DENVER – As best practices for screening and surveillance of high-risk cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) continue to evolve, mounting evidence supports the use of radiologic imaging.

In a study published in 2020, Emily Ruiz, MD, MPH, and colleagues identified 87 CSCC tumors in 83 patients who underwent baseline or surveillance imaging primary at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital Mohs Surgery Clinic and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute High-Risk Skin Cancer Clinic, both in Boston, from Jan. 1, 2017, to June 1, 2019. Of the 87 primary CSCCs, 48 (58%) underwent surveillance imaging. The researchers found that imaging detected additional disease in 26 patients, or 30% of cases, “whether that be nodal metastasis, local invasion beyond what was clinically accepted, or in-transit disease,” Dr. Ruiz, academic director of the Mohs and Dermatologic Surgery Center at Brigham and Women’s, said during the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery. “But if you look at the 16 nodal metastases in this cohort, all were picked up on imaging and not on clinical exam.”

Since publication of these results, Dr. Ruiz routinely considers baseline radiologic imaging in T2b and T3 tumors; borderline T2a tumors (which she said they are now calling “T2a high,” for those who have one risk factor plus another intermediate risk factor),” and T2a tumors in patients who are profoundly immunosuppressed.

“My preference is to always do [the imaging] before treatment unless I’m up-staging them during surgery,” said Dr. Ruiz, who also directs the High-Risk Skin Cancer Clinic at Dana Farber. “We have picked up nodal metastases before surgery, which enables us to create a good therapeutic plan for our patients before we start operating. Then we image them every 6 months or so for about 2 years. Sometimes we will extend that out to 3 years.”

Some clinicians use sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) as a diagnostic test, but there are mixed results about its prognostic significance. A retrospective observational study of 720 patients with CSCC found that SLNB provided no benefit regarding further metastasis or tumor-specific survival, compared with those who received routine observation and follow-up, “but head and neck surgeons in the U.S. are putting together some prospective data from multiple centers,” Dr. Ruiz said. “I think in the coming years, you will have more multicenter data to inform us as to whether to do SLNB or not.”

Surgery may be the mainstay of treatment for resectable SCC, but the emerging role of neoadjuvant therapeutics is changing the way oncologists treat these tumors. For example, in a phase 2 trial recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine, 79 patients with stage II-IV CSCC received up to four doses of immunotherapy with the programmed death receptor–1 (PD-1) blocker cemiplimab administered every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was a pathologic complete response, defined as the absence of viable tumor cells in the surgical specimen at a central laboratory. The researchers observed that 68% of patients had an objective response.

“These were patients with localized tumors that were either very aggressive or had nodal metastases,” said Dr, Ruiz, who was the site primary investigator at Dana Farber and a coauthor of the NEJM study. “This has altered the way we approach treating our larger tumors that could be resectable but have a lot of disease either locally or in the nodal basin. We think that we can shrink down the tumor and make it easier to resect, but also there is the possibility or improving outcomes.”

At Brigham and Women’s and the Dana Farber, she and her colleagues consider immunotherapy for multiple recurrent tumors that have been previously irradiated; cases of large tumor burden locally or in the nodal basin; tumors that have a complex surgical plan; cases where there is a low likelihood of achieving clear surgical margins; and cases of in-transit disease.

“We use two to four doses of immunotherapy prior to surgery and assess the tumor response after two doses both clinically and radiologically,” she said. “If the tumor continues to grow, we would do surgery sooner.”

The side-effect profile of immunotherapy is another consideration. “Some patients are not appropriate for a neoadjuvant immunotherapy approach, such as transplant patients,” she said.

According to the latest National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, surgery with or without adjuvant radiation is the current standard of care for treating CSCC. These guidelines were developed without much data to support the use of radiation, but a 20-year retrospective cohort study at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the Cleveland Clinic Foundation found that adjuvant radiation following margin resection in high T-stage CSCC cut the risk of local and locoregional recurrence in half.

“This is something that radiation oncologists have told us for years, but there was no data to support it, so it was nice to see that borne out in clinical data,” said Dr. Ruiz, the study’s lead author. The 10% risk of local recurrence observed in the study “may not be high enough for some of our older patients, so we wanted to see if we could identify a group of high tumors that had higher risk of local recurrence,” she said. They found that patients who had a greater than 20% risk of poor outcome were those with recurrent tumors, those with tumors 6 cm or greater in size, and those with all four BWH risk factors (tumor diameter ≥ 2 cm, poorly differentiated histology, perineural invasion ≥ 0.1 mm, or tumor invasion beyond fat excluding bone invasion).

“Those risks were also cut in half if you added radiation,” she said. “So, the way I now approach counseling patients is, I try to estimate their baseline risk as best I can based on the tumor itself. I tell them that if they want to do adjuvant radiation it would cut the risk in half. Some patients are too frail and want to pass on it, while others are very interested.”

Of patients who did not receive radiation but had a disease recurrence, just under half of tumors were salvageable, about 25% died of their disease, and 23% had persistent disease. “I think this does support using radiation earlier on for the appropriate patient,” Dr. Ruiz said. “I consider the baseline risks [and] balance that with the patient’s comorbidities.”

Limited data exists on adjuvant immunotherapy for CSCC, but two ongoing randomized prospective clinical trials underway are studying the PD-1 inhibitors cemiplimab and pembrolizumab versus placebo. “We don’t have data yet, but prior to randomization, patients undergo surgery with macroscopic gross resection of all disease,” Dr. Ruiz said. “All tumors receive ART [adjuvant radiation therapy] prior to randomization”

Dr. Ruiz disclosed that she is a consultant for Sanofi, Regeneron, Genentech, and Jaunce Therapeutics. She is also a member of the advisory board for Checkpoint Therapeutics and is an investigator for Merck, Sanofi, and Regeneron.

DENVER – As best practices for screening and surveillance of high-risk cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) continue to evolve, mounting evidence supports the use of radiologic imaging.

In a study published in 2020, Emily Ruiz, MD, MPH, and colleagues identified 87 CSCC tumors in 83 patients who underwent baseline or surveillance imaging primary at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital Mohs Surgery Clinic and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute High-Risk Skin Cancer Clinic, both in Boston, from Jan. 1, 2017, to June 1, 2019. Of the 87 primary CSCCs, 48 (58%) underwent surveillance imaging. The researchers found that imaging detected additional disease in 26 patients, or 30% of cases, “whether that be nodal metastasis, local invasion beyond what was clinically accepted, or in-transit disease,” Dr. Ruiz, academic director of the Mohs and Dermatologic Surgery Center at Brigham and Women’s, said during the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery. “But if you look at the 16 nodal metastases in this cohort, all were picked up on imaging and not on clinical exam.”

Since publication of these results, Dr. Ruiz routinely considers baseline radiologic imaging in T2b and T3 tumors; borderline T2a tumors (which she said they are now calling “T2a high,” for those who have one risk factor plus another intermediate risk factor),” and T2a tumors in patients who are profoundly immunosuppressed.

“My preference is to always do [the imaging] before treatment unless I’m up-staging them during surgery,” said Dr. Ruiz, who also directs the High-Risk Skin Cancer Clinic at Dana Farber. “We have picked up nodal metastases before surgery, which enables us to create a good therapeutic plan for our patients before we start operating. Then we image them every 6 months or so for about 2 years. Sometimes we will extend that out to 3 years.”

Some clinicians use sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) as a diagnostic test, but there are mixed results about its prognostic significance. A retrospective observational study of 720 patients with CSCC found that SLNB provided no benefit regarding further metastasis or tumor-specific survival, compared with those who received routine observation and follow-up, “but head and neck surgeons in the U.S. are putting together some prospective data from multiple centers,” Dr. Ruiz said. “I think in the coming years, you will have more multicenter data to inform us as to whether to do SLNB or not.”

Surgery may be the mainstay of treatment for resectable SCC, but the emerging role of neoadjuvant therapeutics is changing the way oncologists treat these tumors. For example, in a phase 2 trial recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine, 79 patients with stage II-IV CSCC received up to four doses of immunotherapy with the programmed death receptor–1 (PD-1) blocker cemiplimab administered every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was a pathologic complete response, defined as the absence of viable tumor cells in the surgical specimen at a central laboratory. The researchers observed that 68% of patients had an objective response.

“These were patients with localized tumors that were either very aggressive or had nodal metastases,” said Dr, Ruiz, who was the site primary investigator at Dana Farber and a coauthor of the NEJM study. “This has altered the way we approach treating our larger tumors that could be resectable but have a lot of disease either locally or in the nodal basin. We think that we can shrink down the tumor and make it easier to resect, but also there is the possibility or improving outcomes.”

At Brigham and Women’s and the Dana Farber, she and her colleagues consider immunotherapy for multiple recurrent tumors that have been previously irradiated; cases of large tumor burden locally or in the nodal basin; tumors that have a complex surgical plan; cases where there is a low likelihood of achieving clear surgical margins; and cases of in-transit disease.

“We use two to four doses of immunotherapy prior to surgery and assess the tumor response after two doses both clinically and radiologically,” she said. “If the tumor continues to grow, we would do surgery sooner.”

The side-effect profile of immunotherapy is another consideration. “Some patients are not appropriate for a neoadjuvant immunotherapy approach, such as transplant patients,” she said.

According to the latest National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, surgery with or without adjuvant radiation is the current standard of care for treating CSCC. These guidelines were developed without much data to support the use of radiation, but a 20-year retrospective cohort study at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the Cleveland Clinic Foundation found that adjuvant radiation following margin resection in high T-stage CSCC cut the risk of local and locoregional recurrence in half.

“This is something that radiation oncologists have told us for years, but there was no data to support it, so it was nice to see that borne out in clinical data,” said Dr. Ruiz, the study’s lead author. The 10% risk of local recurrence observed in the study “may not be high enough for some of our older patients, so we wanted to see if we could identify a group of high tumors that had higher risk of local recurrence,” she said. They found that patients who had a greater than 20% risk of poor outcome were those with recurrent tumors, those with tumors 6 cm or greater in size, and those with all four BWH risk factors (tumor diameter ≥ 2 cm, poorly differentiated histology, perineural invasion ≥ 0.1 mm, or tumor invasion beyond fat excluding bone invasion).

“Those risks were also cut in half if you added radiation,” she said. “So, the way I now approach counseling patients is, I try to estimate their baseline risk as best I can based on the tumor itself. I tell them that if they want to do adjuvant radiation it would cut the risk in half. Some patients are too frail and want to pass on it, while others are very interested.”

Of patients who did not receive radiation but had a disease recurrence, just under half of tumors were salvageable, about 25% died of their disease, and 23% had persistent disease. “I think this does support using radiation earlier on for the appropriate patient,” Dr. Ruiz said. “I consider the baseline risks [and] balance that with the patient’s comorbidities.”

Limited data exists on adjuvant immunotherapy for CSCC, but two ongoing randomized prospective clinical trials underway are studying the PD-1 inhibitors cemiplimab and pembrolizumab versus placebo. “We don’t have data yet, but prior to randomization, patients undergo surgery with macroscopic gross resection of all disease,” Dr. Ruiz said. “All tumors receive ART [adjuvant radiation therapy] prior to randomization”

Dr. Ruiz disclosed that she is a consultant for Sanofi, Regeneron, Genentech, and Jaunce Therapeutics. She is also a member of the advisory board for Checkpoint Therapeutics and is an investigator for Merck, Sanofi, and Regeneron.

DENVER – As best practices for screening and surveillance of high-risk cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) continue to evolve, mounting evidence supports the use of radiologic imaging.

In a study published in 2020, Emily Ruiz, MD, MPH, and colleagues identified 87 CSCC tumors in 83 patients who underwent baseline or surveillance imaging primary at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital Mohs Surgery Clinic and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute High-Risk Skin Cancer Clinic, both in Boston, from Jan. 1, 2017, to June 1, 2019. Of the 87 primary CSCCs, 48 (58%) underwent surveillance imaging. The researchers found that imaging detected additional disease in 26 patients, or 30% of cases, “whether that be nodal metastasis, local invasion beyond what was clinically accepted, or in-transit disease,” Dr. Ruiz, academic director of the Mohs and Dermatologic Surgery Center at Brigham and Women’s, said during the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery. “But if you look at the 16 nodal metastases in this cohort, all were picked up on imaging and not on clinical exam.”

Since publication of these results, Dr. Ruiz routinely considers baseline radiologic imaging in T2b and T3 tumors; borderline T2a tumors (which she said they are now calling “T2a high,” for those who have one risk factor plus another intermediate risk factor),” and T2a tumors in patients who are profoundly immunosuppressed.

“My preference is to always do [the imaging] before treatment unless I’m up-staging them during surgery,” said Dr. Ruiz, who also directs the High-Risk Skin Cancer Clinic at Dana Farber. “We have picked up nodal metastases before surgery, which enables us to create a good therapeutic plan for our patients before we start operating. Then we image them every 6 months or so for about 2 years. Sometimes we will extend that out to 3 years.”

Some clinicians use sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) as a diagnostic test, but there are mixed results about its prognostic significance. A retrospective observational study of 720 patients with CSCC found that SLNB provided no benefit regarding further metastasis or tumor-specific survival, compared with those who received routine observation and follow-up, “but head and neck surgeons in the U.S. are putting together some prospective data from multiple centers,” Dr. Ruiz said. “I think in the coming years, you will have more multicenter data to inform us as to whether to do SLNB or not.”

Surgery may be the mainstay of treatment for resectable SCC, but the emerging role of neoadjuvant therapeutics is changing the way oncologists treat these tumors. For example, in a phase 2 trial recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine, 79 patients with stage II-IV CSCC received up to four doses of immunotherapy with the programmed death receptor–1 (PD-1) blocker cemiplimab administered every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was a pathologic complete response, defined as the absence of viable tumor cells in the surgical specimen at a central laboratory. The researchers observed that 68% of patients had an objective response.

“These were patients with localized tumors that were either very aggressive or had nodal metastases,” said Dr, Ruiz, who was the site primary investigator at Dana Farber and a coauthor of the NEJM study. “This has altered the way we approach treating our larger tumors that could be resectable but have a lot of disease either locally or in the nodal basin. We think that we can shrink down the tumor and make it easier to resect, but also there is the possibility or improving outcomes.”

At Brigham and Women’s and the Dana Farber, she and her colleagues consider immunotherapy for multiple recurrent tumors that have been previously irradiated; cases of large tumor burden locally or in the nodal basin; tumors that have a complex surgical plan; cases where there is a low likelihood of achieving clear surgical margins; and cases of in-transit disease.

“We use two to four doses of immunotherapy prior to surgery and assess the tumor response after two doses both clinically and radiologically,” she said. “If the tumor continues to grow, we would do surgery sooner.”

The side-effect profile of immunotherapy is another consideration. “Some patients are not appropriate for a neoadjuvant immunotherapy approach, such as transplant patients,” she said.

According to the latest National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, surgery with or without adjuvant radiation is the current standard of care for treating CSCC. These guidelines were developed without much data to support the use of radiation, but a 20-year retrospective cohort study at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the Cleveland Clinic Foundation found that adjuvant radiation following margin resection in high T-stage CSCC cut the risk of local and locoregional recurrence in half.

“This is something that radiation oncologists have told us for years, but there was no data to support it, so it was nice to see that borne out in clinical data,” said Dr. Ruiz, the study’s lead author. The 10% risk of local recurrence observed in the study “may not be high enough for some of our older patients, so we wanted to see if we could identify a group of high tumors that had higher risk of local recurrence,” she said. They found that patients who had a greater than 20% risk of poor outcome were those with recurrent tumors, those with tumors 6 cm or greater in size, and those with all four BWH risk factors (tumor diameter ≥ 2 cm, poorly differentiated histology, perineural invasion ≥ 0.1 mm, or tumor invasion beyond fat excluding bone invasion).

