Rampant inflation doesn’t just mean a spike in everyday expenses like gas and groceries. It’s also bound to have a significant impact on the cost of health care – and on your practice. A recent report from McKinsey & Company predicts that the current inflationary spiral will force health care providers to charge higher reimbursement rates, and those costs inevitably will be passed along to both employers and consumers. Bottom line: Your patients will likely have to pay more out of pocket.

How, precisely, will inflation affect your practice, and what’s the best way to minimize the damage? Here are seven steps that you, as a physician, can take right now to make the ripple effects of inflation easier for all concerned.
 

Step 1: Maintain operational standards

“Based on the conversations we’ve had with our physician clients that own practices, we see the potential for cost inflation to outrun revenue inflation over the next year,” said Michael Ashley Schulman, CFA, partner and chief investment officer at Running Point Capital, El Segundo, Calif. “Staff wages, as well as office equipment and medical supply costs, are increasing faster than insurance and Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement amounts.” Even so, topflight employees are essential to keep your practice running smoothly. Prioritize excellent nursing. Instead of adding a new hire, compensate your best nurse as well as possible. The same goes for an efficient office manager: On that front, too, you should go the extra mile, even if it means trimming expenses elsewhere.

Step 2: Plan ahead for insurance challenges

Many insurers, including Medicare, set health care costs a year in advance, based on projected growth. This means insurance payouts will stay largely the same for the time being. “Almost all physicians employed by large groups won’t see costs due to inflation rise until next year,” said Mark V. Pauly, PhD, Bendheim Professor in the department of health care management at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “For self-employed physicians, there will also be a cushion.”

“The big issue with inflation is that more patients will likely be underinsured,” said Tiffany Johnson, MBA, CFP, co-CEO and financial advisor at Piece of Wealth Planning in Atlanta. “With more out-of-pocket costs ... these patients may not seek out medical treatment or go to see a specialist if they do not believe it is necessary.” A new study from Johns Hopkins found that patients under financial pressure often delay or forgo medical treatment because of food insecurity. Compassionate care is the solution: Direct these patients to financial aid and other resources they may qualify for. That way, they can continue to receive the care they need from you, and your need to pass on costs may be lower.
 

Step 3: Rely on your affiliated health care organization

These are tough times when it comes to expansion. “Since we are in an environment where inflation and interest rates are both high, it will be much harder for physicians to have the capital to invest in new technology to grow or advance their practice,” Ms. Johnson said. With that in mind, keep the lines of communication between you and your affiliated hospital/health care organization more open than ever. Combining practices with another doctor is one way to increase revenue; you might ask if any affiliated doctors are seeking to team up. It’s also vital to attend meetings and pay close attention to budget cuts your organization may be making. And don’t be shy about asking your administrator for profit-boosting recommendations.

Step 4: Revisit vendor relationships

Find out if your vendors will continue to supply you with the goods you need at reasonable rates, and switch now if they won’t. Be proactive. “Test new medical suppliers,” Mr. Schulman advised. “Reread equipment leasing contracts to check if the interest rates have increased. See if buyout, prepay, or refinancing options are more economical. Also, investigate [bringing down] your rental expense by reducing square footage or moving to a lower-cost location.” In light of ongoing supply chain issues, it’s wise to consider alternative products. But stay focused on quality – you don’t want to be stuck with cheap, possibly defective equipment. Spend where it’s essential and cut the fat somewhere else.

Step 5: Don’t waste your assets

Analyze your budget in minute detail. “Now is the time to review your current inventory and overhead costs,” Ms. Johnson said. “Many physicians let their office staff handle the restocking of inventory and office supplies. While this can be efficient for their practice, it also leaves room for unnecessary business expenses.” Take a cold, hard look at your supply closet – what’s in there that you can live without? Don’t reorder it. Then seek out any revenue stream you may be overlooking. “It’s important to review billing to make sure all the services are reimbursable,” Ms. Johnson added. Small mistakes can yield dividends if you find them.

Step 6: Be poised to pivot

Get creative. “To minimize a profit decline, use video consulting – it’s more efficient and less equipment intensive,” Mr. Schulman said. “Look at how remote work and flexible hours can maximize the work your practice accomplishes while cutting office costs.”

