Clinical Edge Journal Scan

Key clinical point: Alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) levels during liver transplantation (LT) and their modulation while on the waitlist are predictors of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence after LT in patients meeting the Milan criteria.

Main finding: An AFP value >25.5 ng/mL (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.69) could strongly predict HCC recurrence after LT (subdistribution hazard ratio, 2.5; P = .01), which also showed a significant association with an increase in AFP levels by >20.8% while on the waitlist (P = .034).

Study details: The data are derived from a retrospective single-center study that analyzed 207 patients with HCC fulfilling the Milan criteria who were put on the waitlist for LT and had AFP levels >400 ng/mL at transplant.

Disclosures: Financial support for the study was provided by the association Friends of transplantation. The authors reported no conflict of interests.

Source: Magro B et al. Cancers. 2021 Nov 27. doi: 10.3390/cancers13235976.

Key clinical point: Alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) levels during liver transplantation (LT) and their modulation while on the waitlist are predictors of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence after LT in patients meeting the Milan criteria.

Main finding: An AFP value >25.5 ng/mL (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.69) could strongly predict HCC recurrence after LT (subdistribution hazard ratio, 2.5; P = .01), which also showed a significant association with an increase in AFP levels by >20.8% while on the waitlist (P = .034).

Study details: The data are derived from a retrospective single-center study that analyzed 207 patients with HCC fulfilling the Milan criteria who were put on the waitlist for LT and had AFP levels >400 ng/mL at transplant.

Disclosures: Financial support for the study was provided by the association Friends of transplantation. The authors reported no conflict of interests.

Source: Magro B et al. Cancers. 2021 Nov 27. doi: 10.3390/cancers13235976.

Key clinical point: Alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) levels during liver transplantation (LT) and their modulation while on the waitlist are predictors of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence after LT in patients meeting the Milan criteria.

Main finding: An AFP value >25.5 ng/mL (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.69) could strongly predict HCC recurrence after LT (subdistribution hazard ratio, 2.5; P = .01), which also showed a significant association with an increase in AFP levels by >20.8% while on the waitlist (P = .034).

Study details: The data are derived from a retrospective single-center study that analyzed 207 patients with HCC fulfilling the Milan criteria who were put on the waitlist for LT and had AFP levels >400 ng/mL at transplant.

Disclosures: Financial support for the study was provided by the association Friends of transplantation. The authors reported no conflict of interests.

Source: Magro B et al. Cancers. 2021 Nov 27. doi: 10.3390/cancers13235976.

Key clinical point: High diastolic whole blood viscosity (WBV) may serve as a new independent factor associated with extrahepatic metastasis and poor survival in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

Main finding: After adjusting for confounding variables, high diastolic WBV was independently associated with extrahepatic metastasis (adjusted odds ratio, 23.41; P < .001) and poor survival (adjusted hazard ratio, 3.81; P < .001) and significantly predicted extrahepatic metastasis at an optimal cutoff of 16 cP (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.768; P < .001).

Study details: Findings are from a pilot retrospective study including 181 patients with HCC, of which 148 were treatment-naïve having preserved liver function and 33 received nivolumab.

Disclosures: The study was sponsored by Young Medical Scientist Research Grant through the Daewoong Foundation and the Research Fund of Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea. The authors did not declare any conflict of interests.

Source: Han JW et al. PLoS ONE. 2021 Dec 2. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0260311.

Key clinical point: High diastolic whole blood viscosity (WBV) may serve as a new independent factor associated with extrahepatic metastasis and poor survival in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

Main finding: After adjusting for confounding variables, high diastolic WBV was independently associated with extrahepatic metastasis (adjusted odds ratio, 23.41; P < .001) and poor survival (adjusted hazard ratio, 3.81; P < .001) and significantly predicted extrahepatic metastasis at an optimal cutoff of 16 cP (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.768; P < .001).

Study details: Findings are from a pilot retrospective study including 181 patients with HCC, of which 148 were treatment-naïve having preserved liver function and 33 received nivolumab.

Disclosures: The study was sponsored by Young Medical Scientist Research Grant through the Daewoong Foundation and the Research Fund of Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea. The authors did not declare any conflict of interests.

Source: Han JW et al. PLoS ONE. 2021 Dec 2. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0260311.

Key clinical point: High diastolic whole blood viscosity (WBV) may serve as a new independent factor associated with extrahepatic metastasis and poor survival in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

Main finding: After adjusting for confounding variables, high diastolic WBV was independently associated with extrahepatic metastasis (adjusted odds ratio, 23.41; P < .001) and poor survival (adjusted hazard ratio, 3.81; P < .001) and significantly predicted extrahepatic metastasis at an optimal cutoff of 16 cP (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.768; P < .001).

Study details: Findings are from a pilot retrospective study including 181 patients with HCC, of which 148 were treatment-naïve having preserved liver function and 33 received nivolumab.

Disclosures: The study was sponsored by Young Medical Scientist Research Grant through the Daewoong Foundation and the Research Fund of Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea. The authors did not declare any conflict of interests.

Source: Han JW et al. PLoS ONE. 2021 Dec 2. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0260311.

Key clinical point: The modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST)-determined radiologic response rate of transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) plus radiotherapy (RT) among patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) showing macroscopic vascular invasion (MVI) is an independent prognosticator for overall survival (OS).

Main finding: Responders vs nonresponders had significantly longer median OS at 2 months (23.1 months vs 8.0 months; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 3.194; P < .001) and 4 months (responders vs nonresponders: 26.5 months vs 9.3 months; aHR, 4.534; P < .001).

Study details: This was a retrospective review study including 427 patients with advanced HCC and MVI who received first-line treatment with TACE plus respiratory-gated 3-dimensional conformal RT in the 2-month analysis, whereas the patient number reduced to 355 in the 4-month analysis.

Disclosures: The study was supported by the Asan Institute for Life Sciences of Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Jung J et al. Liver Cancer. 2021 Dec 7. doi: 10.1159/000521227.

Key clinical point: The modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST)-determined radiologic response rate of transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) plus radiotherapy (RT) among patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) showing macroscopic vascular invasion (MVI) is an independent prognosticator for overall survival (OS).

Main finding: Responders vs nonresponders had significantly longer median OS at 2 months (23.1 months vs 8.0 months; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 3.194; P < .001) and 4 months (responders vs nonresponders: 26.5 months vs 9.3 months; aHR, 4.534; P < .001).

Study details: This was a retrospective review study including 427 patients with advanced HCC and MVI who received first-line treatment with TACE plus respiratory-gated 3-dimensional conformal RT in the 2-month analysis, whereas the patient number reduced to 355 in the 4-month analysis.

Disclosures: The study was supported by the Asan Institute for Life Sciences of Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Jung J et al. Liver Cancer. 2021 Dec 7. doi: 10.1159/000521227.

Key clinical point: The modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST)-determined radiologic response rate of transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) plus radiotherapy (RT) among patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) showing macroscopic vascular invasion (MVI) is an independent prognosticator for overall survival (OS).

Main finding: Responders vs nonresponders had significantly longer median OS at 2 months (23.1 months vs 8.0 months; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 3.194; P < .001) and 4 months (responders vs nonresponders: 26.5 months vs 9.3 months; aHR, 4.534; P < .001).

Study details: This was a retrospective review study including 427 patients with advanced HCC and MVI who received first-line treatment with TACE plus respiratory-gated 3-dimensional conformal RT in the 2-month analysis, whereas the patient number reduced to 355 in the 4-month analysis.