“Those risks were also cut in half if you added radiation,” she said. “So, the way I now approach counseling patients is, I try to estimate their baseline risk as best I can based on the tumor itself. I tell them that if they want to do adjuvant radiation it would cut the risk in half. Some patients are too frail and want to pass on it, while others are very interested.”

Of patients who did not receive radiation but had a disease recurrence, just under half of tumors were salvageable, about 25% died of their disease, and 23% had persistent disease. “I think this does support using radiation earlier on for the appropriate patient,” Dr. Ruiz said. “I consider the baseline risks [and] balance that with the patient’s comorbidities.”

Limited data exists on adjuvant immunotherapy for CSCC, but two ongoing randomized prospective clinical trials underway are studying the PD-1 inhibitors cemiplimab and pembrolizumab versus placebo. “We don’t have data yet, but prior to randomization, patients undergo surgery with macroscopic gross resection of all disease,” Dr. Ruiz said. “All tumors receive ART [adjuvant radiation therapy] prior to randomization”

Dr. Ruiz disclosed that she is a consultant for Sanofi, Regeneron, Genentech, and Jaunce Therapeutics. She is also a member of the advisory board for Checkpoint Therapeutics and is an investigator for Merck, Sanofi, and Regeneron.

The safety of vaginal breech delivery has been controversial since the Term Breech Trial in 2000 suggested increased neonatal mortality and short-term morbidity associated with vaginal breech delivery. The stance against breech delivery has softened since that time. Fruscalzo and colleagues provide yet more evidence supporting the safety of vaginal breech deliveries with their single-center, retrospective study, which included 804 singleton pregnant women who underwent vaginal breech vs emergency cesarean section vs elective cesarean section in Coesfeld, Germany. They found no significant differences between the vaginal breech–delivery group vs the other two groups in regard to umbilical artery pH < 7, low Apgar scores, or neonatal intensive care unit admissions. The only significant difference noted was umbilical artery pH < 7.1. This suggests that in experienced hands (each of the candidates was referred to a senior obstetrician for consultation), vaginal breech delivery can be safe, including for nulliparous women (67% were nulliparous), showing that even the short-term morbidity associated with vaginal breech delivery approaches that of planned cesarean section.

Two other articles raise caution regarding SD and increased risk for fetal death and PPH. Linde and colleagues used data from The Medical Birth Registry of Norway and Statistics Norway to examine recurrence risk for PPH associated with various causes. PPH associated with SD led the way: The recurrence risk adjusted odds ratio (aOR) was 6.8 for SD vs 5.9 for retained products of conception, 4.0 for uterine atony, 3.9 for obstetric trauma, and 2.2 for PPH of undefined cause. This study suggests that the risks for SD recurrence should be focused not just on SD, but also on PPH. Another concern regarding shoulder dystocia is raised by Davidesko and colleagues in their analysis of risk factors for intrapartum fetal death. Using a generalized estimation equation model to help identify independent risk factors for intrapartum fetal death, they examined 344,536 deliveries from 1991 to 2016 at Soroka University Medical Center in Israel and noted that SD again led the way: aOR was 23.8 for SD vs 19.0 for uterine rupture, 11.9 for preterm birth, 6.2 for placental abruption, and 3.6 for fetal malpresentation. This high risk for intrapartum fetal death associated with SD suggests a need for even more robust SD drills to help deal with this dreaded and often unpredictable obstetric emergency.

The safety of vaginal breech delivery has been controversial since the Term Breech Trial in 2000 suggested increased neonatal mortality and short-term morbidity associated with vaginal breech delivery. The stance against breech delivery has softened since that time. Fruscalzo and colleagues provide yet more evidence supporting the safety of vaginal breech deliveries with their single-center, retrospective study, which included 804 singleton pregnant women who underwent vaginal breech vs emergency cesarean section vs elective cesarean section in Coesfeld, Germany. They found no significant differences between the vaginal breech–delivery group vs the other two groups in regard to umbilical artery pH < 7, low Apgar scores, or neonatal intensive care unit admissions. The only significant difference noted was umbilical artery pH < 7.1. This suggests that in experienced hands (each of the candidates was referred to a senior obstetrician for consultation), vaginal breech delivery can be safe, including for nulliparous women (67% were nulliparous), showing that even the short-term morbidity associated with vaginal breech delivery approaches that of planned cesarean section.

Two other articles raise caution regarding SD and increased risk for fetal death and PPH. Linde and colleagues used data from The Medical Birth Registry of Norway and Statistics Norway to examine recurrence risk for PPH associated with various causes. PPH associated with SD led the way: The recurrence risk adjusted odds ratio (aOR) was 6.8 for SD vs 5.9 for retained products of conception, 4.0 for uterine atony, 3.9 for obstetric trauma, and 2.2 for PPH of undefined cause. This study suggests that the risks for SD recurrence should be focused not just on SD, but also on PPH. Another concern regarding shoulder dystocia is raised by Davidesko and colleagues in their analysis of risk factors for intrapartum fetal death. Using a generalized estimation equation model to help identify independent risk factors for intrapartum fetal death, they examined 344,536 deliveries from 1991 to 2016 at Soroka University Medical Center in Israel and noted that SD again led the way: aOR was 23.8 for SD vs 19.0 for uterine rupture, 11.9 for preterm birth, 6.2 for placental abruption, and 3.6 for fetal malpresentation. This high risk for intrapartum fetal death associated with SD suggests a need for even more robust SD drills to help deal with this dreaded and often unpredictable obstetric emergency.

The safety of vaginal breech delivery has been controversial since the Term Breech Trial in 2000 suggested increased neonatal mortality and short-term morbidity associated with vaginal breech delivery. The stance against breech delivery has softened since that time. Fruscalzo and colleagues provide yet more evidence supporting the safety of vaginal breech deliveries with their single-center, retrospective study, which included 804 singleton pregnant women who underwent vaginal breech vs emergency cesarean section vs elective cesarean section in Coesfeld, Germany. They found no significant differences between the vaginal breech–delivery group vs the other two groups in regard to umbilical artery pH < 7, low Apgar scores, or neonatal intensive care unit admissions. The only significant difference noted was umbilical artery pH < 7.1. This suggests that in experienced hands (each of the candidates was referred to a senior obstetrician for consultation), vaginal breech delivery can be safe, including for nulliparous women (67% were nulliparous), showing that even the short-term morbidity associated with vaginal breech delivery approaches that of planned cesarean section.

Two other articles raise caution regarding SD and increased risk for fetal death and PPH. Linde and colleagues used data from The Medical Birth Registry of Norway and Statistics Norway to examine recurrence risk for PPH associated with various causes. PPH associated with SD led the way: The recurrence risk adjusted odds ratio (aOR) was 6.8 for SD vs 5.9 for retained products of conception, 4.0 for uterine atony, 3.9 for obstetric trauma, and 2.2 for PPH of undefined cause. This study suggests that the risks for SD recurrence should be focused not just on SD, but also on PPH. Another concern regarding shoulder dystocia is raised by Davidesko and colleagues in their analysis of risk factors for intrapartum fetal death. Using a generalized estimation equation model to help identify independent risk factors for intrapartum fetal death, they examined 344,536 deliveries from 1991 to 2016 at Soroka University Medical Center in Israel and noted that SD again led the way: aOR was 23.8 for SD vs 19.0 for uterine rupture, 11.9 for preterm birth, 6.2 for placental abruption, and 3.6 for fetal malpresentation. This high risk for intrapartum fetal death associated with SD suggests a need for even more robust SD drills to help deal with this dreaded and often unpredictable obstetric emergency.

Nano-pulse stimulation has emerged as a promising treatment option for sebaceous hyperplasia, warts, and other dermal lesions without the use of heat.

During a virtual course on laser and aesthetic skin therapy, Yakir Levin, MD, PhD, likened nano-pulse stimulation to microneedling or radiofrequency microneedling “in that you have an array of microneedles that go into the skin,” he said. “However, it is actually completely different.”

The CellFX System uses nano-pulse stimulation to deliver ultrashort electrical energy pulses into the skin of target lesions via a console-based handheld applicator. In September 2022, the Food and Drug Administration cleared the CellFX system for treatment of sebaceous hyperplasia in patients with Fitzpatrick skin types I-II. This followed a general clearance of the device in 2021 for dermatologic procedures requiring ablation and resurfacing of the skin.

Pulses from the device deliver a “constant electrical potential gradient across cell membranes and organelle membranes, causing them to break down,” explained Dr. Levin, a dermatologist and physician scientist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, where he practices cosmetic dermatology and conducts research on birthmarks in children. This creates pores in those membranes “and leads to a controlled form of cell death,” he said. “As a result, this treatment is limited to cells, so you can do it in the dermis without damaging the collagen network. It spares tissue that’s outside of the field, and it’s nonthermal.”

Images from electron microscopy have demonstrated swelling of the mitochondria and breakdown of nuclei within 2 hours of treatment in a rat study. “Within 1 day of treatment you have death of the cells and the beginning of involution of the lesion,” he said during the meeting, which was sponsored by Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, and the Wellman Center for Photomedicine. “This presents us with the opportunity to treat dermal lesions without causing damage to the epidermis or to the acellular portion of the dermis.”

In published studies, nano-pulse stimulation has been shown to be effective for treating sebaceous hyperplasia and warts. According to Dr. Levin, clinicians typically treat sebaceous hyperplasia with an radiofrequency microneedle or electrodesiccation, “where we shave off the top but do not try to hit the bottom because we don’t want to cause scarring of the dermis,” he said. “Using the nano-pulse stimulation technology, however, you end up with involution of the sebaceous lesion without damaging the surrounding dermis.”

In a prospective, randomized study, 72 individuals with sebaceous gland hyperplasia received nano-pulse stimulation to 222 lesions and they returned for three to four follow-up evaluations with photographs. At the final study visit, investigators rated 99.6% of the sebaceous gland lesions as clear or mostly clear, while 79% of the study participants said they were “satisfied” or “mostly satisfied” with the outcome.

At posttreatment day 60, 55% of the lesions were judged to have no hyperpigmentation and 31% exhibited mild posttreatment hyperpigmentation.

In a more recent study, researchers used the CellFX System to treat 195 cutaneous warts up to 10 mm wide in 62 individuals enrolled at one of five sites. They found that 75% of common warts, 73% of flat warts, and 44% of plantar warts were completely clear 60 days following the last nano-pulse stimulation treatment and did not recur within the 120-day observation period.

The most common reactions at the treatment sites were erythema (51%) and eschar formation (23%) on day 30.

According to Dr. Levin, promising future applications of nano-pulse stimulation include treatment of syringomas, dermatofibromas, and basal cell carcinomas.

Dr. Levin reported financial interest in Accure Acne, Avava Medical, and Soltego. The CellFX system was developed and is marketed by Pulse Biosciences.

Nano-pulse stimulation has emerged as a promising treatment option for sebaceous hyperplasia, warts, and other dermal lesions without the use of heat.

During a virtual course on laser and aesthetic skin therapy, Yakir Levin, MD, PhD, likened nano-pulse stimulation to microneedling or radiofrequency microneedling “in that you have an array of microneedles that go into the skin,” he said. “However, it is actually completely different.”

The CellFX System uses nano-pulse stimulation to deliver ultrashort electrical energy pulses into the skin of target lesions via a console-based handheld applicator. In September 2022, the Food and Drug Administration cleared the CellFX system for treatment of sebaceous hyperplasia in patients with Fitzpatrick skin types I-II. This followed a general clearance of the device in 2021 for dermatologic procedures requiring ablation and resurfacing of the skin.

Pulses from the device deliver a “constant electrical potential gradient across cell membranes and organelle membranes, causing them to break down,” explained Dr. Levin, a dermatologist and physician scientist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, where he practices cosmetic dermatology and conducts research on birthmarks in children. This creates pores in those membranes “and leads to a controlled form of cell death,” he said. “As a result, this treatment is limited to cells, so you can do it in the dermis without damaging the collagen network. It spares tissue that’s outside of the field, and it’s nonthermal.”

Images from electron microscopy have demonstrated swelling of the mitochondria and breakdown of nuclei within 2 hours of treatment in a rat study. “Within 1 day of treatment you have death of the cells and the beginning of involution of the lesion,” he said during the meeting, which was sponsored by Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, and the Wellman Center for Photomedicine. “This presents us with the opportunity to treat dermal lesions without causing damage to the epidermis or to the acellular portion of the dermis.”

In published studies, nano-pulse stimulation has been shown to be effective for treating sebaceous hyperplasia and warts. According to Dr. Levin, clinicians typically treat sebaceous hyperplasia with an radiofrequency microneedle or electrodesiccation, “where we shave off the top but do not try to hit the bottom because we don’t want to cause scarring of the dermis,” he said. “Using the nano-pulse stimulation technology, however, you end up with involution of the sebaceous lesion without damaging the surrounding dermis.”

In a prospective, randomized study, 72 individuals with sebaceous gland hyperplasia received nano-pulse stimulation to 222 lesions and they returned for three to four follow-up evaluations with photographs. At the final study visit, investigators rated 99.6% of the sebaceous gland lesions as clear or mostly clear, while 79% of the study participants said they were “satisfied” or “mostly satisfied” with the outcome.

At posttreatment day 60, 55% of the lesions were judged to have no hyperpigmentation and 31% exhibited mild posttreatment hyperpigmentation.

In a more recent study, researchers used the CellFX System to treat 195 cutaneous warts up to 10 mm wide in 62 individuals enrolled at one of five sites. They found that 75% of common warts, 73% of flat warts, and 44% of plantar warts were completely clear 60 days following the last nano-pulse stimulation treatment and did not recur within the 120-day observation period.

The most common reactions at the treatment sites were erythema (51%) and eschar formation (23%) on day 30.

According to Dr. Levin, promising future applications of nano-pulse stimulation include treatment of syringomas, dermatofibromas, and basal cell carcinomas.

Dr. Levin reported financial interest in Accure Acne, Avava Medical, and Soltego. The CellFX system was developed and is marketed by Pulse Biosciences.

Nano-pulse stimulation has emerged as a promising treatment option for sebaceous hyperplasia, warts, and other dermal lesions without the use of heat.

During a virtual course on laser and aesthetic skin therapy, Yakir Levin, MD, PhD, likened nano-pulse stimulation to microneedling or radiofrequency microneedling “in that you have an array of microneedles that go into the skin,” he said. “However, it is actually completely different.”

The CellFX System uses nano-pulse stimulation to deliver ultrashort electrical energy pulses into the skin of target lesions via a console-based handheld applicator. In September 2022, the Food and Drug Administration cleared the CellFX system for treatment of sebaceous hyperplasia in patients with Fitzpatrick skin types I-II. This followed a general clearance of the device in 2021 for dermatologic procedures requiring ablation and resurfacing of the skin.

Pulses from the device deliver a “constant electrical potential gradient across cell membranes and organelle membranes, causing them to break down,” explained Dr. Levin, a dermatologist and physician scientist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, where he practices cosmetic dermatology and conducts research on birthmarks in children. This creates pores in those membranes “and leads to a controlled form of cell death,” he said. “As a result, this treatment is limited to cells, so you can do it in the dermis without damaging the collagen network. It spares tissue that’s outside of the field, and it’s nonthermal.”

Images from electron microscopy have demonstrated swelling of the mitochondria and breakdown of nuclei within 2 hours of treatment in a rat study. “Within 1 day of treatment you have death of the cells and the beginning of involution of the lesion,” he said during the meeting, which was sponsored by Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, and the Wellman Center for Photomedicine. “This presents us with the opportunity to treat dermal lesions without causing damage to the epidermis or to the acellular portion of the dermis.”