Ms. Johnson suggests adding concierge services, noting that “concierge doctors offer personalized care and direct access for an up-front fee.” With this approach, you may see fewer patients, but your payout paperwork will decrease, and that up-front fee can be profitable. Another outside-the-box idea: Start making house calls. A Scripps study found that home health visits requested via app can result in patient care delivered by a doctor and medical assistant in less than 2 hours. House calls can be an effective and profitable solution when it comes to providing nonemergency care and preventive treatment to patients who aren’t mobile, not to mention patients who just appreciate the convenience.
 

Step 7: Maintain transparency

Any economic changes your practice will implement must be communicated to your staff and patients clearly and directly. Keep everyone in the loop and be ready to answer questions immediately. Show those you work with and care for that, regardless of the economy, it’s they who matter to you most. That simple reassurance will prove invaluable.

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

Rampant inflation doesn’t just mean a spike in everyday expenses like gas and groceries. It’s also bound to have a significant impact on the cost of health care – and on your practice. A recent report from McKinsey & Company predicts that the current inflationary spiral will force health care providers to charge higher reimbursement rates, and those costs inevitably will be passed along to both employers and consumers. Bottom line: Your patients will likely have to pay more out of pocket.

How, precisely, will inflation affect your practice, and what’s the best way to minimize the damage? Here are seven steps that you, as a physician, can take right now to make the ripple effects of inflation easier for all concerned.
 

Step 1: Maintain operational standards

“Based on the conversations we’ve had with our physician clients that own practices, we see the potential for cost inflation to outrun revenue inflation over the next year,” said Michael Ashley Schulman, CFA, partner and chief investment officer at Running Point Capital, El Segundo, Calif. “Staff wages, as well as office equipment and medical supply costs, are increasing faster than insurance and Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement amounts.” Even so, topflight employees are essential to keep your practice running smoothly. Prioritize excellent nursing. Instead of adding a new hire, compensate your best nurse as well as possible. The same goes for an efficient office manager: On that front, too, you should go the extra mile, even if it means trimming expenses elsewhere.

Step 2: Plan ahead for insurance challenges

Many insurers, including Medicare, set health care costs a year in advance, based on projected growth. This means insurance payouts will stay largely the same for the time being. “Almost all physicians employed by large groups won’t see costs due to inflation rise until next year,” said Mark V. Pauly, PhD, Bendheim Professor in the department of health care management at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “For self-employed physicians, there will also be a cushion.”

“The big issue with inflation is that more patients will likely be underinsured,” said Tiffany Johnson, MBA, CFP, co-CEO and financial advisor at Piece of Wealth Planning in Atlanta. “With more out-of-pocket costs ... these patients may not seek out medical treatment or go to see a specialist if they do not believe it is necessary.” A new study from Johns Hopkins found that patients under financial pressure often delay or forgo medical treatment because of food insecurity. Compassionate care is the solution: Direct these patients to financial aid and other resources they may qualify for. That way, they can continue to receive the care they need from you, and your need to pass on costs may be lower.
 

Step 3: Rely on your affiliated health care organization

These are tough times when it comes to expansion. “Since we are in an environment where inflation and interest rates are both high, it will be much harder for physicians to have the capital to invest in new technology to grow or advance their practice,” Ms. Johnson said. With that in mind, keep the lines of communication between you and your affiliated hospital/health care organization more open than ever. Combining practices with another doctor is one way to increase revenue; you might ask if any affiliated doctors are seeking to team up. It’s also vital to attend meetings and pay close attention to budget cuts your organization may be making. And don’t be shy about asking your administrator for profit-boosting recommendations.

Step 4: Revisit vendor relationships

Find out if your vendors will continue to supply you with the goods you need at reasonable rates, and switch now if they won’t. Be proactive. “Test new medical suppliers,” Mr. Schulman advised. “Reread equipment leasing contracts to check if the interest rates have increased. See if buyout, prepay, or refinancing options are more economical. Also, investigate [bringing down] your rental expense by reducing square footage or moving to a lower-cost location.” In light of ongoing supply chain issues, it’s wise to consider alternative products. But stay focused on quality – you don’t want to be stuck with cheap, possibly defective equipment. Spend where it’s essential and cut the fat somewhere else.

