MBA, with Indiana University Richard M. Fairbanks School of Public Health, Indianapolis, said in a statement. Previous studies from China, for instance, reported a two- to threefold greater risk of all-cause mortality among unvaccinated adults with cancer and COVID-19.

A potential reason for this discrepancy, Dr. Dixon noted, is that earlier studies were “generally smaller and made calculations based on data from a single cancer center or health system.”

Another reason is testing for COVID-19 early in the pandemic was limited to symptomatic individuals who may have had more severe infections, possibly leading to an overestimate of the association between SARS-CoV-2 infection, cancer, and all-cause mortality.

In the current analysis, researchers used electronic health records linked to Indiana’s statewide SARS-CoV-2 testing database and state vital records to evaluate the association between SARS-CoV-2 infection and all-cause mortality among 41,924 adults newly diagnosed with cancer between Jan. 1, 2019, and Dec. 31, 2020.

Most people with cancer were White (78.4%) and about half were male. At the time of diagnosis, 17% had one comorbid condition and about 10% had two or more. Most patients had breast cancer (14%), prostate cancer (13%), or melanoma (13%).

During the study period, 2,894 patients (7%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.

In multivariate adjusted analysis, the risk of death among those newly diagnosed with cancer increased by 91% (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.91) during the first year of the pandemic before vaccines were available, compared with the year before (January 2019 to Jan. 14, 2020).

During the pandemic period, the risk of death was roughly threefold higher among adults 65 years old and older, compared with adults 18-44 years old (aHR, 3.35).

When looking at the time from a cancer diagnosis to SARS-CoV-2 infection, infection was associated with an almost sevenfold increase in all-cause mortality (aHR, 6.91). Adults 65 years old and older had an almost threefold increased risk of dying, compared with their younger peers (aHR, 2.74).

Dr. Dixon and colleagues also observed an increased risk of death in men with cancer and COVID, compared with women (aHR, 1.23) and those with at least two comorbid conditions versus none (aHR, 2.12). In addition, the risk of dying was 9% higher among Indiana’s rural population than urban dwellers.

Compared with other cancer types, individuals with lung cancer and other digestive cancers had the highest risk of death after SARS-CoV-2 infection (aHR, 1.45 and 1.80, respectively).

“Our findings highlight the increased risk of death for adult cancer patients who test positive for COVID and underscore the importance to cancer patients – including those in remission – of vaccinations, boosters, and regular COVID testing,” Dr. Dixon commented.

“Our results should encourage individuals diagnosed with cancer not only to take preventive action, but also to expeditiously seek out treatments available in the marketplace should they test positive for COVID,” he added.

Support for the study was provided by Indiana University Simon Cancer Center and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new study underscores the importance of COVID-19 and regular COVID-19 testing among adults with a recent cancer diagnosis.

The Indiana statewide study, conducted at the beginning of the pandemic, found that unvaccinated adults with cancer and SARS-CoV-2 infection were nearly seven times more likely to die from any cause than uninfected adults with cancer.

“This analysis provides additional empirical evidence on the magnitude of risk to patients with cancer whose immune systems are often weakened either by the disease or treatment,” the study team wrote.

The study was published online in JMIR Cancer.

Although evidence has consistently revealed similar findings, the risk of death among unvaccinated people with cancer and COVID-19 has not been nearly as high in previous studies, lead author Brian E. Dixon, PhD, MBA, with Indiana University Richard M. Fairbanks School of Public Health, Indianapolis, said in a statement. Previous studies from China, for instance, reported a two- to threefold greater risk of all-cause mortality among unvaccinated adults with cancer and COVID-19.

A potential reason for this discrepancy, Dr. Dixon noted, is that earlier studies were “generally smaller and made calculations based on data from a single cancer center or health system.”

Another reason is testing for COVID-19 early in the pandemic was limited to symptomatic individuals who may have had more severe infections, possibly leading to an overestimate of the association between SARS-CoV-2 infection, cancer, and all-cause mortality.

In the current analysis, researchers used electronic health records linked to Indiana’s statewide SARS-CoV-2 testing database and state vital records to evaluate the association between SARS-CoV-2 infection and all-cause mortality among 41,924 adults newly diagnosed with cancer between Jan. 1, 2019, and Dec. 31, 2020.

Most people with cancer were White (78.4%) and about half were male. At the time of diagnosis, 17% had one comorbid condition and about 10% had two or more. Most patients had breast cancer (14%), prostate cancer (13%), or melanoma (13%).

During the study period, 2,894 patients (7%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.

In multivariate adjusted analysis, the risk of death among those newly diagnosed with cancer increased by 91% (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.91) during the first year of the pandemic before vaccines were available, compared with the year before (January 2019 to Jan. 14, 2020).

During the pandemic period, the risk of death was roughly threefold higher among adults 65 years old and older, compared with adults 18-44 years old (aHR, 3.35).

When looking at the time from a cancer diagnosis to SARS-CoV-2 infection, infection was associated with an almost sevenfold increase in all-cause mortality (aHR, 6.91). Adults 65 years old and older had an almost threefold increased risk of dying, compared with their younger peers (aHR, 2.74).

Dr. Dixon and colleagues also observed an increased risk of death in men with cancer and COVID, compared with women (aHR, 1.23) and those with at least two comorbid conditions versus none (aHR, 2.12). In addition, the risk of dying was 9% higher among Indiana’s rural population than urban dwellers.

Compared with other cancer types, individuals with lung cancer and other digestive cancers had the highest risk of death after SARS-CoV-2 infection (aHR, 1.45 and 1.80, respectively).

“Our findings highlight the increased risk of death for adult cancer patients who test positive for COVID and underscore the importance to cancer patients – including those in remission – of vaccinations, boosters, and regular COVID testing,” Dr. Dixon commented.

“Our results should encourage individuals diagnosed with cancer not only to take preventive action, but also to expeditiously seek out treatments available in the marketplace should they test positive for COVID,” he added.

Support for the study was provided by Indiana University Simon Cancer Center and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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