In published studies, nano-pulse stimulation has been shown to be effective for treating sebaceous hyperplasia and warts. According to Dr. Levin, clinicians typically treat sebaceous hyperplasia with an radiofrequency microneedle or electrodesiccation, “where we shave off the top but do not try to hit the bottom because we don’t want to cause scarring of the dermis,” he said. “Using the nano-pulse stimulation technology, however, you end up with involution of the sebaceous lesion without damaging the surrounding dermis.”

In a prospective, randomized study, 72 individuals with sebaceous gland hyperplasia received nano-pulse stimulation to 222 lesions and they returned for three to four follow-up evaluations with photographs. At the final study visit, investigators rated 99.6% of the sebaceous gland lesions as clear or mostly clear, while 79% of the study participants said they were “satisfied” or “mostly satisfied” with the outcome.

At posttreatment day 60, 55% of the lesions were judged to have no hyperpigmentation and 31% exhibited mild posttreatment hyperpigmentation.

In a more recent study, researchers used the CellFX System to treat 195 cutaneous warts up to 10 mm wide in 62 individuals enrolled at one of five sites. They found that 75% of common warts, 73% of flat warts, and 44% of plantar warts were completely clear 60 days following the last nano-pulse stimulation treatment and did not recur within the 120-day observation period.

The most common reactions at the treatment sites were erythema (51%) and eschar formation (23%) on day 30.

According to Dr. Levin, promising future applications of nano-pulse stimulation include treatment of syringomas, dermatofibromas, and basal cell carcinomas.

Dr. Levin reported financial interest in Accure Acne, Avava Medical, and Soltego. The CellFX system was developed and is marketed by Pulse Biosciences.

You can get all the exercise you need in just 8 minutes a day if you work out a bit harder, according to a new study in the European Heart Journal.

Just 54 minutes of vigorous exercise per week provides the most bang for your buck, researchers found, lowering the risk of early death from any cause by 36%, and your chances of getting heart disease by 35%.

Scientists examined data from fitness trackers worn by more than 71,000 people studied in the United Kingdom, then analyzed their health over the next several years.

While more time spent exercising unsurprisingly led to better health, the protective effects of exercise start to plateau after a certain point, according to the study.

A tough, short workout improves blood pressure, shrinks artery-clogging plaques, and boosts your overall fitness.

Vigorous exercise helps your body adapt better than moderate exercise does, leading to more notable benefits, says study author Matthew Ahmadi, PhD, a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Sydney.

“Collectively, these will lower a person’s risk of cardiovascular disease. Exercise can also lower body inflammation, which will in turn lower the risk for certain cancers,” he says.

The CDC recommends at least 150 minutes of “moderate intensity” exercise each week, such as walking at a brisk pace. Or you could spend 75 minutes each week doing vigorous exercise, like running, it says. The CDC also recommends muscle strengthening activities, like lifting weights, at least 2 days per week.

But only 54% of Americans actually manage to get their 150 minutes of aerobic activity in each week, according to the most recent data from the National Center for Health Statistics. Even fewer – just 24% – also squeeze in the two recommended strength workouts.

So 8 minutes a day instead of 30 minutes could persuade busy people to get the exercise they need.

“Lack of time is one of the main reasons people have reported for not engaging in exercise,” says Dr. Ahmadi.

Vigorous exercise doesn’t mean you have to run, bike, or lift weights. Scientists consider a physical activity “vigorous” if it’s greater than 6 times your resting metabolic rate, or MET. That includes all kinds of strenuous movement, including dancing in a nightclub or carrying groceries upstairs.

“All of these activities are equally beneficial,” says Dr. Ahmadi.

He recommends aiming for 2-minute bouts of a heart-pumping activity, spread throughout the day for the most benefit in the least amount of time. If you wear a smartwatch or other device that tracks your heart rate, you’ll be above the threshold if your heart is pumping at 77% or more of your max heart rate (which most fitness trackers help you calculate).

No smartwatch? “The easiest way a person can infer if they are doing vigorous activity is if they are breathing hard enough that it’s difficult to have a conversation or speak in a full sentence while doing the activity,” Dr. Ahmadi says. In other words, if you’re huffing and puffing, then you’re in the zone.

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

You can get all the exercise you need in just 8 minutes a day if you work out a bit harder, according to a new study in the European Heart Journal.

Just 54 minutes of vigorous exercise per week provides the most bang for your buck, researchers found, lowering the risk of early death from any cause by 36%, and your chances of getting heart disease by 35%.

Scientists examined data from fitness trackers worn by more than 71,000 people studied in the United Kingdom, then analyzed their health over the next several years.

While more time spent exercising unsurprisingly led to better health, the protective effects of exercise start to plateau after a certain point, according to the study.

A tough, short workout improves blood pressure, shrinks artery-clogging plaques, and boosts your overall fitness.

Vigorous exercise helps your body adapt better than moderate exercise does, leading to more notable benefits, says study author Matthew Ahmadi, PhD, a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Sydney.

“Collectively, these will lower a person’s risk of cardiovascular disease. Exercise can also lower body inflammation, which will in turn lower the risk for certain cancers,” he says.

The CDC recommends at least 150 minutes of “moderate intensity” exercise each week, such as walking at a brisk pace. Or you could spend 75 minutes each week doing vigorous exercise, like running, it says. The CDC also recommends muscle strengthening activities, like lifting weights, at least 2 days per week.

But only 54% of Americans actually manage to get their 150 minutes of aerobic activity in each week, according to the most recent data from the National Center for Health Statistics. Even fewer – just 24% – also squeeze in the two recommended strength workouts.

So 8 minutes a day instead of 30 minutes could persuade busy people to get the exercise they need.

“Lack of time is one of the main reasons people have reported for not engaging in exercise,” says Dr. Ahmadi.

Vigorous exercise doesn’t mean you have to run, bike, or lift weights. Scientists consider a physical activity “vigorous” if it’s greater than 6 times your resting metabolic rate, or MET. That includes all kinds of strenuous movement, including dancing in a nightclub or carrying groceries upstairs.

“All of these activities are equally beneficial,” says Dr. Ahmadi.

He recommends aiming for 2-minute bouts of a heart-pumping activity, spread throughout the day for the most benefit in the least amount of time. If you wear a smartwatch or other device that tracks your heart rate, you’ll be above the threshold if your heart is pumping at 77% or more of your max heart rate (which most fitness trackers help you calculate).

No smartwatch? “The easiest way a person can infer if they are doing vigorous activity is if they are breathing hard enough that it’s difficult to have a conversation or speak in a full sentence while doing the activity,” Dr. Ahmadi says. In other words, if you’re huffing and puffing, then you’re in the zone.

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

You can get all the exercise you need in just 8 minutes a day if you work out a bit harder, according to a new study in the European Heart Journal.

Just 54 minutes of vigorous exercise per week provides the most bang for your buck, researchers found, lowering the risk of early death from any cause by 36%, and your chances of getting heart disease by 35%.

Scientists examined data from fitness trackers worn by more than 71,000 people studied in the United Kingdom, then analyzed their health over the next several years.

While more time spent exercising unsurprisingly led to better health, the protective effects of exercise start to plateau after a certain point, according to the study.

A tough, short workout improves blood pressure, shrinks artery-clogging plaques, and boosts your overall fitness.

Vigorous exercise helps your body adapt better than moderate exercise does, leading to more notable benefits, says study author Matthew Ahmadi, PhD, a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Sydney.

“Collectively, these will lower a person’s risk of cardiovascular disease. Exercise can also lower body inflammation, which will in turn lower the risk for certain cancers,” he says.

The CDC recommends at least 150 minutes of “moderate intensity” exercise each week, such as walking at a brisk pace. Or you could spend 75 minutes each week doing vigorous exercise, like running, it says. The CDC also recommends muscle strengthening activities, like lifting weights, at least 2 days per week.

But only 54% of Americans actually manage to get their 150 minutes of aerobic activity in each week, according to the most recent data from the National Center for Health Statistics. Even fewer – just 24% – also squeeze in the two recommended strength workouts.

So 8 minutes a day instead of 30 minutes could persuade busy people to get the exercise they need.

“Lack of time is one of the main reasons people have reported for not engaging in exercise,” says Dr. Ahmadi.

Vigorous exercise doesn’t mean you have to run, bike, or lift weights. Scientists consider a physical activity “vigorous” if it’s greater than 6 times your resting metabolic rate, or MET. That includes all kinds of strenuous movement, including dancing in a nightclub or carrying groceries upstairs.

“All of these activities are equally beneficial,” says Dr. Ahmadi.

He recommends aiming for 2-minute bouts of a heart-pumping activity, spread throughout the day for the most benefit in the least amount of time. If you wear a smartwatch or other device that tracks your heart rate, you’ll be above the threshold if your heart is pumping at 77% or more of your max heart rate (which most fitness trackers help you calculate).

No smartwatch? “The easiest way a person can infer if they are doing vigorous activity is if they are breathing hard enough that it’s difficult to have a conversation or speak in a full sentence while doing the activity,” Dr. Ahmadi says. In other words, if you’re huffing and puffing, then you’re in the zone.

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

Vitamin D supplements do not prevent muscle symptoms in new statin users or affect the likelihood of discontinuing a statin due to muscle pain and discomfort, a substudy of the VITAL trial indicates.

Among more than 2,000 randomized participants, statin-associated muscle symptoms (SAMS) were reported by 31% assigned to vitamin D and 31% assigned to placebo.

copyright Joss/Fotolia.com

The two groups were equally likely to stop taking a statin due to muscle symptoms, at 13%.

No significant difference was observed in SAMS (odds ratio [OR], 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80-1.18) or statin discontinuations (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.80-1.35) after adjustment for baseline variables and other characteristics, namely age, sex, and African-American race, previously found to be associated with SAMS in VITAL.

“We actually thought when we started out that maybe we were going to show something, that maybe it was going to be that the people who got the vitamin D were least likely to have a problem with a statin than all those who didn’t get vitamin D, but that is not what we showed,” senior author Neil J. Stone, MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, told this news organization.

He noted that patients in the clinic with low levels of vitamin D often have muscle pain and discomfort and that previous unblinded studies suggested vitamin D might benefit patients with SAMS and reduce statin intolerance.

As previously reported, the double-blind VITAL trial showed no difference in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease or cancer at 5 years among 25,871 middle-aged adults randomized to vitamin D3 at 2000 IU/d or placebo, regardless of their baseline vitamin D level.

Unlike previous studies showing a benefit with vitamin D on SAMS, importantly, VITAL participants were unaware of whether they were taking vitamin D or placebo and were not expecting any help with their muscle symptoms, first author Mark A. Hlatky, MD, Stanford (Calif.) University, pointed out in an interview.

As to how many statin users turn to the popular supplement for SAMS, he said that number couldn’t be pinned down, despite a lengthy search. “But I think it’s very common, because up to half of people stop taking their statins within a year and many of these do so because of statin-associated muscle symptoms, and we found it in about 30% of people who have them. I have them myself and was motivated to study it because I thought this was an interesting question.”

The results were published online in JAMA Cardiology.
 

SAMS by baseline 25-OHD

The substudy included 2,083 patients who initiated statin therapy after randomization and were surveyed in early 2016 about their statin use and muscle symptoms.

Two-thirds, or 1,397 patients, had 25-hydroxy vitamin D (25-OHD) measured at baseline, with 47% having levels < 30 ng/mL and 13% levels < 20 ng/mL.

Serum 25-OHD levels were virtually identical in the two treatment groups (mean, 30.4 ng/mL; median, 30.0 ng/mL). The frequency of SAMS did not differ between those assigned to vitamin D or placebo (28% vs. 31%).

The odds ratios for the association with vitamin D on SAMS were:

• 0.86 in all respondents with 25-OHD measured (95% CI, 0.69-1.09).
• 0.87 in those with levels ≥ 30 ng/mL (95% CI, 0.64-1.19).
• 0.85 with levels of 20-30 ng/mL (95% CI, 0.56-1.28).
• 0.93 with levels < 20 ng/mL (95% CI, 0.50-1.74).

The test for treatment effect modification by baseline serum 25-OHD level was not significant (P for interaction = .83).

In addition, the rate of muscle symptoms was similar between participants randomized to vitamin D and placebo when researchers used a cutpoint to define low 25-OHD of < 30 ng/mL (27% vs. 30%) or < 20 ng/mL (33% vs. 35%).

“We didn’t find any evidence at all that the people who came into the study with low levels of vitamin D did better with the supplement in this case,” Dr. Hlatky said. “So that wasn’t the reason we didn’t see anything.”

Critics may suggest the trial didn’t use a high enough dose of vitamin D, but both Dr. Hlatky and Dr. Stone say that’s unlikely to be a factor in the results because 2,000 IU/d is a substantial dose and well above the recommended adult daily dose of 600-800 IU.

They caution that the substudy wasn’t prespecified, was smaller than the parent trial, and did not have a protocol in place to detail SAMS. They also can’t rule out the possibility that vitamin D may have an effect in patients who have confirmed intolerance to multiple statins, especially after adjustment for the statin type and dose.

“If you’re taking vitamin D to keep from having statin-associated muscle symptoms, this very carefully done substudy with the various caveats doesn’t support that and that’s not something I would give my patients,” Dr. Stone said.

“The most important thing from a negative study is that it allows you to focus your attention on things that may be much more productive rather than assuming that just giving everybody vitamin D will take care of the statin issue,” he added. “Maybe the answer is going to be somewhere else, and there’ll be a lot of people I’m sure who will offer their advice as what the answer is but, I would argue, we want to see more studies to pin it down. So people can get some science behind what they do to try to reduce statin-associated muscle symptoms.”

Paul D. Thompson, MD, chief of cardiology emeritus at Hartford (Conn.) Hospital, and a SAMS expert who was not involved with the research, said, “This is a useful publication, and it’s smart in that it took advantage of a study that was already done.”

He acknowledged being skeptical of a beneficial effect of vitamin D supplementation on SAMS, because some previous data have been retracted, but said that potential treatments are best tested in patients with confirmed statin myalgia, as was the case in his team’s negative trial of CoQ10 supplementation.

That said, the present “study was able to at least give some of the best evidence so far that vitamin D doesn’t do anything to improve symptoms,” Dr. Thompson said. “So maybe it will cut down on so many vitamin D levels [being measured] and use of vitamin D when you don’t really need it.”

The study was sponsored by the Hyperlipidemia Research Fund at Northwestern University. The VITAL trial was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health, and Quest Diagnostics performed the laboratory measurements at no additional costs. Dr. Hlatky reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Stone reports a grant from the Hyperlipidemia Research Fund at Northwestern and honorarium for educational activity for Knowledge to Practice. Dr. Thompson is on the executive committee for a study examining bempedoic acid in patients with statin-associated muscle symptoms.

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

Vitamin D supplements do not prevent muscle symptoms in new statin users or affect the likelihood of discontinuing a statin due to muscle pain and discomfort, a substudy of the VITAL trial indicates.

Among more than 2,000 randomized participants, statin-associated muscle symptoms (SAMS) were reported by 31% assigned to vitamin D and 31% assigned to placebo.

copyright Joss/Fotolia.com

The two groups were equally likely to stop taking a statin due to muscle symptoms, at 13%.

No significant difference was observed in SAMS (odds ratio [OR], 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80-1.18) or statin discontinuations (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.80-1.35) after adjustment for baseline variables and other characteristics, namely age, sex, and African-American race, previously found to be associated with SAMS in VITAL.

“We actually thought when we started out that maybe we were going to show something, that maybe it was going to be that the people who got the vitamin D were least likely to have a problem with a statin than all those who didn’t get vitamin D, but that is not what we showed,” senior author Neil J. Stone, MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, told this news organization.

He noted that patients in the clinic with low levels of vitamin D often have muscle pain and discomfort and that previous unblinded studies suggested vitamin D might benefit patients with SAMS and reduce statin intolerance.

As previously reported, the double-blind VITAL trial showed no difference in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease or cancer at 5 years among 25,871 middle-aged adults randomized to vitamin D3 at 2000 IU/d or placebo, regardless of their baseline vitamin D level.