Step 5: Don’t waste your assets

Analyze your budget in minute detail. “Now is the time to review your current inventory and overhead costs,” Ms. Johnson said. “Many physicians let their office staff handle the restocking of inventory and office supplies. While this can be efficient for their practice, it also leaves room for unnecessary business expenses.” Take a cold, hard look at your supply closet – what’s in there that you can live without? Don’t reorder it. Then seek out any revenue stream you may be overlooking. “It’s important to review billing to make sure all the services are reimbursable,” Ms. Johnson added. Small mistakes can yield dividends if you find them.

Step 6: Be poised to pivot

Get creative. “To minimize a profit decline, use video consulting – it’s more efficient and less equipment intensive,” Mr. Schulman said. “Look at how remote work and flexible hours can maximize the work your practice accomplishes while cutting office costs.”

Ms. Johnson suggests adding concierge services, noting that “concierge doctors offer personalized care and direct access for an up-front fee.” With this approach, you may see fewer patients, but your payout paperwork will decrease, and that up-front fee can be profitable. Another outside-the-box idea: Start making house calls. A Scripps study found that home health visits requested via app can result in patient care delivered by a doctor and medical assistant in less than 2 hours. House calls can be an effective and profitable solution when it comes to providing nonemergency care and preventive treatment to patients who aren’t mobile, not to mention patients who just appreciate the convenience.
 

Step 7: Maintain transparency

Any economic changes your practice will implement must be communicated to your staff and patients clearly and directly. Keep everyone in the loop and be ready to answer questions immediately. Show those you work with and care for that, regardless of the economy, it’s they who matter to you most. That simple reassurance will prove invaluable.

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

Rampant inflation doesn’t just mean a spike in everyday expenses like gas and groceries. It’s also bound to have a significant impact on the cost of health care – and on your practice. A recent report from McKinsey & Company predicts that the current inflationary spiral will force health care providers to charge higher reimbursement rates, and those costs inevitably will be passed along to both employers and consumers. Bottom line: Your patients will likely have to pay more out of pocket.

How, precisely, will inflation affect your practice, and what’s the best way to minimize the damage? Here are seven steps that you, as a physician, can take right now to make the ripple effects of inflation easier for all concerned.
 

Step 1: Maintain operational standards

“Based on the conversations we’ve had with our physician clients that own practices, we see the potential for cost inflation to outrun revenue inflation over the next year,” said Michael Ashley Schulman, CFA, partner and chief investment officer at Running Point Capital, El Segundo, Calif. “Staff wages, as well as office equipment and medical supply costs, are increasing faster than insurance and Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement amounts.” Even so, topflight employees are essential to keep your practice running smoothly. Prioritize excellent nursing. Instead of adding a new hire, compensate your best nurse as well as possible. The same goes for an efficient office manager: On that front, too, you should go the extra mile, even if it means trimming expenses elsewhere.

Step 2: Plan ahead for insurance challenges

Many insurers, including Medicare, set health care costs a year in advance, based on projected growth. This means insurance payouts will stay largely the same for the time being. “Almost all physicians employed by large groups won’t see costs due to inflation rise until next year,” said Mark V. Pauly, PhD, Bendheim Professor in the department of health care management at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “For self-employed physicians, there will also be a cushion.”

“The big issue with inflation is that more patients will likely be underinsured,” said Tiffany Johnson, MBA, CFP, co-CEO and financial advisor at Piece of Wealth Planning in Atlanta. “With more out-of-pocket costs ... these patients may not seek out medical treatment or go to see a specialist if they do not believe it is necessary.” A new study from Johns Hopkins found that patients under financial pressure often delay or forgo medical treatment because of food insecurity. Compassionate care is the solution: Direct these patients to financial aid and other resources they may qualify for. That way, they can continue to receive the care they need from you, and your need to pass on costs may be lower.
 

Step 3: Rely on your affiliated health care organization

These are tough times when it comes to expansion. “Since we are in an environment where inflation and interest rates are both high, it will be much harder for physicians to have the capital to invest in new technology to grow or advance their practice,” Ms. Johnson said. With that in mind, keep the lines of communication between you and your affiliated hospital/health care organization more open than ever. Combining practices with another doctor is one way to increase revenue; you might ask if any affiliated doctors are seeking to team up. It’s also vital to attend meetings and pay close attention to budget cuts your organization may be making. And don’t be shy about asking your administrator for profit-boosting recommendations.