Disclosures: The study was supported by the Asan Institute for Life Sciences of Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Jung J et al. Liver Cancer. 2021 Dec 7. doi: 10.1159/000521227.

Key clinical point: Hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy of infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (HAIC-FO) is better than sorafenib at improving survival in patients with locally advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

Main finding: At a median follow-up of 17.1 and 19.8 months, HAIC-FO- and sorafenib-treated patients showed a median overall survival (OS) of 13.9 months (95% CI, 10.6-17.2) and 8.2 months (95% CI, 7.5-9.0), respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.408; P = .001), with OS improvements favoring HAIC-FO vs sorafenib in even high-risk patients (10.8 months vs 5.7 months; HR, 0.343; P < .001). Grade 3/4 adverse events were more frequent with sorafenib vs HAIC-FO (48.1% vs20.3%).

Study details: The data come from the open-label, phase 3 FOHAIC-1 trial, which included 262 systemic therapy-naive patients with locally advanced or unresectable HCC who were randomly assigned to receive either HAIC-FO (n=130) or sorafenib (n=132).

Disclosures: The National Natural Science Foundation of China sponsored the study. The authors did not report any potential conflict of interests.

Source: Lyu N et al. J Clin Oncol. 2021 Dec 14. doi: 10.1200/JCO.21.01963.

Key clinical point: Hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy of infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (HAIC-FO) is better than sorafenib at improving survival in patients with locally advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

Main finding: At a median follow-up of 17.1 and 19.8 months, HAIC-FO- and sorafenib-treated patients showed a median overall survival (OS) of 13.9 months (95% CI, 10.6-17.2) and 8.2 months (95% CI, 7.5-9.0), respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.408; P = .001), with OS improvements favoring HAIC-FO vs sorafenib in even high-risk patients (10.8 months vs 5.7 months; HR, 0.343; P < .001). Grade 3/4 adverse events were more frequent with sorafenib vs HAIC-FO (48.1% vs20.3%).

Study details: The data come from the open-label, phase 3 FOHAIC-1 trial, which included 262 systemic therapy-naive patients with locally advanced or unresectable HCC who were randomly assigned to receive either HAIC-FO (n=130) or sorafenib (n=132).

Disclosures: The National Natural Science Foundation of China sponsored the study. The authors did not report any potential conflict of interests.

Source: Lyu N et al. J Clin Oncol. 2021 Dec 14. doi: 10.1200/JCO.21.01963.

Key clinical point: Hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy of infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (HAIC-FO) is better than sorafenib at improving survival in patients with locally advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

Main finding: At a median follow-up of 17.1 and 19.8 months, HAIC-FO- and sorafenib-treated patients showed a median overall survival (OS) of 13.9 months (95% CI, 10.6-17.2) and 8.2 months (95% CI, 7.5-9.0), respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.408; P = .001), with OS improvements favoring HAIC-FO vs sorafenib in even high-risk patients (10.8 months vs 5.7 months; HR, 0.343; P < .001). Grade 3/4 adverse events were more frequent with sorafenib vs HAIC-FO (48.1% vs20.3%).

Study details: The data come from the open-label, phase 3 FOHAIC-1 trial, which included 262 systemic therapy-naive patients with locally advanced or unresectable HCC who were randomly assigned to receive either HAIC-FO (n=130) or sorafenib (n=132).

Disclosures: The National Natural Science Foundation of China sponsored the study. The authors did not report any potential conflict of interests.

Source: Lyu N et al. J Clin Oncol. 2021 Dec 14. doi: 10.1200/JCO.21.01963.

Key clinical point: Longer follow-up results confirm the survival benefits and consistent safety of first-line atezolizumab + bevacizumab vs sorafenib in patients with locally advanced or metastatic and/or unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

Major finding: After a 15.6-month median follow-up, the median overall survival (19.2 months vs 13.4 months; stratified hazard ratio [HR] for death, 0.66; P < .001) and progression-free survival (6.9 months vs 4.3 months; HR for death/progression, 0.65; P < .001) were higher with atezolizumab + bevacizumab vs sorafenib. Treatment-related grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 43% vs 46% of patients receiving atezolizumab + bevacizumab vs sorafenib.

Study details: Findings are from a post hoc analysis of the phase 3 IMbrave150 trial including 501 treatment-naïve patients with locally advanced or metastatic and/or unresectable HCC. Patients were randomly assigned to atezolizumab + bevacizumab or sorafenib.

Disclosures: This study was funded by F. Hoffman-La Roche (FHLR)/Genentech. All investigators reported receiving financial or nonfinancial support, providing expert testimony, being an employee of, or holding shares/stocks in various pharmaceutical companies including FHLR/Genentech.

Source: Cheng AL et al. J Hepatol. 2021 Dec 10. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2021.11.030.

Key clinical point: Longer follow-up results confirm the survival benefits and consistent safety of first-line atezolizumab + bevacizumab vs sorafenib in patients with locally advanced or metastatic and/or unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

Major finding: After a 15.6-month median follow-up, the median overall survival (19.2 months vs 13.4 months; stratified hazard ratio [HR] for death, 0.66; P < .001) and progression-free survival (6.9 months vs 4.3 months; HR for death/progression, 0.65; P < .001) were higher with atezolizumab + bevacizumab vs sorafenib. Treatment-related grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 43% vs 46% of patients receiving atezolizumab + bevacizumab vs sorafenib.

Study details: Findings are from a post hoc analysis of the phase 3 IMbrave150 trial including 501 treatment-naïve patients with locally advanced or metastatic and/or unresectable HCC. Patients were randomly assigned to atezolizumab + bevacizumab or sorafenib.

Disclosures: This study was funded by F. Hoffman-La Roche (FHLR)/Genentech. All investigators reported receiving financial or nonfinancial support, providing expert testimony, being an employee of, or holding shares/stocks in various pharmaceutical companies including FHLR/Genentech.

Source: Cheng AL et al. J Hepatol. 2021 Dec 10. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2021.11.030.

Key clinical point: Longer follow-up results confirm the survival benefits and consistent safety of first-line atezolizumab + bevacizumab vs sorafenib in patients with locally advanced or metastatic and/or unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

Major finding: After a 15.6-month median follow-up, the median overall survival (19.2 months vs 13.4 months; stratified hazard ratio [HR] for death, 0.66; P < .001) and progression-free survival (6.9 months vs 4.3 months; HR for death/progression, 0.65; P < .001) were higher with atezolizumab + bevacizumab vs sorafenib. Treatment-related grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 43% vs 46% of patients receiving atezolizumab + bevacizumab vs sorafenib.

Study details: Findings are from a post hoc analysis of the phase 3 IMbrave150 trial including 501 treatment-naïve patients with locally advanced or metastatic and/or unresectable HCC. Patients were randomly assigned to atezolizumab + bevacizumab or sorafenib.

Disclosures: This study was funded by F. Hoffman-La Roche (FHLR)/Genentech. All investigators reported receiving financial or nonfinancial support, providing expert testimony, being an employee of, or holding shares/stocks in various pharmaceutical companies including FHLR/Genentech.

Source: Cheng AL et al. J Hepatol. 2021 Dec 10. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2021.11.030.

Key clinical point: First-line nivolumab treatment did not improve overall survival in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) compared with sorafenib.