Unlike previous studies showing a benefit with vitamin D on SAMS, importantly, VITAL participants were unaware of whether they were taking vitamin D or placebo and were not expecting any help with their muscle symptoms, first author Mark A. Hlatky, MD, Stanford (Calif.) University, pointed out in an interview.

As to how many statin users turn to the popular supplement for SAMS, he said that number couldn’t be pinned down, despite a lengthy search. “But I think it’s very common, because up to half of people stop taking their statins within a year and many of these do so because of statin-associated muscle symptoms, and we found it in about 30% of people who have them. I have them myself and was motivated to study it because I thought this was an interesting question.”

The results were published online in JAMA Cardiology.
 

SAMS by baseline 25-OHD

The substudy included 2,083 patients who initiated statin therapy after randomization and were surveyed in early 2016 about their statin use and muscle symptoms.

Two-thirds, or 1,397 patients, had 25-hydroxy vitamin D (25-OHD) measured at baseline, with 47% having levels < 30 ng/mL and 13% levels < 20 ng/mL.

Serum 25-OHD levels were virtually identical in the two treatment groups (mean, 30.4 ng/mL; median, 30.0 ng/mL). The frequency of SAMS did not differ between those assigned to vitamin D or placebo (28% vs. 31%).

The odds ratios for the association with vitamin D on SAMS were:

• 0.86 in all respondents with 25-OHD measured (95% CI, 0.69-1.09).
• 0.87 in those with levels ≥ 30 ng/mL (95% CI, 0.64-1.19).
• 0.85 with levels of 20-30 ng/mL (95% CI, 0.56-1.28).
• 0.93 with levels < 20 ng/mL (95% CI, 0.50-1.74).

The test for treatment effect modification by baseline serum 25-OHD level was not significant (P for interaction = .83).

In addition, the rate of muscle symptoms was similar between participants randomized to vitamin D and placebo when researchers used a cutpoint to define low 25-OHD of < 30 ng/mL (27% vs. 30%) or < 20 ng/mL (33% vs. 35%).

“We didn’t find any evidence at all that the people who came into the study with low levels of vitamin D did better with the supplement in this case,” Dr. Hlatky said. “So that wasn’t the reason we didn’t see anything.”

Critics may suggest the trial didn’t use a high enough dose of vitamin D, but both Dr. Hlatky and Dr. Stone say that’s unlikely to be a factor in the results because 2,000 IU/d is a substantial dose and well above the recommended adult daily dose of 600-800 IU.

They caution that the substudy wasn’t prespecified, was smaller than the parent trial, and did not have a protocol in place to detail SAMS. They also can’t rule out the possibility that vitamin D may have an effect in patients who have confirmed intolerance to multiple statins, especially after adjustment for the statin type and dose.

“If you’re taking vitamin D to keep from having statin-associated muscle symptoms, this very carefully done substudy with the various caveats doesn’t support that and that’s not something I would give my patients,” Dr. Stone said.

“The most important thing from a negative study is that it allows you to focus your attention on things that may be much more productive rather than assuming that just giving everybody vitamin D will take care of the statin issue,” he added. “Maybe the answer is going to be somewhere else, and there’ll be a lot of people I’m sure who will offer their advice as what the answer is but, I would argue, we want to see more studies to pin it down. So people can get some science behind what they do to try to reduce statin-associated muscle symptoms.”

Paul D. Thompson, MD, chief of cardiology emeritus at Hartford (Conn.) Hospital, and a SAMS expert who was not involved with the research, said, “This is a useful publication, and it’s smart in that it took advantage of a study that was already done.”

He acknowledged being skeptical of a beneficial effect of vitamin D supplementation on SAMS, because some previous data have been retracted, but said that potential treatments are best tested in patients with confirmed statin myalgia, as was the case in his team’s negative trial of CoQ10 supplementation.

That said, the present “study was able to at least give some of the best evidence so far that vitamin D doesn’t do anything to improve symptoms,” Dr. Thompson said. “So maybe it will cut down on so many vitamin D levels [being measured] and use of vitamin D when you don’t really need it.”

The study was sponsored by the Hyperlipidemia Research Fund at Northwestern University. The VITAL trial was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health, and Quest Diagnostics performed the laboratory measurements at no additional costs. Dr. Hlatky reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Stone reports a grant from the Hyperlipidemia Research Fund at Northwestern and honorarium for educational activity for Knowledge to Practice. Dr. Thompson is on the executive committee for a study examining bempedoic acid in patients with statin-associated muscle symptoms.

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

Vitamin D supplements do not prevent muscle symptoms in new statin users or affect the likelihood of discontinuing a statin due to muscle pain and discomfort, a substudy of the VITAL trial indicates.

Among more than 2,000 randomized participants, statin-associated muscle symptoms (SAMS) were reported by 31% assigned to vitamin D and 31% assigned to placebo.

copyright Joss/Fotolia.com

The two groups were equally likely to stop taking a statin due to muscle symptoms, at 13%.

No significant difference was observed in SAMS (odds ratio [OR], 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80-1.18) or statin discontinuations (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.80-1.35) after adjustment for baseline variables and other characteristics, namely age, sex, and African-American race, previously found to be associated with SAMS in VITAL.

“We actually thought when we started out that maybe we were going to show something, that maybe it was going to be that the people who got the vitamin D were least likely to have a problem with a statin than all those who didn’t get vitamin D, but that is not what we showed,” senior author Neil J. Stone, MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, told this news organization.

He noted that patients in the clinic with low levels of vitamin D often have muscle pain and discomfort and that previous unblinded studies suggested vitamin D might benefit patients with SAMS and reduce statin intolerance.

As previously reported, the double-blind VITAL trial showed no difference in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease or cancer at 5 years among 25,871 middle-aged adults randomized to vitamin D3 at 2000 IU/d or placebo, regardless of their baseline vitamin D level.

Unlike previous studies showing a benefit with vitamin D on SAMS, importantly, VITAL participants were unaware of whether they were taking vitamin D or placebo and were not expecting any help with their muscle symptoms, first author Mark A. Hlatky, MD, Stanford (Calif.) University, pointed out in an interview.

As to how many statin users turn to the popular supplement for SAMS, he said that number couldn’t be pinned down, despite a lengthy search. “But I think it’s very common, because up to half of people stop taking their statins within a year and many of these do so because of statin-associated muscle symptoms, and we found it in about 30% of people who have them. I have them myself and was motivated to study it because I thought this was an interesting question.”

The results were published online in JAMA Cardiology.
 

SAMS by baseline 25-OHD

The substudy included 2,083 patients who initiated statin therapy after randomization and were surveyed in early 2016 about their statin use and muscle symptoms.

Two-thirds, or 1,397 patients, had 25-hydroxy vitamin D (25-OHD) measured at baseline, with 47% having levels < 30 ng/mL and 13% levels < 20 ng/mL.

Serum 25-OHD levels were virtually identical in the two treatment groups (mean, 30.4 ng/mL; median, 30.0 ng/mL). The frequency of SAMS did not differ between those assigned to vitamin D or placebo (28% vs. 31%).

The odds ratios for the association with vitamin D on SAMS were:

• 0.86 in all respondents with 25-OHD measured (95% CI, 0.69-1.09).
• 0.87 in those with levels ≥ 30 ng/mL (95% CI, 0.64-1.19).
• 0.85 with levels of 20-30 ng/mL (95% CI, 0.56-1.28).
• 0.93 with levels < 20 ng/mL (95% CI, 0.50-1.74).

The test for treatment effect modification by baseline serum 25-OHD level was not significant (P for interaction = .83).

In addition, the rate of muscle symptoms was similar between participants randomized to vitamin D and placebo when researchers used a cutpoint to define low 25-OHD of < 30 ng/mL (27% vs. 30%) or < 20 ng/mL (33% vs. 35%).

“We didn’t find any evidence at all that the people who came into the study with low levels of vitamin D did better with the supplement in this case,” Dr. Hlatky said. “So that wasn’t the reason we didn’t see anything.”

Critics may suggest the trial didn’t use a high enough dose of vitamin D, but both Dr. Hlatky and Dr. Stone say that’s unlikely to be a factor in the results because 2,000 IU/d is a substantial dose and well above the recommended adult daily dose of 600-800 IU.

They caution that the substudy wasn’t prespecified, was smaller than the parent trial, and did not have a protocol in place to detail SAMS. They also can’t rule out the possibility that vitamin D may have an effect in patients who have confirmed intolerance to multiple statins, especially after adjustment for the statin type and dose.

“If you’re taking vitamin D to keep from having statin-associated muscle symptoms, this very carefully done substudy with the various caveats doesn’t support that and that’s not something I would give my patients,” Dr. Stone said.

“The most important thing from a negative study is that it allows you to focus your attention on things that may be much more productive rather than assuming that just giving everybody vitamin D will take care of the statin issue,” he added. “Maybe the answer is going to be somewhere else, and there’ll be a lot of people I’m sure who will offer their advice as what the answer is but, I would argue, we want to see more studies to pin it down. So people can get some science behind what they do to try to reduce statin-associated muscle symptoms.”

Paul D. Thompson, MD, chief of cardiology emeritus at Hartford (Conn.) Hospital, and a SAMS expert who was not involved with the research, said, “This is a useful publication, and it’s smart in that it took advantage of a study that was already done.”

He acknowledged being skeptical of a beneficial effect of vitamin D supplementation on SAMS, because some previous data have been retracted, but said that potential treatments are best tested in patients with confirmed statin myalgia, as was the case in his team’s negative trial of CoQ10 supplementation.

That said, the present “study was able to at least give some of the best evidence so far that vitamin D doesn’t do anything to improve symptoms,” Dr. Thompson said. “So maybe it will cut down on so many vitamin D levels [being measured] and use of vitamin D when you don’t really need it.”

The study was sponsored by the Hyperlipidemia Research Fund at Northwestern University. The VITAL trial was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health, and Quest Diagnostics performed the laboratory measurements at no additional costs. Dr. Hlatky reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Stone reports a grant from the Hyperlipidemia Research Fund at Northwestern and honorarium for educational activity for Knowledge to Practice. Dr. Thompson is on the executive committee for a study examining bempedoic acid in patients with statin-associated muscle symptoms.

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

PAU, France – Transgender patients on hormone therapy have an increased mortality risk and so must be closely monitored, especially in terms of cardiovascular health and oncology, reported Marie D’Assigny, MD, of the department of endocrinology, diabetes, and dietetics at Poitiers (France) University Hospital, at the Infogyn 2022 conference. Because transgender women (those assigned male at birth who have assumed a female gender identity) are at risk of breast cancer, they should also be recommended for breast cancer screening.

Transgender men and women, especially transgender women, “should be deemed high-risk cardiovascular patients, or even very high risk in some cases,” said Dr. D’Assigny. This means that they should be considered candidates for cholesterol-lowering medication earlier than their cisgender counterparts, and a target LDL cholesterol of less than 0.70 g/L (70 mg/dL) should be sought. Likewise, blood pressure must be strictly monitored, especially because it tends to rise when on hormone therapy.

Feminizing hormone therapy requires chemical castration with the use of anti-androgen drugs to achieve a blood testosterone level less than 0.5 ng/mL (1.73 nmol/L). Low-dose cyproterone acetate (< 25 to 50 mg/day) is usually used. Treatment is stopped if a patient undergoes an orchidectomy. For feminizing hormone therapy, administration of 17beta-estradiol transcutaneously (patch or gel) is recommended, because it is associated with a lower risk of thromboembolism than oral administration.

Masculinizing hormone therapy is based on administration of progestogens, then testosterone in the form of an injection (mostly testosterone enanthate via intramuscular injection every 10 days) or percutaneously (gel or patch). There are few contraindications, and treatment is generally well tolerated.
 

High mortality rate

A recent retrospective study highlighted the mortality and risk factors for death in transgender men and women receiving hormone therapy. More than 4,500 people, mostly male to female transgender women, were enrolled in this study, which was conducted over a 47-year period (1972-2018) at a specialist clinic at Amsterdam UMC.

Over the course of the study, the mortality rate in transgender men and women was twice that of the general population. The death rate was 10.8% in transgender women vs. 2.7% in transgender men, after a follow-up of 40,232 person-years and 17,285 person-years, respectively. In transgender women, mortality was nearly three times that of cisgender women in the general population.

Over the nearly 5 decades of study, there was no improvement in the mortality rate, even over the last 10 years when transgender issues started to be more recognized. The mortality trends are markedly distinct over the years from those observed in the cisgender population, and this is especially true for transgender women compared to transgender men. “Much is still to be done,” said Dr. D’Assigny.

According to the study, cause-specific mortality in transgender women was high for cardiovascular disease and lung cancer, possibly because of a higher smoking rate in this population. HIV-related disease and suicide remained very high in both transgender men and women.

People with gender dysphoria who do not receive treatment for gender reassignment have a suicide rate of 40%, reported François-Xavier Madec, MD, of Foch Hospital in Suresnes, France, at a previous presentation. For transgender men and women who receive care, this rate is lowered to 15%, which is still significantly higher than the rate of 1.6% observed in the general population.

“These causes of death don’t give any indication as to a specific effect of hormone treatment but show that monitoring and, if necessary, treatment of comorbidities and lifestyle-related factors are important in managing transgender patients,” said the study authors.

“Strengthening social acceptance and treating cardiovascular risk factors could also help to reduce mortality in transgender men and women,” they added.
 

Screening for osteoporosis

In addition to receiving cardiovascular risk factor assessment and monitoring, transgender men and women on hormone therapy should also undergo bone density testing “when risk factors for osteoporosis are present, especially in patients stopping hormone therapy after a gonadectomy,” said Dr. D’Assigny.

Calcium and vitamin D supplements are also recommended for all patients after a gonadectomy, especially in transgender men on testosterone. Osteoporosis screening is recommended for transgender men 10 years after starting treatment with testosterone, then every 10 years.

There is also the risk for breast cancer in transgender women, although the risk is lower than in cisgender women. This risk was highlighted in another study of more than 2,260 transgender women that was carried out by a team at Amsterdam UMC.

A total of 18 cases of breast cancer (15 invasive) were diagnosed after a median 18 years of hormone treatment. This represents an incidence of breast cancer that is 46 times higher than that expected in cisgender men of the same age but 3 times lower than in cisgender women.

The authors noted that “the risk of breast cancer in transgender women increases during a relatively short duration of hormone treatment,” going on to say that “these results suggest that breast cancer screening recommendations are relevant for transgender men and women on hormone therapy.”
 

Poorly attended screening

All of this means that transgender women older than age 50 years, as well as transgender men who have not had a mastectomy, should be offered a mammogram screening, taking into account the possible presence of implants in the former. Transgender women are also at risk for prostate cancer. Monitoring is personalized according to the individual risk of prostate disease, as it is for cisgender men.

There is no consensus on the monitoring of transgender men on hormone therapy for uterine cancer. Yet there is a risk. “Testosterone causes thinning of the endometrium, which may lead to dysplasia,” said Dr. D’Assigny. A physical examination once a year or a pelvic ultrasound scan every 2 years should form the basis of endometrial and ovarian appearance monitoring.

Transgender women are also at risk for prostate cancer. However, they are less likely to attend a prostate cancer screening test, said Dr. D’Assigny, which means “we need to raise awareness of their benefit in advance.” Vaginal swabs for transgender men and mammograms in transgender women “are resented, on both a physical and emotional level.” As a result, delays in diagnosis are common in transgender men and women.

Globally, access to care is still difficult for transgender patients because they don’t always receive appropriate gynecological monitoring, through fear of judgment or discrimination. Many transgender men and women are reluctant to see a gynecologist, even though they are at risk of gynecological cancers, as well as unwanted pregnancies in transgender men who have not undergone a hysterectomy.