Step 4: Revisit vendor relationships

Find out if your vendors will continue to supply you with the goods you need at reasonable rates, and switch now if they won’t. Be proactive. “Test new medical suppliers,” Mr. Schulman advised. “Reread equipment leasing contracts to check if the interest rates have increased. See if buyout, prepay, or refinancing options are more economical. Also, investigate [bringing down] your rental expense by reducing square footage or moving to a lower-cost location.” In light of ongoing supply chain issues, it’s wise to consider alternative products. But stay focused on quality – you don’t want to be stuck with cheap, possibly defective equipment. Spend where it’s essential and cut the fat somewhere else.

Step 5: Don’t waste your assets

Analyze your budget in minute detail. “Now is the time to review your current inventory and overhead costs,” Ms. Johnson said. “Many physicians let their office staff handle the restocking of inventory and office supplies. While this can be efficient for their practice, it also leaves room for unnecessary business expenses.” Take a cold, hard look at your supply closet – what’s in there that you can live without? Don’t reorder it. Then seek out any revenue stream you may be overlooking. “It’s important to review billing to make sure all the services are reimbursable,” Ms. Johnson added. Small mistakes can yield dividends if you find them.

Step 6: Be poised to pivot

Get creative. “To minimize a profit decline, use video consulting – it’s more efficient and less equipment intensive,” Mr. Schulman said. “Look at how remote work and flexible hours can maximize the work your practice accomplishes while cutting office costs.”

Ms. Johnson suggests adding concierge services, noting that “concierge doctors offer personalized care and direct access for an up-front fee.” With this approach, you may see fewer patients, but your payout paperwork will decrease, and that up-front fee can be profitable. Another outside-the-box idea: Start making house calls. A Scripps study found that home health visits requested via app can result in patient care delivered by a doctor and medical assistant in less than 2 hours. House calls can be an effective and profitable solution when it comes to providing nonemergency care and preventive treatment to patients who aren’t mobile, not to mention patients who just appreciate the convenience.
 

Step 7: Maintain transparency

Any economic changes your practice will implement must be communicated to your staff and patients clearly and directly. Keep everyone in the loop and be ready to answer questions immediately. Show those you work with and care for that, regardless of the economy, it’s they who matter to you most. That simple reassurance will prove invaluable.

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

Most interventions resulted in at least modest improvements in sleep

A randomized controlled trial (RCT) of 279 newborn infants and their mothers evaluated developmentally appropriate sleep interventions.¹ Mothers were given guidance on bedtime sleep routines, including starting the routine 30 to 45 minutes before bedtime, choosing age-appropriate calming bedtime activities, not using feeding as the last step before bedtime, and offering the child choices with their routine. Mothers were also given guidance on sleep location and behaviors, including recommendations on the best bedtime (between 7 and 8 pm), avoidance of a stimulating environment, and transition of the infant to their own room by age 3 months. To address nighttime awakenings, the researchers advised not waking the infant routinely to feed, allowing the infant some time to self-soothe after waking at night, and keeping nighttime interactions with the child boring.

These interventions were compared to a control group that received instructions on crib safety, sudden infant death syndrome prevention, and other sleep safety recommendations. Infant nocturnal sleep duration was determined by maternal report using the Brief Infant Sleep Questionnaire (BISQ). After 40 weeks, infants in the intervention group demonstrated longer sleep duration than did those in the control group (624.6 ± 67.6 minutes vs 602.9 ± 76.1 minutes; P = .01).¹

An RCT of 82 infants (ages 2-4 months) and their mothers evaluated the effect of behavioral sleep interventions on maternal and infant sleep.² Parents were offered either a 90-minute class and take-home booklet about behavioral sleep interventions or a 30-minute training on general infant safety with an accompanying pamphlet.

The behavioral interventions booklet included instructions on differentiating day and night routines for baby, avoiding digital devices and television in the evenings, playing more active games in the morning, dimming lights and reducing house noises in the afternoon, and having a consistent nighttime routine with consistent bedtime and sleep space. Participants completed an infant sleep diary prior to the intervention and repeated the sleep diary 8 weeks after the intervention. The infants whose mothers received the education on behavioral sleep interventions demonstrated an increase in nighttime sleep duration when compared to the control group (7.4 to 8.8 hours vs 7.3 to 7.5 hours; ANCOVA P < .001).