Major finding: At a minimum follow-up of 22.8 months, nivolumab vs sorafenib did not meet the prespecified significance boundary for superior overall survival (16.4 months vs 14.7 months; hazard ratio, 0.85; P = .075).

Study details: Findings are from the phase 3 CheckMate 459 trial including 743 adult patients with advanced HCC randomly assigned to receive either nivolumab (n=371) or sorafenib (n=372).

Disclosures: This study was supported by Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS) and Ono Pharmaceutical. Some investigators including the lead author reported receiving grants and fees from, participation on data safety monitoring board or advisory boards for, owning stocks in, and being an employee of various pharmaceutical companies, including BMS and Ono Pharmaceutical.

Source: Yau T et al. Lancet Oncol. 2021 Dec 13. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00604-5.

Key clinical point: First-line nivolumab treatment did not improve overall survival in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) compared with sorafenib.

Major finding: At a minimum follow-up of 22.8 months, nivolumab vs sorafenib did not meet the prespecified significance boundary for superior overall survival (16.4 months vs 14.7 months; hazard ratio, 0.85; P = .075).

Study details: Findings are from the phase 3 CheckMate 459 trial including 743 adult patients with advanced HCC randomly assigned to receive either nivolumab (n=371) or sorafenib (n=372).

Disclosures: This study was supported by Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS) and Ono Pharmaceutical. Some investigators including the lead author reported receiving grants and fees from, participation on data safety monitoring board or advisory boards for, owning stocks in, and being an employee of various pharmaceutical companies, including BMS and Ono Pharmaceutical.

Source: Yau T et al. Lancet Oncol. 2021 Dec 13. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00604-5.

Key clinical point: First-line nivolumab treatment did not improve overall survival in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) compared with sorafenib.

Major finding: At a minimum follow-up of 22.8 months, nivolumab vs sorafenib did not meet the prespecified significance boundary for superior overall survival (16.4 months vs 14.7 months; hazard ratio, 0.85; P = .075).

Study details: Findings are from the phase 3 CheckMate 459 trial including 743 adult patients with advanced HCC randomly assigned to receive either nivolumab (n=371) or sorafenib (n=372).

Disclosures: This study was supported by Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS) and Ono Pharmaceutical. Some investigators including the lead author reported receiving grants and fees from, participation on data safety monitoring board or advisory boards for, owning stocks in, and being an employee of various pharmaceutical companies, including BMS and Ono Pharmaceutical.

Source: Yau T et al. Lancet Oncol. 2021 Dec 13. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00604-5.

Along with long-standing concerns about immunodeficiency and use of immunosuppressive medication in people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are juxtaposed concerns about their additional risk of COVID-19 during the pandemic. Several studies have reported a high risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes in people with rheumatic disease, though few have compared this risk to the general population. This cohort study by Wang et al.¹ examines the risk of COVID-19 in people with RA compared to people with OA and the general population based on an electronic medical record database in the UK. The rate of COVID-19 was higher among people with RA than the general population, with a hazard ratio of 1.42 for confirmed COVID-19 cases, while the rate among people with OA was not increased. This finding confirms suspicions, though, due to the study design, it does not lend additional insight into nuances given the lack of information about RA treatment and activity as in prior studies.

Also of concern in the midst of the pandemic is the effect of RA and its treatment on response to vaccines against SARS-CoV-2. The rapid development of mRNA vaccines has been a boon, but research on vaccine response in people with rheumatic disease has suggested that certain medications can impact antibody formation. Iancovici et al.² examined antibody and B cell responses after vaccination in people with RA being treated with Janus kinase (JAK)-inhibitors or tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-inhibitors and in healthy volunteers. Though the study is flawed as responses were not assessed at the same timepoint after vaccination in all subjects and limited due to the heterogeneity of treatment and small numbers of subjects, antibody production and other assays were decreased in RA subjects, suggesting reduced humoral immunity. Whether a pause in JAK inhibitor treatment, as recommended by the American College of Rheumatology, makes an appreciable difference in these assessments of vaccine response is as yet unknown. Further, given the limited data, it is unclear whether having RA on its own, rather than the treatments involved, was the causative factor. Research is already underway on SARS-CoV-2 vaccine response in people with RA and other rheumatic diseases, but studies such as these also imply a relative immunodeficiency due to the diseases and their treatment that could extend to other vaccines or infections.

In addition to impacts on SARS-CoV-2 vaccine response, treatment with JAK inhibitors is known to increase risk of herpes zoster (HZ). A post hoc analysis of pooled data from 21 RA and 3 psoriatic arthritis (PsA) tofacitinib trials by Winthrop et al.³ evaluated the number and severity of HZ infections. Interestingly, HZ infections occurred more frequently in participants in the RA clinical trials, with about 11% having an infection compared to 5% in the PsA studies, once again highlighting a potential immunodeficiency particular to people with RA. Most patients had mild to moderate infections, but a small proportion of patients (<5%) had severe infections. Given the possibility of a reduced vaccine response, though unknown, after HZ vaccination in people with RA, consideration should be given not only to vaccination prior to initiation of JAK inhibitor therapy, but to assessment of vaccine efficacy and the ideal dosing schedules in these patients.

References

1. Wang Y et al. Increased risk of COVID-19 in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a general population-based cohort study. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2021(Dec 7). 
2. Iancovici L et al. Rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with Janus kinase inhibitors show reduced humoral immune responses following BNT162b2 vaccination. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2021:keab879 (Nov 25).
3. Winthrop KL et al. Clinical management of herpes zoster in patients with rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis receiving tofacitinib treatment. Rheumatol Ther. 2021 (Dec 6).

Along with long-standing concerns about immunodeficiency and use of immunosuppressive medication in people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are juxtaposed concerns about their additional risk of COVID-19 during the pandemic. Several studies have reported a high risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes in people with rheumatic disease, though few have compared this risk to the general population. This cohort study by Wang et al.¹ examines the risk of COVID-19 in people with RA compared to people with OA and the general population based on an electronic medical record database in the UK. The rate of COVID-19 was higher among people with RA than the general population, with a hazard ratio of 1.42 for confirmed COVID-19 cases, while the rate among people with OA was not increased. This finding confirms suspicions, though, due to the study design, it does not lend additional insight into nuances given the lack of information about RA treatment and activity as in prior studies.

Also of concern in the midst of the pandemic is the effect of RA and its treatment on response to vaccines against SARS-CoV-2. The rapid development of mRNA vaccines has been a boon, but research on vaccine response in people with rheumatic disease has suggested that certain medications can impact antibody formation. Iancovici et al.² examined antibody and B cell responses after vaccination in people with RA being treated with Janus kinase (JAK)-inhibitors or tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-inhibitors and in healthy volunteers. Though the study is flawed as responses were not assessed at the same timepoint after vaccination in all subjects and limited due to the heterogeneity of treatment and small numbers of subjects, antibody production and other assays were decreased in RA subjects, suggesting reduced humoral immunity. Whether a pause in JAK inhibitor treatment, as recommended by the American College of Rheumatology, makes an appreciable difference in these assessments of vaccine response is as yet unknown. Further, given the limited data, it is unclear whether having RA on its own, rather than the treatments involved, was the causative factor. Research is already underway on SARS-CoV-2 vaccine response in people with RA and other rheumatic diseases, but studies such as these also imply a relative immunodeficiency due to the diseases and their treatment that could extend to other vaccines or infections.