In a demonstration of the collective desire to improve patient care for the transgender community, a literature review was recently published by a French team that analyzed gynecological monitoring methods in transgender patients. In September, the French National Authority for Health also issued a guidance memorandum on the transgender transition pathway, pending new recommendations scheduled for 2023.

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

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition.

PAU, France – Transgender patients on hormone therapy have an increased mortality risk and so must be closely monitored, especially in terms of cardiovascular health and oncology, reported Marie D’Assigny, MD, of the department of endocrinology, diabetes, and dietetics at Poitiers (France) University Hospital, at the Infogyn 2022 conference. Because transgender women (those assigned male at birth who have assumed a female gender identity) are at risk of breast cancer, they should also be recommended for breast cancer screening.

Transgender men and women, especially transgender women, “should be deemed high-risk cardiovascular patients, or even very high risk in some cases,” said Dr. D’Assigny. This means that they should be considered candidates for cholesterol-lowering medication earlier than their cisgender counterparts, and a target LDL cholesterol of less than 0.70 g/L (70 mg/dL) should be sought. Likewise, blood pressure must be strictly monitored, especially because it tends to rise when on hormone therapy.

Feminizing hormone therapy requires chemical castration with the use of anti-androgen drugs to achieve a blood testosterone level less than 0.5 ng/mL (1.73 nmol/L). Low-dose cyproterone acetate (< 25 to 50 mg/day) is usually used. Treatment is stopped if a patient undergoes an orchidectomy. For feminizing hormone therapy, administration of 17beta-estradiol transcutaneously (patch or gel) is recommended, because it is associated with a lower risk of thromboembolism than oral administration.

Masculinizing hormone therapy is based on administration of progestogens, then testosterone in the form of an injection (mostly testosterone enanthate via intramuscular injection every 10 days) or percutaneously (gel or patch). There are few contraindications, and treatment is generally well tolerated.
 

High mortality rate

A recent retrospective study highlighted the mortality and risk factors for death in transgender men and women receiving hormone therapy. More than 4,500 people, mostly male to female transgender women, were enrolled in this study, which was conducted over a 47-year period (1972-2018) at a specialist clinic at Amsterdam UMC.

Over the course of the study, the mortality rate in transgender men and women was twice that of the general population. The death rate was 10.8% in transgender women vs. 2.7% in transgender men, after a follow-up of 40,232 person-years and 17,285 person-years, respectively. In transgender women, mortality was nearly three times that of cisgender women in the general population.

Over the nearly 5 decades of study, there was no improvement in the mortality rate, even over the last 10 years when transgender issues started to be more recognized. The mortality trends are markedly distinct over the years from those observed in the cisgender population, and this is especially true for transgender women compared to transgender men. “Much is still to be done,” said Dr. D’Assigny.

According to the study, cause-specific mortality in transgender women was high for cardiovascular disease and lung cancer, possibly because of a higher smoking rate in this population. HIV-related disease and suicide remained very high in both transgender men and women.

People with gender dysphoria who do not receive treatment for gender reassignment have a suicide rate of 40%, reported François-Xavier Madec, MD, of Foch Hospital in Suresnes, France, at a previous presentation. For transgender men and women who receive care, this rate is lowered to 15%, which is still significantly higher than the rate of 1.6% observed in the general population.

“These causes of death don’t give any indication as to a specific effect of hormone treatment but show that monitoring and, if necessary, treatment of comorbidities and lifestyle-related factors are important in managing transgender patients,” said the study authors.

“Strengthening social acceptance and treating cardiovascular risk factors could also help to reduce mortality in transgender men and women,” they added.
 

Screening for osteoporosis

In addition to receiving cardiovascular risk factor assessment and monitoring, transgender men and women on hormone therapy should also undergo bone density testing “when risk factors for osteoporosis are present, especially in patients stopping hormone therapy after a gonadectomy,” said Dr. D’Assigny.

Calcium and vitamin D supplements are also recommended for all patients after a gonadectomy, especially in transgender men on testosterone. Osteoporosis screening is recommended for transgender men 10 years after starting treatment with testosterone, then every 10 years.

There is also the risk for breast cancer in transgender women, although the risk is lower than in cisgender women. This risk was highlighted in another study of more than 2,260 transgender women that was carried out by a team at Amsterdam UMC.

A total of 18 cases of breast cancer (15 invasive) were diagnosed after a median 18 years of hormone treatment. This represents an incidence of breast cancer that is 46 times higher than that expected in cisgender men of the same age but 3 times lower than in cisgender women.

The authors noted that “the risk of breast cancer in transgender women increases during a relatively short duration of hormone treatment,” going on to say that “these results suggest that breast cancer screening recommendations are relevant for transgender men and women on hormone therapy.”
 

Poorly attended screening

All of this means that transgender women older than age 50 years, as well as transgender men who have not had a mastectomy, should be offered a mammogram screening, taking into account the possible presence of implants in the former. Transgender women are also at risk for prostate cancer. Monitoring is personalized according to the individual risk of prostate disease, as it is for cisgender men.

There is no consensus on the monitoring of transgender men on hormone therapy for uterine cancer. Yet there is a risk. “Testosterone causes thinning of the endometrium, which may lead to dysplasia,” said Dr. D’Assigny. A physical examination once a year or a pelvic ultrasound scan every 2 years should form the basis of endometrial and ovarian appearance monitoring.

Transgender women are also at risk for prostate cancer. However, they are less likely to attend a prostate cancer screening test, said Dr. D’Assigny, which means “we need to raise awareness of their benefit in advance.” Vaginal swabs for transgender men and mammograms in transgender women “are resented, on both a physical and emotional level.” As a result, delays in diagnosis are common in transgender men and women.

Globally, access to care is still difficult for transgender patients because they don’t always receive appropriate gynecological monitoring, through fear of judgment or discrimination. Many transgender men and women are reluctant to see a gynecologist, even though they are at risk of gynecological cancers, as well as unwanted pregnancies in transgender men who have not undergone a hysterectomy.

In a demonstration of the collective desire to improve patient care for the transgender community, a literature review was recently published by a French team that analyzed gynecological monitoring methods in transgender patients. In September, the French National Authority for Health also issued a guidance memorandum on the transgender transition pathway, pending new recommendations scheduled for 2023.

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

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition.

PAU, France – Transgender patients on hormone therapy have an increased mortality risk and so must be closely monitored, especially in terms of cardiovascular health and oncology, reported Marie D’Assigny, MD, of the department of endocrinology, diabetes, and dietetics at Poitiers (France) University Hospital, at the Infogyn 2022 conference. Because transgender women (those assigned male at birth who have assumed a female gender identity) are at risk of breast cancer, they should also be recommended for breast cancer screening.

Transgender men and women, especially transgender women, “should be deemed high-risk cardiovascular patients, or even very high risk in some cases,” said Dr. D’Assigny. This means that they should be considered candidates for cholesterol-lowering medication earlier than their cisgender counterparts, and a target LDL cholesterol of less than 0.70 g/L (70 mg/dL) should be sought. Likewise, blood pressure must be strictly monitored, especially because it tends to rise when on hormone therapy.

Feminizing hormone therapy requires chemical castration with the use of anti-androgen drugs to achieve a blood testosterone level less than 0.5 ng/mL (1.73 nmol/L). Low-dose cyproterone acetate (< 25 to 50 mg/day) is usually used. Treatment is stopped if a patient undergoes an orchidectomy. For feminizing hormone therapy, administration of 17beta-estradiol transcutaneously (patch or gel) is recommended, because it is associated with a lower risk of thromboembolism than oral administration.

Masculinizing hormone therapy is based on administration of progestogens, then testosterone in the form of an injection (mostly testosterone enanthate via intramuscular injection every 10 days) or percutaneously (gel or patch). There are few contraindications, and treatment is generally well tolerated.
 

High mortality rate

A recent retrospective study highlighted the mortality and risk factors for death in transgender men and women receiving hormone therapy. More than 4,500 people, mostly male to female transgender women, were enrolled in this study, which was conducted over a 47-year period (1972-2018) at a specialist clinic at Amsterdam UMC.

Over the course of the study, the mortality rate in transgender men and women was twice that of the general population. The death rate was 10.8% in transgender women vs. 2.7% in transgender men, after a follow-up of 40,232 person-years and 17,285 person-years, respectively. In transgender women, mortality was nearly three times that of cisgender women in the general population.

Over the nearly 5 decades of study, there was no improvement in the mortality rate, even over the last 10 years when transgender issues started to be more recognized. The mortality trends are markedly distinct over the years from those observed in the cisgender population, and this is especially true for transgender women compared to transgender men. “Much is still to be done,” said Dr. D’Assigny.

According to the study, cause-specific mortality in transgender women was high for cardiovascular disease and lung cancer, possibly because of a higher smoking rate in this population. HIV-related disease and suicide remained very high in both transgender men and women.

People with gender dysphoria who do not receive treatment for gender reassignment have a suicide rate of 40%, reported François-Xavier Madec, MD, of Foch Hospital in Suresnes, France, at a previous presentation. For transgender men and women who receive care, this rate is lowered to 15%, which is still significantly higher than the rate of 1.6% observed in the general population.

“These causes of death don’t give any indication as to a specific effect of hormone treatment but show that monitoring and, if necessary, treatment of comorbidities and lifestyle-related factors are important in managing transgender patients,” said the study authors.

“Strengthening social acceptance and treating cardiovascular risk factors could also help to reduce mortality in transgender men and women,” they added.
 

Screening for osteoporosis

In addition to receiving cardiovascular risk factor assessment and monitoring, transgender men and women on hormone therapy should also undergo bone density testing “when risk factors for osteoporosis are present, especially in patients stopping hormone therapy after a gonadectomy,” said Dr. D’Assigny.

Calcium and vitamin D supplements are also recommended for all patients after a gonadectomy, especially in transgender men on testosterone. Osteoporosis screening is recommended for transgender men 10 years after starting treatment with testosterone, then every 10 years.

There is also the risk for breast cancer in transgender women, although the risk is lower than in cisgender women. This risk was highlighted in another study of more than 2,260 transgender women that was carried out by a team at Amsterdam UMC.

A total of 18 cases of breast cancer (15 invasive) were diagnosed after a median 18 years of hormone treatment. This represents an incidence of breast cancer that is 46 times higher than that expected in cisgender men of the same age but 3 times lower than in cisgender women.

The authors noted that “the risk of breast cancer in transgender women increases during a relatively short duration of hormone treatment,” going on to say that “these results suggest that breast cancer screening recommendations are relevant for transgender men and women on hormone therapy.”
 

Poorly attended screening

All of this means that transgender women older than age 50 years, as well as transgender men who have not had a mastectomy, should be offered a mammogram screening, taking into account the possible presence of implants in the former. Transgender women are also at risk for prostate cancer. Monitoring is personalized according to the individual risk of prostate disease, as it is for cisgender men.

There is no consensus on the monitoring of transgender men on hormone therapy for uterine cancer. Yet there is a risk. “Testosterone causes thinning of the endometrium, which may lead to dysplasia,” said Dr. D’Assigny. A physical examination once a year or a pelvic ultrasound scan every 2 years should form the basis of endometrial and ovarian appearance monitoring.

Transgender women are also at risk for prostate cancer. However, they are less likely to attend a prostate cancer screening test, said Dr. D’Assigny, which means “we need to raise awareness of their benefit in advance.” Vaginal swabs for transgender men and mammograms in transgender women “are resented, on both a physical and emotional level.” As a result, delays in diagnosis are common in transgender men and women.

Globally, access to care is still difficult for transgender patients because they don’t always receive appropriate gynecological monitoring, through fear of judgment or discrimination. Many transgender men and women are reluctant to see a gynecologist, even though they are at risk of gynecological cancers, as well as unwanted pregnancies in transgender men who have not undergone a hysterectomy.

In a demonstration of the collective desire to improve patient care for the transgender community, a literature review was recently published by a French team that analyzed gynecological monitoring methods in transgender patients. In September, the French National Authority for Health also issued a guidance memorandum on the transgender transition pathway, pending new recommendations scheduled for 2023.

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

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition.

One night, at the beginning of Thanksgiving week, my son called from his place across town. His car was having trouble starting, so I went to see what was up.

I got to his place to find his car wouldn’t start, even though the battery was only a few months old. I used my car to jump his, left him mine, and headed back. My plan was to leave it at our usual repair place and walk home.

Easier said than done.

I’d just gotten on the 101, the main loop freeway for the Phoenix metro area, when his car completely died. The lights flickered, the gauges stopped working, and then the engine cut out. Mercifully I was able to pull over into the right emergency lane as it did so. I was nowhere near an exit.

Not even the emergency flashers worked. It was dark. I was on a major freeway. I couldn’t make myself visible. Cars and trucks were whizzing by 2-3 feet to my left, and I was hoping they’d see me.

I called AAA and explained the situation. They were sending a tow truck, but it could take up to another 3 hours. I sent some quick texts to family to let them know what was up. I called the AZ highway patrol to let them know my predicament, in case they wanted to come put a flare or two behind me (they didn’t).

And then I settled in. Seatbelt on, staring at the road in front of me ... and had nothing to do.

When was the last time you had absolutely nothing to do?

It’s pretty rare these days. I mean, we all have breaks in the action, so we watch a cute animal video, or play a round of Wordle, or whatever.

But I had none of that. No books, iPad, or computer. Sure, I had my phone, but it was less than 50% charged with no way to charge it, and so I wanted to conserve that in case I needed it.

I don’t think I’ve ever had a moment like this since I began carrying a phone in 1998. There was, literally, nothing to do but wait. I couldn’t even try to nod off with the seat unadjustable and cars whizzing by.

So my mind wandered, and I thought. I turned over office cases. I went through year-end finances. I thought about my current predicament. I stared endlessly at the road ahead and cars passing me.

At some point I began to realize that I’m actually pretty lucky, and that nothing was nearly as bad as it had seemed earlier in the day. As the initial adrenaline rush drained out of me I calmed down and the things I’d been worrying about that afternoon seemed workable.

The tow truck pulled in front of me, ending my reverie. Mercifully, it had only taken them an hour. I was home 45 minutes later.

I was thankful to be home and I was thankful that nothing more serious had happened in a potentially bad situation.

And, somewhere in there, I was glad to be reminded that having nothing to do but think for a while can be a good thing.

In today’s world of endless screens and texts and calls and notifications, it’s easy to lose track of that.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

One night, at the beginning of Thanksgiving week, my son called from his place across town. His car was having trouble starting, so I went to see what was up.

I got to his place to find his car wouldn’t start, even though the battery was only a few months old. I used my car to jump his, left him mine, and headed back. My plan was to leave it at our usual repair place and walk home.

Easier said than done.

I’d just gotten on the 101, the main loop freeway for the Phoenix metro area, when his car completely died. The lights flickered, the gauges stopped working, and then the engine cut out. Mercifully I was able to pull over into the right emergency lane as it did so. I was nowhere near an exit.

Not even the emergency flashers worked. It was dark. I was on a major freeway. I couldn’t make myself visible. Cars and trucks were whizzing by 2-3 feet to my left, and I was hoping they’d see me.

I called AAA and explained the situation. They were sending a tow truck, but it could take up to another 3 hours. I sent some quick texts to family to let them know what was up. I called the AZ highway patrol to let them know my predicament, in case they wanted to come put a flare or two behind me (they didn’t).

And then I settled in. Seatbelt on, staring at the road in front of me ... and had nothing to do.

When was the last time you had absolutely nothing to do?

It’s pretty rare these days. I mean, we all have breaks in the action, so we watch a cute animal video, or play a round of Wordle, or whatever.

But I had none of that. No books, iPad, or computer. Sure, I had my phone, but it was less than 50% charged with no way to charge it, and so I wanted to conserve that in case I needed it.