An RCT of 235 families with infants ages 6 to 8 months evaluated the effect of 45 minutes of nurse-provided education regarding normal infant sleep, effects of inadequate sleep, setting limits around infant sleep, importance of daytime routines, and negative sleep associations combined with a booklet and weekly phone follow-ups.³ This intervention was compared to routine infant education. At age 6 weeks, infants were monitored for 48 hours with actigraphy and the mothers completed a sleep diary to correlate activities. There was no difference in average nightly waking (2 nightly wakes; risk difference = –0.2%; 95% CI, –1.32 to 0.91).

The low cost and risk of these behavioral interventions to improve infants’ sleep make them worthwhile.

An RCT of 268 families with infants (ages 2-3 weeks) evaluated the effect of 45 minutes of nurse-provided education on behavioral sleep interventions including the cyclical nature of infant sleep, environmental factors that influence sleep, and parent-independent sleep cues (eg, leaving a settling infant alone for 5 minutes before responding) combined with written information.⁴ This was compared to infants receiving standard care without parental sleep intervention education. Participants recorded sleep diaries for 7 days when their infant reached age 6 weeks and again at age 12 weeks. At both 6 weeks and 12 weeks, there was a significant increase in infant nocturnal sleep time in the intervention group vs the control group (mean difference [MD] at 6 weeks = 0.5 hours; 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.69 vs MD at 12 weeks = 0.64 hours; 95% CI, 0.19 to 0.89).

A nonrandomized controlled trial with 84 mothers and infants (ages 0-6 months) evaluated the effectiveness of a multifaceted intervention involving brief focused negotiation by pediatricians, motivational counseling by a health educator, and group parenting workshops, compared to mother–infant pairs receiving standard care.⁵ Parents completed the BISQ at 0 and 6 months to assess nocturnal sleep duration. At 6 months, the intervention group had a significantly higher increase in infant nocturnal sleep duration compared to the control group (mean increase = 1.9 vs 1.3 hours; P = .05).

In a prospective cohort study involving 79 infants (ages 3-24 months) with parent- or pediatrician-reported day and night sleep problems, parents were given education on the promotion of nighttime sleep by gradually reducing contact with the infant over several nights and only leaving the room after the infant fell asleep or allowing the child to self-soothe for 1-3 minutes.⁶ The intervention was performed over 3 weeks, with in-person follow-up performed on Day 15 and phone follow-up on Days 8 and 21. Infants in this study demonstrated an increase in the average hours of total night sleep from 10.2 to 10.5 hours (P < .001).

Editor’s takeaway

Providing behavioral recommendations to parents about infant sleep routines improves sleep duration. This increased sleep duration, and the supporting evidence, is modest, but the low cost and risk of these interventions make them worthwhile.

Most interventions resulted in at least modest improvements in sleep

A randomized controlled trial (RCT) of 279 newborn infants and their mothers evaluated developmentally appropriate sleep interventions.¹ Mothers were given guidance on bedtime sleep routines, including starting the routine 30 to 45 minutes before bedtime, choosing age-appropriate calming bedtime activities, not using feeding as the last step before bedtime, and offering the child choices with their routine. Mothers were also given guidance on sleep location and behaviors, including recommendations on the best bedtime (between 7 and 8 pm), avoidance of a stimulating environment, and transition of the infant to their own room by age 3 months. To address nighttime awakenings, the researchers advised not waking the infant routinely to feed, allowing the infant some time to self-soothe after waking at night, and keeping nighttime interactions with the child boring.

These interventions were compared to a control group that received instructions on crib safety, sudden infant death syndrome prevention, and other sleep safety recommendations. Infant nocturnal sleep duration was determined by maternal report using the Brief Infant Sleep Questionnaire (BISQ). After 40 weeks, infants in the intervention group demonstrated longer sleep duration than did those in the control group (624.6 ± 67.6 minutes vs 602.9 ± 76.1 minutes; P = .01).¹

An RCT of 82 infants (ages 2-4 months) and their mothers evaluated the effect of behavioral sleep interventions on maternal and infant sleep.² Parents were offered either a 90-minute class and take-home booklet about behavioral sleep interventions or a 30-minute training on general infant safety with an accompanying pamphlet.

The behavioral interventions booklet included instructions on differentiating day and night routines for baby, avoiding digital devices and television in the evenings, playing more active games in the morning, dimming lights and reducing house noises in the afternoon, and having a consistent nighttime routine with consistent bedtime and sleep space. Participants completed an infant sleep diary prior to the intervention and repeated the sleep diary 8 weeks after the intervention. The infants whose mothers received the education on behavioral sleep interventions demonstrated an increase in nighttime sleep duration when compared to the control group (7.4 to 8.8 hours vs 7.3 to 7.5 hours; ANCOVA P < .001).