In addition to impacts on SARS-CoV-2 vaccine response, treatment with JAK inhibitors is known to increase risk of herpes zoster (HZ). A post hoc analysis of pooled data from 21 RA and 3 psoriatic arthritis (PsA) tofacitinib trials by Winthrop et al.³ evaluated the number and severity of HZ infections. Interestingly, HZ infections occurred more frequently in participants in the RA clinical trials, with about 11% having an infection compared to 5% in the PsA studies, once again highlighting a potential immunodeficiency particular to people with RA. Most patients had mild to moderate infections, but a small proportion of patients (<5%) had severe infections. Given the possibility of a reduced vaccine response, though unknown, after HZ vaccination in people with RA, consideration should be given not only to vaccination prior to initiation of JAK inhibitor therapy, but to assessment of vaccine efficacy and the ideal dosing schedules in these patients.

References

1. Wang Y et al. Increased risk of COVID-19 in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a general population-based cohort study. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2021(Dec 7). 
2. Iancovici L et al. Rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with Janus kinase inhibitors show reduced humoral immune responses following BNT162b2 vaccination. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2021:keab879 (Nov 25).
3. Winthrop KL et al. Clinical management of herpes zoster in patients with rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis receiving tofacitinib treatment. Rheumatol Ther. 2021 (Dec 6).

Along with long-standing concerns about immunodeficiency and use of immunosuppressive medication in people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are juxtaposed concerns about their additional risk of COVID-19 during the pandemic. Several studies have reported a high risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes in people with rheumatic disease, though few have compared this risk to the general population. This cohort study by Wang et al.¹ examines the risk of COVID-19 in people with RA compared to people with OA and the general population based on an electronic medical record database in the UK. The rate of COVID-19 was higher among people with RA than the general population, with a hazard ratio of 1.42 for confirmed COVID-19 cases, while the rate among people with OA was not increased. This finding confirms suspicions, though, due to the study design, it does not lend additional insight into nuances given the lack of information about RA treatment and activity as in prior studies.

Also of concern in the midst of the pandemic is the effect of RA and its treatment on response to vaccines against SARS-CoV-2. The rapid development of mRNA vaccines has been a boon, but research on vaccine response in people with rheumatic disease has suggested that certain medications can impact antibody formation. Iancovici et al.² examined antibody and B cell responses after vaccination in people with RA being treated with Janus kinase (JAK)-inhibitors or tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-inhibitors and in healthy volunteers. Though the study is flawed as responses were not assessed at the same timepoint after vaccination in all subjects and limited due to the heterogeneity of treatment and small numbers of subjects, antibody production and other assays were decreased in RA subjects, suggesting reduced humoral immunity. Whether a pause in JAK inhibitor treatment, as recommended by the American College of Rheumatology, makes an appreciable difference in these assessments of vaccine response is as yet unknown. Further, given the limited data, it is unclear whether having RA on its own, rather than the treatments involved, was the causative factor. Research is already underway on SARS-CoV-2 vaccine response in people with RA and other rheumatic diseases, but studies such as these also imply a relative immunodeficiency due to the diseases and their treatment that could extend to other vaccines or infections.

In addition to impacts on SARS-CoV-2 vaccine response, treatment with JAK inhibitors is known to increase risk of herpes zoster (HZ). A post hoc analysis of pooled data from 21 RA and 3 psoriatic arthritis (PsA) tofacitinib trials by Winthrop et al.³ evaluated the number and severity of HZ infections. Interestingly, HZ infections occurred more frequently in participants in the RA clinical trials, with about 11% having an infection compared to 5% in the PsA studies, once again highlighting a potential immunodeficiency particular to people with RA. Most patients had mild to moderate infections, but a small proportion of patients (<5%) had severe infections. Given the possibility of a reduced vaccine response, though unknown, after HZ vaccination in people with RA, consideration should be given not only to vaccination prior to initiation of JAK inhibitor therapy, but to assessment of vaccine efficacy and the ideal dosing schedules in these patients.

References

1. Wang Y et al. Increased risk of COVID-19 in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a general population-based cohort study. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2021(Dec 7). 
2. Iancovici L et al. Rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with Janus kinase inhibitors show reduced humoral immune responses following BNT162b2 vaccination. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2021:keab879 (Nov 25).
3. Winthrop KL et al. Clinical management of herpes zoster in patients with rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis receiving tofacitinib treatment. Rheumatol Ther. 2021 (Dec 6).

A new era of evidence-based practice for atopic dermatitis

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is one of the most common diseases of childhood and still very common in adults worldwide. AD is also a very burdensome disease with considerable patient-burden. Despite the enormous population- and patient- burden, there remain many unmet needs in the management of AD. In addition, many treatments commonly used in AD had scant or mixed evidence regarding their efficacy and safety. For example, topical corticosteroids (TCS) are the workhorse for treatment in AD and most other inflammatory skin diseases. Yet, virtually everything we know about the efficacy of TCS comes from vasoconstriction proxy assays with almost no studies formally studying the efficacy of TCS in AD. Similarly, many therapies used off-label to treat more severe AD, such as phototherapy or allergen immunotherapy have inconsistent evidence to guide their use. Well, things are finally changing and the evidence is coming in at a frenzied pace. Development of multiple novel therapeutics in AD led to renewed interest in studying the efficacy and safety of older therapies as well.

• Phototherapy is an important treatment modality in AD patients who have an inadequate response to topical therapy. Many different modalities and devices were used to treat AD over the years, including narrowband ultraviolet B (NBUVB) and ultraviolet A (UVA)-1. NBUVB is the most commonly used approach in the United States and some other regions of the world. Ben Mordehai et al. published the results of a retrospective cohort study of 390 Israeli patients with moderate-severe AD treated with NBUVB therapy between 2000-2017 with ≥3 years of follow-up. Overall, 55.4% achieved an Investigator’s Global Assessment score of clear or almost clear. Facial involvement, occurrence of adverse effects, fewer treatments, and pretreatment immunoglobulin E levels >4000 IU/ml were associated with poorer clinical response to NBUVB. Median duration of response was 12 months with more relapses in children (<18 years).

• House dust mites (HDM) were previously shown to be triggers of AD via Immunoglobulin E dependent and independent mechanisms. Unfortunately, HDM avoidance is challenging for patients and has not proven to be reliably effective in clinical trials. Previous studies examined different approaches for immunotherapy to HDM with mixed results. Langer et al. published the results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of HDM sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) or placebo for 18 months in 91 children and adults with AD and positive skin test result and/or Immunoglobulin E to Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus. After 18 months, patients treated with HDM SLIT achieved greater reductions in the SCOring AD (SCORAD) index and were more likely to achieve an Investigator’s Global Assessment score of clear or almost clear compared to placebo. Headache and abdominal pain were the most common adverse events reported by both groups. Efficacy of HDM SLIT in this study was relatively modest. Nevertheless, it appears to be a safe therapy and a reasonable adjunctive therapy in patients with AD whose disease is believed to be triggered by HDM.

• We are fortunate to have multiple non-steroidal topical therapies for atopic dermatitis, including crisaborole ointment, pimecrolimus cream and tacrolimus ointment. A number of questions remain about how these therapies compare with each other and with topical corticosteroids.  Some of these questions were answered in two recent studies.
  • Thom et al. compared individual data from two phase 3 studies of crisaborole ointment with previously published data for topical pimecrolimus and tacrolimus in patients ≥2 years with mild-to-moderate AD using an approach referred to as unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison. By week 6, the odds of achieving Investigator’s Static Global Assessment score of 0/1 was higher for crisaborole ointment vs. pimecrolimus cream and tacrolimus 0.03% ointment.
  • Salava et al. followed 152 children age 1-3 years with moderate-severe AD for 36 months. They found no significant differences of topical tacrolimus 0.03% or 0.1% ointment vs. low or mid potency topical corticosteroids on AD severity (as judged by the eczema area and severity index), skin or other infections, and various cytokine levels.