I don’t think I’ve ever had a moment like this since I began carrying a phone in 1998. There was, literally, nothing to do but wait. I couldn’t even try to nod off with the seat unadjustable and cars whizzing by.

So my mind wandered, and I thought. I turned over office cases. I went through year-end finances. I thought about my current predicament. I stared endlessly at the road ahead and cars passing me.

At some point I began to realize that I’m actually pretty lucky, and that nothing was nearly as bad as it had seemed earlier in the day. As the initial adrenaline rush drained out of me I calmed down and the things I’d been worrying about that afternoon seemed workable.

The tow truck pulled in front of me, ending my reverie. Mercifully, it had only taken them an hour. I was home 45 minutes later.

I was thankful to be home and I was thankful that nothing more serious had happened in a potentially bad situation.

And, somewhere in there, I was glad to be reminded that having nothing to do but think for a while can be a good thing.

In today’s world of endless screens and texts and calls and notifications, it’s easy to lose track of that.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

One night, at the beginning of Thanksgiving week, my son called from his place across town. His car was having trouble starting, so I went to see what was up.

I got to his place to find his car wouldn’t start, even though the battery was only a few months old. I used my car to jump his, left him mine, and headed back. My plan was to leave it at our usual repair place and walk home.

Easier said than done.

I’d just gotten on the 101, the main loop freeway for the Phoenix metro area, when his car completely died. The lights flickered, the gauges stopped working, and then the engine cut out. Mercifully I was able to pull over into the right emergency lane as it did so. I was nowhere near an exit.

Not even the emergency flashers worked. It was dark. I was on a major freeway. I couldn’t make myself visible. Cars and trucks were whizzing by 2-3 feet to my left, and I was hoping they’d see me.

I called AAA and explained the situation. They were sending a tow truck, but it could take up to another 3 hours. I sent some quick texts to family to let them know what was up. I called the AZ highway patrol to let them know my predicament, in case they wanted to come put a flare or two behind me (they didn’t).

And then I settled in. Seatbelt on, staring at the road in front of me ... and had nothing to do.

When was the last time you had absolutely nothing to do?

It’s pretty rare these days. I mean, we all have breaks in the action, so we watch a cute animal video, or play a round of Wordle, or whatever.

But I had none of that. No books, iPad, or computer. Sure, I had my phone, but it was less than 50% charged with no way to charge it, and so I wanted to conserve that in case I needed it.

I don’t think I’ve ever had a moment like this since I began carrying a phone in 1998. There was, literally, nothing to do but wait. I couldn’t even try to nod off with the seat unadjustable and cars whizzing by.

So my mind wandered, and I thought. I turned over office cases. I went through year-end finances. I thought about my current predicament. I stared endlessly at the road ahead and cars passing me.

At some point I began to realize that I’m actually pretty lucky, and that nothing was nearly as bad as it had seemed earlier in the day. As the initial adrenaline rush drained out of me I calmed down and the things I’d been worrying about that afternoon seemed workable.

The tow truck pulled in front of me, ending my reverie. Mercifully, it had only taken them an hour. I was home 45 minutes later.

I was thankful to be home and I was thankful that nothing more serious had happened in a potentially bad situation.

And, somewhere in there, I was glad to be reminded that having nothing to do but think for a while can be a good thing.

In today’s world of endless screens and texts and calls and notifications, it’s easy to lose track of that.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

In human papillomavirus (HPV)-positive, locally advanced oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma, an immune checkpoint blockade regimen combined with radiotherapy led to good survival with a reduction in radiation exposure.

First-line therapy for HPV-positive oropharynx cancer is generally high-dose cisplatin combined with high-dose radiotherapy, but this regimen is associated with significant acute and long-term toxicity.

In previous studies among patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma, nivolumab (Opdiva, Bristol Myers Squibb) improved survival when combined with platinum-based chemotherapy, and pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) improved survival in recurrent disease compared with chemotherapy plus cetuximab.

Those precedents predicted success for HPV-positive oropharynx cancer, according to Maura Gillison, MD, PhD, who presented the results at a press briefing held in November in advance of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer’s 37th Annual Meeting. “Given that HPV-positive oropharynx cancers are characterized by an inflamed tumor microenvironment and HPV oncoproteins are omnipresent, required for cancer survival, and are ideal tumor-specific antigens – we hypothesized that induction and concurrent CTLA-4 and PD-1 immune checkpoint blockade, followed by volume- and dose-adapted IMRT (intensity-modulated radiotherapy), would be an effective alternative to the current standard of care,” said Dr. Gillison, who is a professor of medicine at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Anti–PD-L1 therapy is approved for head and neck cancer, but the frontier is moving it into the locally advanced setting in combination with CTLA-4 inhibitors, according to Robert Ferris, MD, PhD, who moderated the press briefing and was lead author of the nivolumab in metastatic squamous cell carcinoma study. He added that recent trial data suggest this approach should be more effective and create more durable responses.

The new data support the approach. “The trial provides compelling data to support a new approach for treating newly diagnosed HPV-positive head and neck cancers. Our goal is to treat this cancer with immunotherapy alone. The results of this trial make me optimistic that this will be achievable,” Dr. Gillison said.
 

The study details

The researchers conducted a phase 2 clinical trial, enrolling 35 patients with newly diagnosed HPV-positive oropharynx cancer who were positive for PD-L1 expression.

Patients received 1 mg/kg ipilimumab (Yervoy, Bristol Myers Squibb) and 3 mg/kg nivolumab over a 6-week cycle, followed by a second cycle that was accompanied by 40-44 Gy radiotherapy for patients with a complete response in their primary tumor, and a boost to 50-66 based on postinduction treatment volume. The protocol reduced dose to the neck from 52 to 36 Gy. The radiation was delivered to only one nodal echelon beyond the involved node. Standard care delivers radiotherapy to essentially the entire neck, Dr. Gillison said.

Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 66% of patients, the majority of which were attributable to radiotherapy. The complete response rate was 94% at 6 months as assessed by PET scan, and 2-year progression-free survival was 86%. After a median follow-up of 14.9 months, all patients were alive and cancer-free.

Overall response rate was 14% following induction, but 96% showed a histologic treatment effect. Tumor viability was less than 5% in 48% of patients, and a molecular complete response was observed in 30% as measured by plasma cell-free HPV. Patients received 36% less radiation than typical of standard of care, and the dose to critical areas was reduced by 50%.

At the press conference, Dr. Ferris asked Dr. Gillison whether the researchers observed a spike in cell-free HPV DNA before the decline occurred, suggesting evidence of tumor death and DNA release.

“We did see in a remarkable number of patients within 2 weeks of the first dose, a very strong peak in the cell-free HPV DNA, followed by a rapid decline. In those patients who still have viable tumor at the end of induction immunotherapy, we saw a second robust peak in cell-free HPV DNA at the start of radiation, with rapid clearance. So that gave us confidence that (among) those patients who had cell-free HPV clearance by the end of induction, followed by no further detection through radiation, that it’s an excellent surrogate for tumor control,” Dr. Gillison said.

Dr. Gillison has financial relationships with Eisai, Exilixis, Caladrius, iTeos, Istari, Seagen, Sensei, Bicara, Mirati, Coherus, Debiopharm, Kura, Shattuck, Nektar, Ipsen, EMD Serono, Gilead, LXS, BioNTech, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Bayer, Roche, Genocea, NewLink Genetics, Aspyrian, TRM Oncology, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, and Agenus. Dr. Ferris has financial relationships with Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Merck, and Celgene.

In human papillomavirus (HPV)-positive, locally advanced oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma, an immune checkpoint blockade regimen combined with radiotherapy led to good survival with a reduction in radiation exposure.

First-line therapy for HPV-positive oropharynx cancer is generally high-dose cisplatin combined with high-dose radiotherapy, but this regimen is associated with significant acute and long-term toxicity.

In previous studies among patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma, nivolumab (Opdiva, Bristol Myers Squibb) improved survival when combined with platinum-based chemotherapy, and pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) improved survival in recurrent disease compared with chemotherapy plus cetuximab.

Those precedents predicted success for HPV-positive oropharynx cancer, according to Maura Gillison, MD, PhD, who presented the results at a press briefing held in November in advance of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer’s 37th Annual Meeting. “Given that HPV-positive oropharynx cancers are characterized by an inflamed tumor microenvironment and HPV oncoproteins are omnipresent, required for cancer survival, and are ideal tumor-specific antigens – we hypothesized that induction and concurrent CTLA-4 and PD-1 immune checkpoint blockade, followed by volume- and dose-adapted IMRT (intensity-modulated radiotherapy), would be an effective alternative to the current standard of care,” said Dr. Gillison, who is a professor of medicine at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Anti–PD-L1 therapy is approved for head and neck cancer, but the frontier is moving it into the locally advanced setting in combination with CTLA-4 inhibitors, according to Robert Ferris, MD, PhD, who moderated the press briefing and was lead author of the nivolumab in metastatic squamous cell carcinoma study. He added that recent trial data suggest this approach should be more effective and create more durable responses.

The new data support the approach. “The trial provides compelling data to support a new approach for treating newly diagnosed HPV-positive head and neck cancers. Our goal is to treat this cancer with immunotherapy alone. The results of this trial make me optimistic that this will be achievable,” Dr. Gillison said.
 

The study details

The researchers conducted a phase 2 clinical trial, enrolling 35 patients with newly diagnosed HPV-positive oropharynx cancer who were positive for PD-L1 expression.

Patients received 1 mg/kg ipilimumab (Yervoy, Bristol Myers Squibb) and 3 mg/kg nivolumab over a 6-week cycle, followed by a second cycle that was accompanied by 40-44 Gy radiotherapy for patients with a complete response in their primary tumor, and a boost to 50-66 based on postinduction treatment volume. The protocol reduced dose to the neck from 52 to 36 Gy. The radiation was delivered to only one nodal echelon beyond the involved node. Standard care delivers radiotherapy to essentially the entire neck, Dr. Gillison said.

Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 66% of patients, the majority of which were attributable to radiotherapy. The complete response rate was 94% at 6 months as assessed by PET scan, and 2-year progression-free survival was 86%. After a median follow-up of 14.9 months, all patients were alive and cancer-free.

Overall response rate was 14% following induction, but 96% showed a histologic treatment effect. Tumor viability was less than 5% in 48% of patients, and a molecular complete response was observed in 30% as measured by plasma cell-free HPV. Patients received 36% less radiation than typical of standard of care, and the dose to critical areas was reduced by 50%.

At the press conference, Dr. Ferris asked Dr. Gillison whether the researchers observed a spike in cell-free HPV DNA before the decline occurred, suggesting evidence of tumor death and DNA release.

“We did see in a remarkable number of patients within 2 weeks of the first dose, a very strong peak in the cell-free HPV DNA, followed by a rapid decline. In those patients who still have viable tumor at the end of induction immunotherapy, we saw a second robust peak in cell-free HPV DNA at the start of radiation, with rapid clearance. So that gave us confidence that (among) those patients who had cell-free HPV clearance by the end of induction, followed by no further detection through radiation, that it’s an excellent surrogate for tumor control,” Dr. Gillison said.

Dr. Gillison has financial relationships with Eisai, Exilixis, Caladrius, iTeos, Istari, Seagen, Sensei, Bicara, Mirati, Coherus, Debiopharm, Kura, Shattuck, Nektar, Ipsen, EMD Serono, Gilead, LXS, BioNTech, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Bayer, Roche, Genocea, NewLink Genetics, Aspyrian, TRM Oncology, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, and Agenus. Dr. Ferris has financial relationships with Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Merck, and Celgene.

In human papillomavirus (HPV)-positive, locally advanced oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma, an immune checkpoint blockade regimen combined with radiotherapy led to good survival with a reduction in radiation exposure.

First-line therapy for HPV-positive oropharynx cancer is generally high-dose cisplatin combined with high-dose radiotherapy, but this regimen is associated with significant acute and long-term toxicity.

In previous studies among patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma, nivolumab (Opdiva, Bristol Myers Squibb) improved survival when combined with platinum-based chemotherapy, and pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) improved survival in recurrent disease compared with chemotherapy plus cetuximab.

Those precedents predicted success for HPV-positive oropharynx cancer, according to Maura Gillison, MD, PhD, who presented the results at a press briefing held in November in advance of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer’s 37th Annual Meeting. “Given that HPV-positive oropharynx cancers are characterized by an inflamed tumor microenvironment and HPV oncoproteins are omnipresent, required for cancer survival, and are ideal tumor-specific antigens – we hypothesized that induction and concurrent CTLA-4 and PD-1 immune checkpoint blockade, followed by volume- and dose-adapted IMRT (intensity-modulated radiotherapy), would be an effective alternative to the current standard of care,” said Dr. Gillison, who is a professor of medicine at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Anti–PD-L1 therapy is approved for head and neck cancer, but the frontier is moving it into the locally advanced setting in combination with CTLA-4 inhibitors, according to Robert Ferris, MD, PhD, who moderated the press briefing and was lead author of the nivolumab in metastatic squamous cell carcinoma study. He added that recent trial data suggest this approach should be more effective and create more durable responses.

The new data support the approach. “The trial provides compelling data to support a new approach for treating newly diagnosed HPV-positive head and neck cancers. Our goal is to treat this cancer with immunotherapy alone. The results of this trial make me optimistic that this will be achievable,” Dr. Gillison said.
 

The study details

The researchers conducted a phase 2 clinical trial, enrolling 35 patients with newly diagnosed HPV-positive oropharynx cancer who were positive for PD-L1 expression.

Patients received 1 mg/kg ipilimumab (Yervoy, Bristol Myers Squibb) and 3 mg/kg nivolumab over a 6-week cycle, followed by a second cycle that was accompanied by 40-44 Gy radiotherapy for patients with a complete response in their primary tumor, and a boost to 50-66 based on postinduction treatment volume. The protocol reduced dose to the neck from 52 to 36 Gy. The radiation was delivered to only one nodal echelon beyond the involved node. Standard care delivers radiotherapy to essentially the entire neck, Dr. Gillison said.

Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 66% of patients, the majority of which were attributable to radiotherapy. The complete response rate was 94% at 6 months as assessed by PET scan, and 2-year progression-free survival was 86%. After a median follow-up of 14.9 months, all patients were alive and cancer-free.

Overall response rate was 14% following induction, but 96% showed a histologic treatment effect. Tumor viability was less than 5% in 48% of patients, and a molecular complete response was observed in 30% as measured by plasma cell-free HPV. Patients received 36% less radiation than typical of standard of care, and the dose to critical areas was reduced by 50%.

At the press conference, Dr. Ferris asked Dr. Gillison whether the researchers observed a spike in cell-free HPV DNA before the decline occurred, suggesting evidence of tumor death and DNA release.

“We did see in a remarkable number of patients within 2 weeks of the first dose, a very strong peak in the cell-free HPV DNA, followed by a rapid decline. In those patients who still have viable tumor at the end of induction immunotherapy, we saw a second robust peak in cell-free HPV DNA at the start of radiation, with rapid clearance. So that gave us confidence that (among) those patients who had cell-free HPV clearance by the end of induction, followed by no further detection through radiation, that it’s an excellent surrogate for tumor control,” Dr. Gillison said.

Dr. Gillison has financial relationships with Eisai, Exilixis, Caladrius, iTeos, Istari, Seagen, Sensei, Bicara, Mirati, Coherus, Debiopharm, Kura, Shattuck, Nektar, Ipsen, EMD Serono, Gilead, LXS, BioNTech, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Bayer, Roche, Genocea, NewLink Genetics, Aspyrian, TRM Oncology, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, and Agenus. Dr. Ferris has financial relationships with Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Merck, and Celgene.

Latinx individuals have a lower overall risk of melanoma than non-Latinx Whites (NLW), but they are more likely to be diagnosed with advanced disease, and experience greater mortality. A new qualitative study of Latinx and low-income NLW individuals in California has revealed some of the socioeconomic and community factors that may play a role in preventing early access to care.