While these data do not replace the need for head-to-head studies, they do provide important context about comparative efficacy and safety of the various topical agents in our toolbox.

References

1. Ben Mordehai Y et al. Long-Term Narrowband UV-B Efficacy in Moderate to Severe Atopic Dermatitis. Dermatitis. 2021 (Nov 27).
2. Langer SS et al. Efficacy of house dust mite sublingual immunotherapy in patients with atopic dermatitis: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2021 (Nov 9).
3. Thom H et al. Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison of Crisaborole Ointment 2% vs. Topical Calcineurin Inhibitors in the Treatment of Patients with Mild-to-Moderate Atopic Dermatitis Dermatol Ther (Heidelb). 2021 (Dec 8).
4. Salava A et al. Safety of tacrolimus 0.03% and 0.1% ointments in young children with atopic dermatitis - a 36-month follow-up study. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2021 (Nov 19).

A new era of evidence-based practice for atopic dermatitis

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is one of the most common diseases of childhood and still very common in adults worldwide. AD is also a very burdensome disease with considerable patient-burden. Despite the enormous population- and patient- burden, there remain many unmet needs in the management of AD. In addition, many treatments commonly used in AD had scant or mixed evidence regarding their efficacy and safety. For example, topical corticosteroids (TCS) are the workhorse for treatment in AD and most other inflammatory skin diseases. Yet, virtually everything we know about the efficacy of TCS comes from vasoconstriction proxy assays with almost no studies formally studying the efficacy of TCS in AD. Similarly, many therapies used off-label to treat more severe AD, such as phototherapy or allergen immunotherapy have inconsistent evidence to guide their use. Well, things are finally changing and the evidence is coming in at a frenzied pace. Development of multiple novel therapeutics in AD led to renewed interest in studying the efficacy and safety of older therapies as well.

• Phototherapy is an important treatment modality in AD patients who have an inadequate response to topical therapy. Many different modalities and devices were used to treat AD over the years, including narrowband ultraviolet B (NBUVB) and ultraviolet A (UVA)-1. NBUVB is the most commonly used approach in the United States and some other regions of the world. Ben Mordehai et al. published the results of a retrospective cohort study of 390 Israeli patients with moderate-severe AD treated with NBUVB therapy between 2000-2017 with ≥3 years of follow-up. Overall, 55.4% achieved an Investigator’s Global Assessment score of clear or almost clear. Facial involvement, occurrence of adverse effects, fewer treatments, and pretreatment immunoglobulin E levels >4000 IU/ml were associated with poorer clinical response to NBUVB. Median duration of response was 12 months with more relapses in children (<18 years).

• House dust mites (HDM) were previously shown to be triggers of AD via Immunoglobulin E dependent and independent mechanisms. Unfortunately, HDM avoidance is challenging for patients and has not proven to be reliably effective in clinical trials. Previous studies examined different approaches for immunotherapy to HDM with mixed results. Langer et al. published the results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of HDM sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) or placebo for 18 months in 91 children and adults with AD and positive skin test result and/or Immunoglobulin E to Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus. After 18 months, patients treated with HDM SLIT achieved greater reductions in the SCOring AD (SCORAD) index and were more likely to achieve an Investigator’s Global Assessment score of clear or almost clear compared to placebo. Headache and abdominal pain were the most common adverse events reported by both groups. Efficacy of HDM SLIT in this study was relatively modest. Nevertheless, it appears to be a safe therapy and a reasonable adjunctive therapy in patients with AD whose disease is believed to be triggered by HDM.

• We are fortunate to have multiple non-steroidal topical therapies for atopic dermatitis, including crisaborole ointment, pimecrolimus cream and tacrolimus ointment. A number of questions remain about how these therapies compare with each other and with topical corticosteroids.  Some of these questions were answered in two recent studies.
  • Thom et al. compared individual data from two phase 3 studies of crisaborole ointment with previously published data for topical pimecrolimus and tacrolimus in patients ≥2 years with mild-to-moderate AD using an approach referred to as unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison. By week 6, the odds of achieving Investigator’s Static Global Assessment score of 0/1 was higher for crisaborole ointment vs. pimecrolimus cream and tacrolimus 0.03% ointment.
  • Salava et al. followed 152 children age 1-3 years with moderate-severe AD for 36 months. They found no significant differences of topical tacrolimus 0.03% or 0.1% ointment vs. low or mid potency topical corticosteroids on AD severity (as judged by the eczema area and severity index), skin or other infections, and various cytokine levels.

While these data do not replace the need for head-to-head studies, they do provide important context about comparative efficacy and safety of the various topical agents in our toolbox.

References

1. Ben Mordehai Y et al. Long-Term Narrowband UV-B Efficacy in Moderate to Severe Atopic Dermatitis. Dermatitis. 2021 (Nov 27).
2. Langer SS et al. Efficacy of house dust mite sublingual immunotherapy in patients with atopic dermatitis: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2021 (Nov 9).
3. Thom H et al. Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison of Crisaborole Ointment 2% vs. Topical Calcineurin Inhibitors in the Treatment of Patients with Mild-to-Moderate Atopic Dermatitis Dermatol Ther (Heidelb). 2021 (Dec 8).
4. Salava A et al. Safety of tacrolimus 0.03% and 0.1% ointments in young children with atopic dermatitis - a 36-month follow-up study. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2021 (Nov 19).

A new era of evidence-based practice for atopic dermatitis

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is one of the most common diseases of childhood and still very common in adults worldwide. AD is also a very burdensome disease with considerable patient-burden. Despite the enormous population- and patient- burden, there remain many unmet needs in the management of AD. In addition, many treatments commonly used in AD had scant or mixed evidence regarding their efficacy and safety. For example, topical corticosteroids (TCS) are the workhorse for treatment in AD and most other inflammatory skin diseases. Yet, virtually everything we know about the efficacy of TCS comes from vasoconstriction proxy assays with almost no studies formally studying the efficacy of TCS in AD. Similarly, many therapies used off-label to treat more severe AD, such as phototherapy or allergen immunotherapy have inconsistent evidence to guide their use. Well, things are finally changing and the evidence is coming in at a frenzied pace. Development of multiple novel therapeutics in AD led to renewed interest in studying the efficacy and safety of older therapies as well.

• Phototherapy is an important treatment modality in AD patients who have an inadequate response to topical therapy. Many different modalities and devices were used to treat AD over the years, including narrowband ultraviolet B (NBUVB) and ultraviolet A (UVA)-1. NBUVB is the most commonly used approach in the United States and some other regions of the world. Ben Mordehai et al. published the results of a retrospective cohort study of 390 Israeli patients with moderate-severe AD treated with NBUVB therapy between 2000-2017 with ≥3 years of follow-up. Overall, 55.4% achieved an Investigator’s Global Assessment score of clear or almost clear. Facial involvement, occurrence of adverse effects, fewer treatments, and pretreatment immunoglobulin E levels >4000 IU/ml were associated with poorer clinical response to NBUVB. Median duration of response was 12 months with more relapses in children (<18 years).

• House dust mites (HDM) were previously shown to be triggers of AD via Immunoglobulin E dependent and independent mechanisms. Unfortunately, HDM avoidance is challenging for patients and has not proven to be reliably effective in clinical trials. Previous studies examined different approaches for immunotherapy to HDM with mixed results. Langer et al. published the results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of HDM sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) or placebo for 18 months in 91 children and adults with AD and positive skin test result and/or Immunoglobulin E to Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus. After 18 months, patients treated with HDM SLIT achieved greater reductions in the SCOring AD (SCORAD) index and were more likely to achieve an Investigator’s Global Assessment score of clear or almost clear compared to placebo. Headache and abdominal pain were the most common adverse events reported by both groups. Efficacy of HDM SLIT in this study was relatively modest. Nevertheless, it appears to be a safe therapy and a reasonable adjunctive therapy in patients with AD whose disease is believed to be triggered by HDM.

• We are fortunate to have multiple non-steroidal topical therapies for atopic dermatitis, including crisaborole ointment, pimecrolimus cream and tacrolimus ointment. A number of questions remain about how these therapies compare with each other and with topical corticosteroids.  Some of these questions were answered in two recent studies.
  • Thom et al. compared individual data from two phase 3 studies of crisaborole ointment with previously published data for topical pimecrolimus and tacrolimus in patients ≥2 years with mild-to-moderate AD using an approach referred to as unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison. By week 6, the odds of achieving Investigator’s Static Global Assessment score of 0/1 was higher for crisaborole ointment vs. pimecrolimus cream and tacrolimus 0.03% ointment.
  • Salava et al. followed 152 children age 1-3 years with moderate-severe AD for 36 months. They found no significant differences of topical tacrolimus 0.03% or 0.1% ointment vs. low or mid potency topical corticosteroids on AD severity (as judged by the eczema area and severity index), skin or other infections, and various cytokine levels.

While these data do not replace the need for head-to-head studies, they do provide important context about comparative efficacy and safety of the various topical agents in our toolbox.

References

1. Ben Mordehai Y et al. Long-Term Narrowband UV-B Efficacy in Moderate to Severe Atopic Dermatitis. Dermatitis. 2021 (Nov 27).
2. Langer SS et al. Efficacy of house dust mite sublingual immunotherapy in patients with atopic dermatitis: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2021 (Nov 9).
3. Thom H et al. Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison of Crisaborole Ointment 2% vs. Topical Calcineurin Inhibitors in the Treatment of Patients with Mild-to-Moderate Atopic Dermatitis Dermatol Ther (Heidelb). 2021 (Dec 8).
4. Salava A et al. Safety of tacrolimus 0.03% and 0.1% ointments in young children with atopic dermatitis - a 36-month follow-up study. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2021 (Nov 19).

The practitioner’s primary responsibility in managing respiratory infection is to determine which patients with community acquired pneumonia (CAP) warrant hospitalization and more aggressive management. Standard practice for mild infection dictates empiric administration of 5 days of antimicrobial agents¹ particularly for the youngest, oldest and patients with underlying comorbid conditions, usually on an outpatient basis with careful follow-up.

Variables for hospitalization and for the selection of antibiotic therapy include the likelihood of a bacterial etiology, epidemiologic considerations, clinical symptoms, predisposing host factors, age, and radiographic findings. Patients who have viral processes generally have low-grade fever and are usually uncomfortable, although they may not appear toxic. However, it is not possible to distinguish between viral and bacterial pneumonia on clinical grounds alone, particularly with the emergence of COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2), as rapid progression of an initially mild viral upper respiratory infection may become life threatening, particularly in patients with comorbid conditions, such as pulmonary disease, diabetes, and immunodeficiency. All patients with severe CAP should be tested for this viral agent. A recent study of 96 patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and COVID-19 infection showed they had higher intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, ventilation requirements, cardiovascular events, and mortality as compared to 1,129 hospitalized patients with COPD and non-COVID-19 infection.² In addition to COVID-19, type 2 diabetes mellitus must also be considered, as such patients developing severe CAP from all causes have a higher mortality and poorer clinical outcomes than those without diabetes.³

      Predicting which patients are likely to progress to severe disease from CAP is a challenging task. In the past clinicians relied on clinical assessment, along with some inflammatory lab studies such as the complete blood count (CBC), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP), and procalcitonin. Newer tests have recently been studied for their ability to inform prognosis and likely mortality. A very simple test is the admission blood glucose level, which, if increased at hospital admission, is associated with a higher mortality.⁴ More recently the quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) score was shown to be better than the Infectious Diseases Society of America/American Thoracic Society (IDSA/ATS) minor criteria score in predicting mortality.⁵ A potential new laboratory test, serum IL-17 concentrations, demonstrated a positive correlation with CAP severity, ICU admission, longer hospital stay, mechanical ventilation, and mortality.⁶

Current studies have identified some potential advantages of newer antibiotics. Cefoperazone-sulbactam was shown to be equivalent to piperacillin-tazobactam (PIP-TAZO) for treating severe CAP in elderly patients, thereby avoiding the potential acute kidney injury (AKI) of the PIP-TAZO – vancomycin combination.⁷ This benefit of reduced AKI was supported by a retrospective cohort study that included 449,535 hospitalized adult patients with CAP.⁸

In a phase 3 study, lefamulin was as effective as moxifloxacin in treating bacterial CAP, including drug-resistant strains and typical, atypical, and polymicrobial infections.⁹  Of 1,289 study patients, a pathogen was identified in 709. Side effects were minor. This antibiotic has a unique mechanism of action through inhibition of protein synthesis, preventing the binding of transfer RNA.

Adjunctive oral dexamethasone therapy for CAP has been advocated by some experts. In a study of 354 non-ICU patients, a shorter hospital stay was seen in patients who received dexamethasone vs. placebo (4 vs. 6 days) but only in patients who had elevated neutrophil or WBC counts, or high neutrophil-lymphocyte ratios; otherwise there was no difference.¹⁰

References

1. Vaughn VM et al. a statewide collaborative quality initiative to improve antibiotic duration and outcomes in patients hospitalized with uncomplicated community-acquired pneumonia. Clin Infect Dis. 2021(Nov 13):ciab950 (Nov 13). 
2. Sheikh D et al. Clinical outcomes in patients with COPD hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 versus non-SARS-CoV-2 community-acquired pneumonia. Respir Med. 2021(Dec 8);191:106714.
3. Huang D et al. Clinical characteristics and risk factors associated with mortality in patients with severe community-acquired pneumonia and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Crit Care. 2021(Dec 7);25:419.
4. Shen Y et al. Association of admission blood glucose level with all-cause mortality according to age in patients with community acquired pneumonia. Int J Gen Med. 2021(Nov 6);14:7775-7781.
5. Guo Q et al. qSOFA predicted pneumonia mortality better than minor criteria and worse than CURB-65 with robust elements and higher convergence. Am J Emerg Med. 2022(Feb);52:1-7.
6. Feng CM et al. Serum interleukin-17 predicts severity and prognosis in patients with community acquired pneumonia: a prospective cohort study. BMC Pulm Med. 2021(Dec 2);21:393.
7. Huang CT et al. Clinical effectiveness of cefoperazone-sulbactam versus piperacillin-tazobactam for the treatment of pneumonia in the elderly population. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2021(Dec 4);106491.
8. Le P et al. Association of antibiotic use and acute kidney injury in patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia. Curr Med Res Opin. 2021 (Nov 15).   
9. Paukner S et al. Pooled microbiological findings and efficacy outcomes by pathogen in adults with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia from the Lefamulin Evaluation Against Pneumonia (LEAP) 1 and LEAP 2 phase 3 trials of lefamulin versus moxifloxacin. J Glob Antimicrob Resist. 2021 (Nov 14).
10. Wittermans E et al. Neutrophil count, lymphocyte count and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio in relation to response to adjunctive dexamethasone treatment in community-acquired pneumonia. Eur J Intern Med. 2021 (Nov 12).