Thicker melanomas, which are more likely to be lethal, are on the rise in the United States among people with lower socioeconomic status (SES), as well as African Americans and Hispanics, and both Black and Latinx people are more likely than NLW people to present with stage 3 or stage 4 disease. “That has really prompted us to look at community engagement and outreach and then really understand the qualitative aspects that are driving individuals into higher risk for melanoma, apart from just limited insurance and access to health care,” said Susan Swetter, MD, who presented the results of the study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Other studies, such as a Boston-area survey published in 2020, suggest that Hispanics are less likely than Whites to know the meaning of the term melanoma (odds ratio, 0.27; P =.0037), suggesting the need for educational efforts. The authors of that study noted that knowledge of melanoma in 2017, when the survey was conducted, remained essentially unchanged since a previous study was published in 1996.

“Our results support a need for better public educational programs, particularly those geared toward minority populations. Educational programs that are culturally relevant and include specific sections for skin of color have been shown to better promote early melanoma detection in individuals of ethnic minorities and may help decrease the ethnic disparities in melanoma-related mortality. At the patient-physician level, dermatologists may educate their patients, including Hispanic patients, should they choose to perform (skin self-examinations) to specifically inspect the extremities and acral areas, given the higher incidence rates of melanoma on those areas in this population,” the authors wrote.

The goal of the new study is to get a better understanding of the factors that affect attitudes toward health care, and the researchers found a complex mixture that including ethnicity, cultural, gender identity, geography, skin color, gender norms, and socioeconomic status (SES). “Qualitative research can inform our preventive and early detection strategies. For instance, in the Latinx group, there’s a lot of mistrust of health systems, medical providers, and who is providing that knowledge. We have to figure out ways to provide a trusted source of information. Doctors and physicians and health providers tend to be trusted, but there are many barriers to getting lower SES patients into care. We’re now investigating the use of community health workers and even individuals in various settings and community centers, religious settings or religious leaders, where we’ve determined through this focus group research that there is increased trust,” Dr. Swetter said.

The researchers assembled 19 focus groups with 176 total adult participants, interviewing them about perceptions of melanoma risk, prevention and screening strategies and their acceptability, and barriers to melanoma prevention and care. The sample include people from urban and semirural areas; 55%-62% of participants self-identified as Latinx or Hispanic and 26%-27% as NLW.

Latinx and semirural participants reported having minimal conversations with family about melanoma prevention, and those who reported having darker skin perceived their risk from skin cancer as lower. Participants who lived in rural areas, were Latinx, or of low SES status indicated that health care access challenges included out-of-pocket costs, past experiences of physicians showing less concern about them, and little confidence that rural physicians had the needed expertise or would make an appropriate referral.

The study is just the first step in a series of efforts to improve melanoma outcomes in high-risk populations, which is being pursued through Stanford University’s Wipe Out Melanoma–California statewide initiative and research consortium. “What we aim to do is use this knowledge to now design programs to reach the populations who are more likely to present with worse disease, and to prevent that disease from happening. These qualitative analyses are few and far between in the world of melanoma, and we’re really happy to really push this envelope and change the way we deliver preventive and early detection efforts,” said Dr. Swetter, who is a professor of dermatology and director of the pigmented lesion/melanoma and cutaneous oncology programs at Stanford (Calif.) University Medical Center. Dr. Swetter also chairs the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for cutaneous melanoma.

The study could also improve care of advanced melanoma. “There’s clear evidence that many of these patient and SES factors, economic and knowledge barriers are the same when it comes to getting patients with advanced melanoma into appropriate care and on clinical trials, and that’s true across all races and ethnicities,” said Dr. Swetter.

The ultimate goal of these approaches is to give individuals greater “self-efficacy, such that a person feels more competent to manage his or her own health outcomes. One aspect of this approach is the use of novel technology such as smartphone apps that can track moles or help visualize lesions during teledermatology. “I think that the future of melanoma prevention and early detection is bright, especially if we incorporate novel technologies and engage patients and their communities in the effort. It’s a different strategy, as opposed to the top-down approach of physicians imparting knowledge and providing the exam. Increasing community engagement is critical to reaching the populations at highest risk for advanced disease and getting them into care and detection early,” Dr. Swetter said.

Dr. Swetter has no relevant financial disclosures.

Latinx individuals have a lower overall risk of melanoma than non-Latinx Whites (NLW), but they are more likely to be diagnosed with advanced disease, and experience greater mortality. A new qualitative study of Latinx and low-income NLW individuals in California has revealed some of the socioeconomic and community factors that may play a role in preventing early access to care.

Thicker melanomas, which are more likely to be lethal, are on the rise in the United States among people with lower socioeconomic status (SES), as well as African Americans and Hispanics, and both Black and Latinx people are more likely than NLW people to present with stage 3 or stage 4 disease. “That has really prompted us to look at community engagement and outreach and then really understand the qualitative aspects that are driving individuals into higher risk for melanoma, apart from just limited insurance and access to health care,” said Susan Swetter, MD, who presented the results of the study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Other studies, such as a Boston-area survey published in 2020, suggest that Hispanics are less likely than Whites to know the meaning of the term melanoma (odds ratio, 0.27; P =.0037), suggesting the need for educational efforts. The authors of that study noted that knowledge of melanoma in 2017, when the survey was conducted, remained essentially unchanged since a previous study was published in 1996.

“Our results support a need for better public educational programs, particularly those geared toward minority populations. Educational programs that are culturally relevant and include specific sections for skin of color have been shown to better promote early melanoma detection in individuals of ethnic minorities and may help decrease the ethnic disparities in melanoma-related mortality. At the patient-physician level, dermatologists may educate their patients, including Hispanic patients, should they choose to perform (skin self-examinations) to specifically inspect the extremities and acral areas, given the higher incidence rates of melanoma on those areas in this population,” the authors wrote.

The goal of the new study is to get a better understanding of the factors that affect attitudes toward health care, and the researchers found a complex mixture that including ethnicity, cultural, gender identity, geography, skin color, gender norms, and socioeconomic status (SES). “Qualitative research can inform our preventive and early detection strategies. For instance, in the Latinx group, there’s a lot of mistrust of health systems, medical providers, and who is providing that knowledge. We have to figure out ways to provide a trusted source of information. Doctors and physicians and health providers tend to be trusted, but there are many barriers to getting lower SES patients into care. We’re now investigating the use of community health workers and even individuals in various settings and community centers, religious settings or religious leaders, where we’ve determined through this focus group research that there is increased trust,” Dr. Swetter said.

The researchers assembled 19 focus groups with 176 total adult participants, interviewing them about perceptions of melanoma risk, prevention and screening strategies and their acceptability, and barriers to melanoma prevention and care. The sample include people from urban and semirural areas; 55%-62% of participants self-identified as Latinx or Hispanic and 26%-27% as NLW.

Latinx and semirural participants reported having minimal conversations with family about melanoma prevention, and those who reported having darker skin perceived their risk from skin cancer as lower. Participants who lived in rural areas, were Latinx, or of low SES status indicated that health care access challenges included out-of-pocket costs, past experiences of physicians showing less concern about them, and little confidence that rural physicians had the needed expertise or would make an appropriate referral.

The study is just the first step in a series of efforts to improve melanoma outcomes in high-risk populations, which is being pursued through Stanford University’s Wipe Out Melanoma–California statewide initiative and research consortium. “What we aim to do is use this knowledge to now design programs to reach the populations who are more likely to present with worse disease, and to prevent that disease from happening. These qualitative analyses are few and far between in the world of melanoma, and we’re really happy to really push this envelope and change the way we deliver preventive and early detection efforts,” said Dr. Swetter, who is a professor of dermatology and director of the pigmented lesion/melanoma and cutaneous oncology programs at Stanford (Calif.) University Medical Center. Dr. Swetter also chairs the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for cutaneous melanoma.

The study could also improve care of advanced melanoma. “There’s clear evidence that many of these patient and SES factors, economic and knowledge barriers are the same when it comes to getting patients with advanced melanoma into appropriate care and on clinical trials, and that’s true across all races and ethnicities,” said Dr. Swetter.

The ultimate goal of these approaches is to give individuals greater “self-efficacy, such that a person feels more competent to manage his or her own health outcomes. One aspect of this approach is the use of novel technology such as smartphone apps that can track moles or help visualize lesions during teledermatology. “I think that the future of melanoma prevention and early detection is bright, especially if we incorporate novel technologies and engage patients and their communities in the effort. It’s a different strategy, as opposed to the top-down approach of physicians imparting knowledge and providing the exam. Increasing community engagement is critical to reaching the populations at highest risk for advanced disease and getting them into care and detection early,” Dr. Swetter said.

Dr. Swetter has no relevant financial disclosures.

Latinx individuals have a lower overall risk of melanoma than non-Latinx Whites (NLW), but they are more likely to be diagnosed with advanced disease, and experience greater mortality. A new qualitative study of Latinx and low-income NLW individuals in California has revealed some of the socioeconomic and community factors that may play a role in preventing early access to care.

Thicker melanomas, which are more likely to be lethal, are on the rise in the United States among people with lower socioeconomic status (SES), as well as African Americans and Hispanics, and both Black and Latinx people are more likely than NLW people to present with stage 3 or stage 4 disease. “That has really prompted us to look at community engagement and outreach and then really understand the qualitative aspects that are driving individuals into higher risk for melanoma, apart from just limited insurance and access to health care,” said Susan Swetter, MD, who presented the results of the study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Other studies, such as a Boston-area survey published in 2020, suggest that Hispanics are less likely than Whites to know the meaning of the term melanoma (odds ratio, 0.27; P =.0037), suggesting the need for educational efforts. The authors of that study noted that knowledge of melanoma in 2017, when the survey was conducted, remained essentially unchanged since a previous study was published in 1996.

“Our results support a need for better public educational programs, particularly those geared toward minority populations. Educational programs that are culturally relevant and include specific sections for skin of color have been shown to better promote early melanoma detection in individuals of ethnic minorities and may help decrease the ethnic disparities in melanoma-related mortality. At the patient-physician level, dermatologists may educate their patients, including Hispanic patients, should they choose to perform (skin self-examinations) to specifically inspect the extremities and acral areas, given the higher incidence rates of melanoma on those areas in this population,” the authors wrote.

The goal of the new study is to get a better understanding of the factors that affect attitudes toward health care, and the researchers found a complex mixture that including ethnicity, cultural, gender identity, geography, skin color, gender norms, and socioeconomic status (SES). “Qualitative research can inform our preventive and early detection strategies. For instance, in the Latinx group, there’s a lot of mistrust of health systems, medical providers, and who is providing that knowledge. We have to figure out ways to provide a trusted source of information. Doctors and physicians and health providers tend to be trusted, but there are many barriers to getting lower SES patients into care. We’re now investigating the use of community health workers and even individuals in various settings and community centers, religious settings or religious leaders, where we’ve determined through this focus group research that there is increased trust,” Dr. Swetter said.

The researchers assembled 19 focus groups with 176 total adult participants, interviewing them about perceptions of melanoma risk, prevention and screening strategies and their acceptability, and barriers to melanoma prevention and care. The sample include people from urban and semirural areas; 55%-62% of participants self-identified as Latinx or Hispanic and 26%-27% as NLW.

Latinx and semirural participants reported having minimal conversations with family about melanoma prevention, and those who reported having darker skin perceived their risk from skin cancer as lower. Participants who lived in rural areas, were Latinx, or of low SES status indicated that health care access challenges included out-of-pocket costs, past experiences of physicians showing less concern about them, and little confidence that rural physicians had the needed expertise or would make an appropriate referral.

The study is just the first step in a series of efforts to improve melanoma outcomes in high-risk populations, which is being pursued through Stanford University’s Wipe Out Melanoma–California statewide initiative and research consortium. “What we aim to do is use this knowledge to now design programs to reach the populations who are more likely to present with worse disease, and to prevent that disease from happening. These qualitative analyses are few and far between in the world of melanoma, and we’re really happy to really push this envelope and change the way we deliver preventive and early detection efforts,” said Dr. Swetter, who is a professor of dermatology and director of the pigmented lesion/melanoma and cutaneous oncology programs at Stanford (Calif.) University Medical Center. Dr. Swetter also chairs the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for cutaneous melanoma.

The study could also improve care of advanced melanoma. “There’s clear evidence that many of these patient and SES factors, economic and knowledge barriers are the same when it comes to getting patients with advanced melanoma into appropriate care and on clinical trials, and that’s true across all races and ethnicities,” said Dr. Swetter.

The ultimate goal of these approaches is to give individuals greater “self-efficacy, such that a person feels more competent to manage his or her own health outcomes. One aspect of this approach is the use of novel technology such as smartphone apps that can track moles or help visualize lesions during teledermatology. “I think that the future of melanoma prevention and early detection is bright, especially if we incorporate novel technologies and engage patients and their communities in the effort. It’s a different strategy, as opposed to the top-down approach of physicians imparting knowledge and providing the exam. Increasing community engagement is critical to reaching the populations at highest risk for advanced disease and getting them into care and detection early,” Dr. Swetter said.

Dr. Swetter has no relevant financial disclosures.

Two short-course bedaquiline-containing treatment regimens for rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis showed “robust evidence” for superior efficacy and less ototoxicity compared to a 9-month injectable control regimen, researchers report.

The findings validate the World Health Organization’s current recommendation of a 9-month, bedaquiline-based oral regimen, “which was based only on observational data,” noted lead author Ruth Goodall, PhD, from the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at University College London, and colleagues.

The study was published in The Lancet.

The Standard Treatment Regimen of Anti-tuberculosis Drugs for Patients With MDR-TB (STREAM) stage 2 study was a randomized, phase 3, noninferiority trial conducted at 13 hospital clinics in seven countries that had prespecified tests for superiority if noninferiority was shown. The study enrolled individuals aged 15 years or older who had rifampicin-resistant TB without fluoroquinolone or aminoglycoside resistance.

The study’s first stage, STREAM stage 1, showed that a 9-month injectable regimen was noninferior to the WHO’s 2011 recommendation of a 20-month injectable regimen. The 9-month regimen was recommended by the WHO in 2016. That recommendation was superceded in 2020 when concerns of hearing loss associated with aminoglycosides prompted the WHO to endorse a 9-month bedaquiline-containing, injectable-free alternative, the authors write.
 

Seeking shorter treatment for better outcomes

STREAM stage 2 used a 9-month injectable regimen as its control. The investigators measured it against a fully oral 9-month bedaquiline-based treatment (primary comparison), as well as a 6-month oral bedaquiline regimen that included 8 weeks of a second-line injectable (secondary comparison).

The 9-month fully oral treatment included levofloxacin, clofazimine, ethambutol, and pyrazinamide for 40 weeks; bedaquiline, high-dose isoniazid, and prothionamide were given for the 16-week intensive phase.

The 6-month regimen included bedaquiline, clofazimine, pyrazinamide, and levofloxacin for 28 weeks, supplemented by high-dose isoniazid with kanamycin for an 8-week intensive phase.

For both comparisons, the primary outcome was favorable status at 76 weeks, defined as cultures that were negative for Mycobacterium tuberculosis without a preceding unfavorable outcome (defined as any death, bacteriologic failure or recurrence, or major treatment change).

Among 517 participants in the modified intention-to-treat population across the study groups, 62% were men, and 38% were women (median age, 32.5 years).

For the primary comparison, 71% of the control group and 83% of the oral regimen group had a favorable outcome.

In the secondary comparison, 69% had a favorable outcome in the control group, compared with 91% of those receiving the 6-month regimen.

Although the rate of grade 3 or 4 adverse events was similar in all three groups, there was significantly less ototoxicity among patients who received the oral regimen, compared with control patients (2% vs. 9%); 4% of those taking the 6-month regimen had hearing loss, compared with 8% of control patients.