The practitioner’s primary responsibility in managing respiratory infection is to determine which patients with community acquired pneumonia (CAP) warrant hospitalization and more aggressive management. Standard practice for mild infection dictates empiric administration of 5 days of antimicrobial agents¹ particularly for the youngest, oldest and patients with underlying comorbid conditions, usually on an outpatient basis with careful follow-up.

Variables for hospitalization and for the selection of antibiotic therapy include the likelihood of a bacterial etiology, epidemiologic considerations, clinical symptoms, predisposing host factors, age, and radiographic findings. Patients who have viral processes generally have low-grade fever and are usually uncomfortable, although they may not appear toxic. However, it is not possible to distinguish between viral and bacterial pneumonia on clinical grounds alone, particularly with the emergence of COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2), as rapid progression of an initially mild viral upper respiratory infection may become life threatening, particularly in patients with comorbid conditions, such as pulmonary disease, diabetes, and immunodeficiency. All patients with severe CAP should be tested for this viral agent. A recent study of 96 patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and COVID-19 infection showed they had higher intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, ventilation requirements, cardiovascular events, and mortality as compared to 1,129 hospitalized patients with COPD and non-COVID-19 infection.² In addition to COVID-19, type 2 diabetes mellitus must also be considered, as such patients developing severe CAP from all causes have a higher mortality and poorer clinical outcomes than those without diabetes.³

      Predicting which patients are likely to progress to severe disease from CAP is a challenging task. In the past clinicians relied on clinical assessment, along with some inflammatory lab studies such as the complete blood count (CBC), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP), and procalcitonin. Newer tests have recently been studied for their ability to inform prognosis and likely mortality. A very simple test is the admission blood glucose level, which, if increased at hospital admission, is associated with a higher mortality.⁴ More recently the quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) score was shown to be better than the Infectious Diseases Society of America/American Thoracic Society (IDSA/ATS) minor criteria score in predicting mortality.⁵ A potential new laboratory test, serum IL-17 concentrations, demonstrated a positive correlation with CAP severity, ICU admission, longer hospital stay, mechanical ventilation, and mortality.⁶

Current studies have identified some potential advantages of newer antibiotics. Cefoperazone-sulbactam was shown to be equivalent to piperacillin-tazobactam (PIP-TAZO) for treating severe CAP in elderly patients, thereby avoiding the potential acute kidney injury (AKI) of the PIP-TAZO – vancomycin combination.⁷ This benefit of reduced AKI was supported by a retrospective cohort study that included 449,535 hospitalized adult patients with CAP.⁸

In a phase 3 study, lefamulin was as effective as moxifloxacin in treating bacterial CAP, including drug-resistant strains and typical, atypical, and polymicrobial infections.⁹  Of 1,289 study patients, a pathogen was identified in 709. Side effects were minor. This antibiotic has a unique mechanism of action through inhibition of protein synthesis, preventing the binding of transfer RNA.

Adjunctive oral dexamethasone therapy for CAP has been advocated by some experts. In a study of 354 non-ICU patients, a shorter hospital stay was seen in patients who received dexamethasone vs. placebo (4 vs. 6 days) but only in patients who had elevated neutrophil or WBC counts, or high neutrophil-lymphocyte ratios; otherwise there was no difference.¹⁰

References

1. Vaughn VM et al. a statewide collaborative quality initiative to improve antibiotic duration and outcomes in patients hospitalized with uncomplicated community-acquired pneumonia. Clin Infect Dis. 2021(Nov 13):ciab950 (Nov 13). 
2. Sheikh D et al. Clinical outcomes in patients with COPD hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 versus non-SARS-CoV-2 community-acquired pneumonia. Respir Med. 2021(Dec 8);191:106714.
3. Huang D et al. Clinical characteristics and risk factors associated with mortality in patients with severe community-acquired pneumonia and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Crit Care. 2021(Dec 7);25:419.
4. Shen Y et al. Association of admission blood glucose level with all-cause mortality according to age in patients with community acquired pneumonia. Int J Gen Med. 2021(Nov 6);14:7775-7781.
5. Guo Q et al. qSOFA predicted pneumonia mortality better than minor criteria and worse than CURB-65 with robust elements and higher convergence. Am J Emerg Med. 2022(Feb);52:1-7.
6. Feng CM et al. Serum interleukin-17 predicts severity and prognosis in patients with community acquired pneumonia: a prospective cohort study. BMC Pulm Med. 2021(Dec 2);21:393.
7. Huang CT et al. Clinical effectiveness of cefoperazone-sulbactam versus piperacillin-tazobactam for the treatment of pneumonia in the elderly population. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2021(Dec 4);106491.
8. Le P et al. Association of antibiotic use and acute kidney injury in patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia. Curr Med Res Opin. 2021 (Nov 15).   
9. Paukner S et al. Pooled microbiological findings and efficacy outcomes by pathogen in adults with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia from the Lefamulin Evaluation Against Pneumonia (LEAP) 1 and LEAP 2 phase 3 trials of lefamulin versus moxifloxacin. J Glob Antimicrob Resist. 2021 (Nov 14).
10. Wittermans E et al. Neutrophil count, lymphocyte count and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio in relation to response to adjunctive dexamethasone treatment in community-acquired pneumonia. Eur J Intern Med. 2021 (Nov 12).

The practitioner’s primary responsibility in managing respiratory infection is to determine which patients with community acquired pneumonia (CAP) warrant hospitalization and more aggressive management. Standard practice for mild infection dictates empiric administration of 5 days of antimicrobial agents¹ particularly for the youngest, oldest and patients with underlying comorbid conditions, usually on an outpatient basis with careful follow-up.

Variables for hospitalization and for the selection of antibiotic therapy include the likelihood of a bacterial etiology, epidemiologic considerations, clinical symptoms, predisposing host factors, age, and radiographic findings. Patients who have viral processes generally have low-grade fever and are usually uncomfortable, although they may not appear toxic. However, it is not possible to distinguish between viral and bacterial pneumonia on clinical grounds alone, particularly with the emergence of COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2), as rapid progression of an initially mild viral upper respiratory infection may become life threatening, particularly in patients with comorbid conditions, such as pulmonary disease, diabetes, and immunodeficiency. All patients with severe CAP should be tested for this viral agent. A recent study of 96 patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and COVID-19 infection showed they had higher intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, ventilation requirements, cardiovascular events, and mortality as compared to 1,129 hospitalized patients with COPD and non-COVID-19 infection.² In addition to COVID-19, type 2 diabetes mellitus must also be considered, as such patients developing severe CAP from all causes have a higher mortality and poorer clinical outcomes than those without diabetes.³

      Predicting which patients are likely to progress to severe disease from CAP is a challenging task. In the past clinicians relied on clinical assessment, along with some inflammatory lab studies such as the complete blood count (CBC), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP), and procalcitonin. Newer tests have recently been studied for their ability to inform prognosis and likely mortality. A very simple test is the admission blood glucose level, which, if increased at hospital admission, is associated with a higher mortality.⁴ More recently the quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) score was shown to be better than the Infectious Diseases Society of America/American Thoracic Society (IDSA/ATS) minor criteria score in predicting mortality.⁵ A potential new laboratory test, serum IL-17 concentrations, demonstrated a positive correlation with CAP severity, ICU admission, longer hospital stay, mechanical ventilation, and mortality.⁶

Current studies have identified some potential advantages of newer antibiotics. Cefoperazone-sulbactam was shown to be equivalent to piperacillin-tazobactam (PIP-TAZO) for treating severe CAP in elderly patients, thereby avoiding the potential acute kidney injury (AKI) of the PIP-TAZO – vancomycin combination.⁷ This benefit of reduced AKI was supported by a retrospective cohort study that included 449,535 hospitalized adult patients with CAP.⁸

In a phase 3 study, lefamulin was as effective as moxifloxacin in treating bacterial CAP, including drug-resistant strains and typical, atypical, and polymicrobial infections.⁹  Of 1,289 study patients, a pathogen was identified in 709. Side effects were minor. This antibiotic has a unique mechanism of action through inhibition of protein synthesis, preventing the binding of transfer RNA.

Adjunctive oral dexamethasone therapy for CAP has been advocated by some experts. In a study of 354 non-ICU patients, a shorter hospital stay was seen in patients who received dexamethasone vs. placebo (4 vs. 6 days) but only in patients who had elevated neutrophil or WBC counts, or high neutrophil-lymphocyte ratios; otherwise there was no difference.¹⁰

References

1. Vaughn VM et al. a statewide collaborative quality initiative to improve antibiotic duration and outcomes in patients hospitalized with uncomplicated community-acquired pneumonia. Clin Infect Dis. 2021(Nov 13):ciab950 (Nov 13). 
2. Sheikh D et al. Clinical outcomes in patients with COPD hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 versus non-SARS-CoV-2 community-acquired pneumonia. Respir Med. 2021(Dec 8);191:106714.
3. Huang D et al. Clinical characteristics and risk factors associated with mortality in patients with severe community-acquired pneumonia and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Crit Care. 2021(Dec 7);25:419.
4. Shen Y et al. Association of admission blood glucose level with all-cause mortality according to age in patients with community acquired pneumonia. Int J Gen Med. 2021(Nov 6);14:7775-7781.
5. Guo Q et al. qSOFA predicted pneumonia mortality better than minor criteria and worse than CURB-65 with robust elements and higher convergence. Am J Emerg Med. 2022(Feb);52:1-7.
6. Feng CM et al. Serum interleukin-17 predicts severity and prognosis in patients with community acquired pneumonia: a prospective cohort study. BMC Pulm Med. 2021(Dec 2);21:393.
7. Huang CT et al. Clinical effectiveness of cefoperazone-sulbactam versus piperacillin-tazobactam for the treatment of pneumonia in the elderly population. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2021(Dec 4);106491.
8. Le P et al. Association of antibiotic use and acute kidney injury in patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia. Curr Med Res Opin. 2021 (Nov 15).   
9. Paukner S et al. Pooled microbiological findings and efficacy outcomes by pathogen in adults with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia from the Lefamulin Evaluation Against Pneumonia (LEAP) 1 and LEAP 2 phase 3 trials of lefamulin versus moxifloxacin. J Glob Antimicrob Resist. 2021 (Nov 14).
10. Wittermans E et al. Neutrophil count, lymphocyte count and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio in relation to response to adjunctive dexamethasone treatment in community-acquired pneumonia. Eur J Intern Med. 2021 (Nov 12).

Extensive efforts have been put forth to evaluate which patients may safely delay, or completely avoid, treatment for prostate cancer. However, identifying who can safely avoid treatment is challenging. Arcot et al. utilized the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC) registry for men to determine whether those with prostate cancer grade group 1 with delayed treatment had increased need for secondary treatments, such as androgen deprivation or radiation therapy, compared with those with upfront surgery. There was a small decrease in the probability of being free from secondary treatment 24 months after diagnosis (96% vs. 93%), suggesting that such an approach is quite reasonable.

These two studies exemplify one of the ongoing points of discussion in treatment of early stage prostate cancer: whether upfront treatments are of net benefit for patients. The study by Wallis et al. further evaluated this point by conducting a prospective cohort study to evaluate the extent of regret of choice of treatment strategy amongst patients with prostate cancer. Out of this cohort of 2,072 men, 16% who underwent surgery, 11% who received radiation, and 7% who chose active surveillance reported regret regarding the treatment choice. However, when controlled for functional outcomes, the differences amongst treatment modalities were not statistically significant. However, perceived treatment efficacy and adverse effects were associated with regret when compared with patient expectations prior to treatment. This suggest that research and focus on shared decision-making in the clinic may be highly beneficial.

Extensive efforts have been put forth to evaluate which patients may safely delay, or completely avoid, treatment for prostate cancer. However, identifying who can safely avoid treatment is challenging. Arcot et al. utilized the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC) registry for men to determine whether those with prostate cancer grade group 1 with delayed treatment had increased need for secondary treatments, such as androgen deprivation or radiation therapy, compared with those with upfront surgery. There was a small decrease in the probability of being free from secondary treatment 24 months after diagnosis (96% vs. 93%), suggesting that such an approach is quite reasonable.

These two studies exemplify one of the ongoing points of discussion in treatment of early stage prostate cancer: whether upfront treatments are of net benefit for patients. The study by Wallis et al. further evaluated this point by conducting a prospective cohort study to evaluate the extent of regret of choice of treatment strategy amongst patients with prostate cancer. Out of this cohort of 2,072 men, 16% who underwent surgery, 11% who received radiation, and 7% who chose active surveillance reported regret regarding the treatment choice. However, when controlled for functional outcomes, the differences amongst treatment modalities were not statistically significant. However, perceived treatment efficacy and adverse effects were associated with regret when compared with patient expectations prior to treatment. This suggest that research and focus on shared decision-making in the clinic may be highly beneficial.

Extensive efforts have been put forth to evaluate which patients may safely delay, or completely avoid, treatment for prostate cancer. However, identifying who can safely avoid treatment is challenging. Arcot et al. utilized the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC) registry for men to determine whether those with prostate cancer grade group 1 with delayed treatment had increased need for secondary treatments, such as androgen deprivation or radiation therapy, compared with those with upfront surgery. There was a small decrease in the probability of being free from secondary treatment 24 months after diagnosis (96% vs. 93%), suggesting that such an approach is quite reasonable.

These two studies exemplify one of the ongoing points of discussion in treatment of early stage prostate cancer: whether upfront treatments are of net benefit for patients. The study by Wallis et al. further evaluated this point by conducting a prospective cohort study to evaluate the extent of regret of choice of treatment strategy amongst patients with prostate cancer. Out of this cohort of 2,072 men, 16% who underwent surgery, 11% who received radiation, and 7% who chose active surveillance reported regret regarding the treatment choice. However, when controlled for functional outcomes, the differences amongst treatment modalities were not statistically significant. However, perceived treatment efficacy and adverse effects were associated with regret when compared with patient expectations prior to treatment. This suggest that research and focus on shared decision-making in the clinic may be highly beneficial.