Exploratory analyses comparing both bedaquiline-containing regimens revealed a significantly higher proportion of favorable outcomes among participants receiving the 6-month regimen (91%), compared with patients taking the fully oral 9-month regimen (79%). There were no significant differences in the rate of grade 3 or 4 adverse events.

The trial’s main limitation was its open-label design, which might have influenced decisions about treatment change, note the investigators.

“STREAM stage 2 has shown that two short-course, bedaquiline-containing regimens are not only non-inferior but superior to a 9-month injectable-containing regimen,” they conclude.

“The STREAM stage 2 fully oral regimen avoided the toxicity of aminoglycosides, and the 6-month regimen was highly effective, with reduced levels of ototoxicity. These two regimens offer promising treatment options for patients with MDR or rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis,” the authors write.

Dr. Goodall added, “Although both STREAM regimens were very effective, participants experienced relatively high levels of adverse events during the trial (though many of these were likely due to the close laboratory monitoring of the trial).

“While hearing loss was reduced on the 6-month regimen, it was not entirely eliminated,” she said. “Other new regimens in the field containing the medicine linezolid report side effects such as anemia and peripheral neuropathy. So more work needs to be done to ensure the treatment regimens are as safe and tolerable for patients as possible. In addition, even 6 months’ treatment is long for patients to tolerate, and further regimen shortening would be a welcome development for patients and health systems.”
 

‘A revolution in MDR tuberculosis’

“The authors must be commended on completing this challenging high-quality, phase 3, non-inferiority, randomized controlled trial involving 13 health care facilities across Ethiopia, Georgia, India, Moldova, Mongolia, South Africa, and Uganda ... despite the COVID-19 pandemic,” noted Keertan Dheda, MD, PhD, and Christoph Lange, MD, PhD, in an accompanying comment titled, “A Revolution in the Management of Multidrug-Resistant Tuberculosis”.

Although the WHO recently approved an all-oral 6-month bedaquiline, pretomanid, and linezolid plus moxifloxacin (BPaLM) regimen, results from the alternate 6-month regimen examined in STREAM stage 2 “do provide confidence in using 2 months of an injectable as part of a salvage regimen in patients for whom MDR tuberculosis treatment is not successful” or in those with extensively drug-resistant (XDR) or pre-XDR TB, “for whom therapeutic options are few,” noted Dr. Dheda, from the University of Cape Town (South Africa) and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and Dr. Lange, from the University of Lübeck (Germany), Baylor College of Medicine, and Texas Children’s Hospital, both in Houston.

The study authors and the commentators stress that safer and simpler treatments are still needed for MDR TB. “The search is now on for regimens that could further reduce duration, toxicity, and pill burden,” note Dr. Dheda and Dr. Lange.

However, they also note that “substantial resistance” to bedaquiline is already emerging. “Therefore, if we are to protect key drugs from becoming functionally redundant, drug-susceptibility testing capacity will need to be rapidly improved to minimize resistance amplification and onward disease transmission.”

The study was funded by USAID and Janssen Research and Development. Dr. Goodall has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Dheda has received funding from the EU and the South African Medical Research Council for studies related to the diagnosis or management of drug-resistant tuberculosis. Dr. Lange is supported by the German Center for Infection Research and has received funding from the European Commission for studies on the development of novel antituberculosis medicines and for studies related to novel diagnostics of tuberculosis; consulting fees from INSMED; speaker’s fees from INSMED, GILEAD, and Janssen; and is a member of the data safety board of trials from Medicines sans Frontiers, all of which are unrelated to the current study.

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

Two short-course bedaquiline-containing treatment regimens for rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis showed “robust evidence” for superior efficacy and less ototoxicity compared to a 9-month injectable control regimen, researchers report.

The findings validate the World Health Organization’s current recommendation of a 9-month, bedaquiline-based oral regimen, “which was based only on observational data,” noted lead author Ruth Goodall, PhD, from the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at University College London, and colleagues.

The study was published in The Lancet.

The Standard Treatment Regimen of Anti-tuberculosis Drugs for Patients With MDR-TB (STREAM) stage 2 study was a randomized, phase 3, noninferiority trial conducted at 13 hospital clinics in seven countries that had prespecified tests for superiority if noninferiority was shown. The study enrolled individuals aged 15 years or older who had rifampicin-resistant TB without fluoroquinolone or aminoglycoside resistance.

The study’s first stage, STREAM stage 1, showed that a 9-month injectable regimen was noninferior to the WHO’s 2011 recommendation of a 20-month injectable regimen. The 9-month regimen was recommended by the WHO in 2016. That recommendation was superceded in 2020 when concerns of hearing loss associated with aminoglycosides prompted the WHO to endorse a 9-month bedaquiline-containing, injectable-free alternative, the authors write.
 

Seeking shorter treatment for better outcomes

STREAM stage 2 used a 9-month injectable regimen as its control. The investigators measured it against a fully oral 9-month bedaquiline-based treatment (primary comparison), as well as a 6-month oral bedaquiline regimen that included 8 weeks of a second-line injectable (secondary comparison).

The 9-month fully oral treatment included levofloxacin, clofazimine, ethambutol, and pyrazinamide for 40 weeks; bedaquiline, high-dose isoniazid, and prothionamide were given for the 16-week intensive phase.

The 6-month regimen included bedaquiline, clofazimine, pyrazinamide, and levofloxacin for 28 weeks, supplemented by high-dose isoniazid with kanamycin for an 8-week intensive phase.

For both comparisons, the primary outcome was favorable status at 76 weeks, defined as cultures that were negative for Mycobacterium tuberculosis without a preceding unfavorable outcome (defined as any death, bacteriologic failure or recurrence, or major treatment change).

Among 517 participants in the modified intention-to-treat population across the study groups, 62% were men, and 38% were women (median age, 32.5 years).

For the primary comparison, 71% of the control group and 83% of the oral regimen group had a favorable outcome.

In the secondary comparison, 69% had a favorable outcome in the control group, compared with 91% of those receiving the 6-month regimen.

Although the rate of grade 3 or 4 adverse events was similar in all three groups, there was significantly less ototoxicity among patients who received the oral regimen, compared with control patients (2% vs. 9%); 4% of those taking the 6-month regimen had hearing loss, compared with 8% of control patients.

Exploratory analyses comparing both bedaquiline-containing regimens revealed a significantly higher proportion of favorable outcomes among participants receiving the 6-month regimen (91%), compared with patients taking the fully oral 9-month regimen (79%). There were no significant differences in the rate of grade 3 or 4 adverse events.

The trial’s main limitation was its open-label design, which might have influenced decisions about treatment change, note the investigators.

“STREAM stage 2 has shown that two short-course, bedaquiline-containing regimens are not only non-inferior but superior to a 9-month injectable-containing regimen,” they conclude.

“The STREAM stage 2 fully oral regimen avoided the toxicity of aminoglycosides, and the 6-month regimen was highly effective, with reduced levels of ototoxicity. These two regimens offer promising treatment options for patients with MDR or rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis,” the authors write.

Dr. Goodall added, “Although both STREAM regimens were very effective, participants experienced relatively high levels of adverse events during the trial (though many of these were likely due to the close laboratory monitoring of the trial).

“While hearing loss was reduced on the 6-month regimen, it was not entirely eliminated,” she said. “Other new regimens in the field containing the medicine linezolid report side effects such as anemia and peripheral neuropathy. So more work needs to be done to ensure the treatment regimens are as safe and tolerable for patients as possible. In addition, even 6 months’ treatment is long for patients to tolerate, and further regimen shortening would be a welcome development for patients and health systems.”
 

‘A revolution in MDR tuberculosis’

“The authors must be commended on completing this challenging high-quality, phase 3, non-inferiority, randomized controlled trial involving 13 health care facilities across Ethiopia, Georgia, India, Moldova, Mongolia, South Africa, and Uganda ... despite the COVID-19 pandemic,” noted Keertan Dheda, MD, PhD, and Christoph Lange, MD, PhD, in an accompanying comment titled, “A Revolution in the Management of Multidrug-Resistant Tuberculosis”.

Although the WHO recently approved an all-oral 6-month bedaquiline, pretomanid, and linezolid plus moxifloxacin (BPaLM) regimen, results from the alternate 6-month regimen examined in STREAM stage 2 “do provide confidence in using 2 months of an injectable as part of a salvage regimen in patients for whom MDR tuberculosis treatment is not successful” or in those with extensively drug-resistant (XDR) or pre-XDR TB, “for whom therapeutic options are few,” noted Dr. Dheda, from the University of Cape Town (South Africa) and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and Dr. Lange, from the University of Lübeck (Germany), Baylor College of Medicine, and Texas Children’s Hospital, both in Houston.

The study authors and the commentators stress that safer and simpler treatments are still needed for MDR TB. “The search is now on for regimens that could further reduce duration, toxicity, and pill burden,” note Dr. Dheda and Dr. Lange.

However, they also note that “substantial resistance” to bedaquiline is already emerging. “Therefore, if we are to protect key drugs from becoming functionally redundant, drug-susceptibility testing capacity will need to be rapidly improved to minimize resistance amplification and onward disease transmission.”

The study was funded by USAID and Janssen Research and Development. Dr. Goodall has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Dheda has received funding from the EU and the South African Medical Research Council for studies related to the diagnosis or management of drug-resistant tuberculosis. Dr. Lange is supported by the German Center for Infection Research and has received funding from the European Commission for studies on the development of novel antituberculosis medicines and for studies related to novel diagnostics of tuberculosis; consulting fees from INSMED; speaker’s fees from INSMED, GILEAD, and Janssen; and is a member of the data safety board of trials from Medicines sans Frontiers, all of which are unrelated to the current study.

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

Two short-course bedaquiline-containing treatment regimens for rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis showed “robust evidence” for superior efficacy and less ototoxicity compared to a 9-month injectable control regimen, researchers report.

The findings validate the World Health Organization’s current recommendation of a 9-month, bedaquiline-based oral regimen, “which was based only on observational data,” noted lead author Ruth Goodall, PhD, from the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at University College London, and colleagues.

The study was published in The Lancet.

The Standard Treatment Regimen of Anti-tuberculosis Drugs for Patients With MDR-TB (STREAM) stage 2 study was a randomized, phase 3, noninferiority trial conducted at 13 hospital clinics in seven countries that had prespecified tests for superiority if noninferiority was shown. The study enrolled individuals aged 15 years or older who had rifampicin-resistant TB without fluoroquinolone or aminoglycoside resistance.

The study’s first stage, STREAM stage 1, showed that a 9-month injectable regimen was noninferior to the WHO’s 2011 recommendation of a 20-month injectable regimen. The 9-month regimen was recommended by the WHO in 2016. That recommendation was superceded in 2020 when concerns of hearing loss associated with aminoglycosides prompted the WHO to endorse a 9-month bedaquiline-containing, injectable-free alternative, the authors write.
 

Seeking shorter treatment for better outcomes

STREAM stage 2 used a 9-month injectable regimen as its control. The investigators measured it against a fully oral 9-month bedaquiline-based treatment (primary comparison), as well as a 6-month oral bedaquiline regimen that included 8 weeks of a second-line injectable (secondary comparison).

The 9-month fully oral treatment included levofloxacin, clofazimine, ethambutol, and pyrazinamide for 40 weeks; bedaquiline, high-dose isoniazid, and prothionamide were given for the 16-week intensive phase.

The 6-month regimen included bedaquiline, clofazimine, pyrazinamide, and levofloxacin for 28 weeks, supplemented by high-dose isoniazid with kanamycin for an 8-week intensive phase.

For both comparisons, the primary outcome was favorable status at 76 weeks, defined as cultures that were negative for Mycobacterium tuberculosis without a preceding unfavorable outcome (defined as any death, bacteriologic failure or recurrence, or major treatment change).

Among 517 participants in the modified intention-to-treat population across the study groups, 62% were men, and 38% were women (median age, 32.5 years).

For the primary comparison, 71% of the control group and 83% of the oral regimen group had a favorable outcome.

In the secondary comparison, 69% had a favorable outcome in the control group, compared with 91% of those receiving the 6-month regimen.

Although the rate of grade 3 or 4 adverse events was similar in all three groups, there was significantly less ototoxicity among patients who received the oral regimen, compared with control patients (2% vs. 9%); 4% of those taking the 6-month regimen had hearing loss, compared with 8% of control patients.

Exploratory analyses comparing both bedaquiline-containing regimens revealed a significantly higher proportion of favorable outcomes among participants receiving the 6-month regimen (91%), compared with patients taking the fully oral 9-month regimen (79%). There were no significant differences in the rate of grade 3 or 4 adverse events.

The trial’s main limitation was its open-label design, which might have influenced decisions about treatment change, note the investigators.

“STREAM stage 2 has shown that two short-course, bedaquiline-containing regimens are not only non-inferior but superior to a 9-month injectable-containing regimen,” they conclude.

“The STREAM stage 2 fully oral regimen avoided the toxicity of aminoglycosides, and the 6-month regimen was highly effective, with reduced levels of ototoxicity. These two regimens offer promising treatment options for patients with MDR or rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis,” the authors write.

Dr. Goodall added, “Although both STREAM regimens were very effective, participants experienced relatively high levels of adverse events during the trial (though many of these were likely due to the close laboratory monitoring of the trial).

“While hearing loss was reduced on the 6-month regimen, it was not entirely eliminated,” she said. “Other new regimens in the field containing the medicine linezolid report side effects such as anemia and peripheral neuropathy. So more work needs to be done to ensure the treatment regimens are as safe and tolerable for patients as possible. In addition, even 6 months’ treatment is long for patients to tolerate, and further regimen shortening would be a welcome development for patients and health systems.”
 

‘A revolution in MDR tuberculosis’

“The authors must be commended on completing this challenging high-quality, phase 3, non-inferiority, randomized controlled trial involving 13 health care facilities across Ethiopia, Georgia, India, Moldova, Mongolia, South Africa, and Uganda ... despite the COVID-19 pandemic,” noted Keertan Dheda, MD, PhD, and Christoph Lange, MD, PhD, in an accompanying comment titled, “A Revolution in the Management of Multidrug-Resistant Tuberculosis”.

Although the WHO recently approved an all-oral 6-month bedaquiline, pretomanid, and linezolid plus moxifloxacin (BPaLM) regimen, results from the alternate 6-month regimen examined in STREAM stage 2 “do provide confidence in using 2 months of an injectable as part of a salvage regimen in patients for whom MDR tuberculosis treatment is not successful” or in those with extensively drug-resistant (XDR) or pre-XDR TB, “for whom therapeutic options are few,” noted Dr. Dheda, from the University of Cape Town (South Africa) and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and Dr. Lange, from the University of Lübeck (Germany), Baylor College of Medicine, and Texas Children’s Hospital, both in Houston.

The study authors and the commentators stress that safer and simpler treatments are still needed for MDR TB. “The search is now on for regimens that could further reduce duration, toxicity, and pill burden,” note Dr. Dheda and Dr. Lange.

However, they also note that “substantial resistance” to bedaquiline is already emerging. “Therefore, if we are to protect key drugs from becoming functionally redundant, drug-susceptibility testing capacity will need to be rapidly improved to minimize resistance amplification and onward disease transmission.”

The study was funded by USAID and Janssen Research and Development. Dr. Goodall has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Dheda has received funding from the EU and the South African Medical Research Council for studies related to the diagnosis or management of drug-resistant tuberculosis. Dr. Lange is supported by the German Center for Infection Research and has received funding from the European Commission for studies on the development of novel antituberculosis medicines and for studies related to novel diagnostics of tuberculosis; consulting fees from INSMED; speaker’s fees from INSMED, GILEAD, and Janssen; and is a member of the data safety board of trials from Medicines sans Frontiers, all of which are unrelated to the current study.

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