An RCT of 235 families with infants ages 6 to 8 months evaluated the effect of 45 minutes of nurse-provided education regarding normal infant sleep, effects of inadequate sleep, setting limits around infant sleep, importance of daytime routines, and negative sleep associations combined with a booklet and weekly phone follow-ups.³ This intervention was compared to routine infant education. At age 6 weeks, infants were monitored for 48 hours with actigraphy and the mothers completed a sleep diary to correlate activities. There was no difference in average nightly waking (2 nightly wakes; risk difference = –0.2%; 95% CI, –1.32 to 0.91).

The low cost and risk of these behavioral interventions to improve infants’ sleep make them worthwhile.

An RCT of 268 families with infants (ages 2-3 weeks) evaluated the effect of 45 minutes of nurse-provided education on behavioral sleep interventions including the cyclical nature of infant sleep, environmental factors that influence sleep, and parent-independent sleep cues (eg, leaving a settling infant alone for 5 minutes before responding) combined with written information.⁴ This was compared to infants receiving standard care without parental sleep intervention education. Participants recorded sleep diaries for 7 days when their infant reached age 6 weeks and again at age 12 weeks. At both 6 weeks and 12 weeks, there was a significant increase in infant nocturnal sleep time in the intervention group vs the control group (mean difference [MD] at 6 weeks = 0.5 hours; 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.69 vs MD at 12 weeks = 0.64 hours; 95% CI, 0.19 to 0.89).

A nonrandomized controlled trial with 84 mothers and infants (ages 0-6 months) evaluated the effectiveness of a multifaceted intervention involving brief focused negotiation by pediatricians, motivational counseling by a health educator, and group parenting workshops, compared to mother–infant pairs receiving standard care.⁵ Parents completed the BISQ at 0 and 6 months to assess nocturnal sleep duration. At 6 months, the intervention group had a significantly higher increase in infant nocturnal sleep duration compared to the control group (mean increase = 1.9 vs 1.3 hours; P = .05).

In a prospective cohort study involving 79 infants (ages 3-24 months) with parent- or pediatrician-reported day and night sleep problems, parents were given education on the promotion of nighttime sleep by gradually reducing contact with the infant over several nights and only leaving the room after the infant fell asleep or allowing the child to self-soothe for 1-3 minutes.⁶ The intervention was performed over 3 weeks, with in-person follow-up performed on Day 15 and phone follow-up on Days 8 and 21. Infants in this study demonstrated an increase in the average hours of total night sleep from 10.2 to 10.5 hours (P < .001).

Editor’s takeaway

Providing behavioral recommendations to parents about infant sleep routines improves sleep duration. This increased sleep duration, and the supporting evidence, is modest, but the low cost and risk of these interventions make them worthwhile.

Most interventions resulted in at least modest improvements in sleep

A randomized controlled trial (RCT) of 279 newborn infants and their mothers evaluated developmentally appropriate sleep interventions.¹ Mothers were given guidance on bedtime sleep routines, including starting the routine 30 to 45 minutes before bedtime, choosing age-appropriate calming bedtime activities, not using feeding as the last step before bedtime, and offering the child choices with their routine. Mothers were also given guidance on sleep location and behaviors, including recommendations on the best bedtime (between 7 and 8 pm), avoidance of a stimulating environment, and transition of the infant to their own room by age 3 months. To address nighttime awakenings, the researchers advised not waking the infant routinely to feed, allowing the infant some time to self-soothe after waking at night, and keeping nighttime interactions with the child boring.

These interventions were compared to a control group that received instructions on crib safety, sudden infant death syndrome prevention, and other sleep safety recommendations. Infant nocturnal sleep duration was determined by maternal report using the Brief Infant Sleep Questionnaire (BISQ). After 40 weeks, infants in the intervention group demonstrated longer sleep duration than did those in the control group (624.6 ± 67.6 minutes vs 602.9 ± 76.1 minutes; P = .01).¹

An RCT of 82 infants (ages 2-4 months) and their mothers evaluated the effect of behavioral sleep interventions on maternal and infant sleep.² Parents were offered either a 90-minute class and take-home booklet about behavioral sleep interventions or a 30-minute training on general infant safety with an accompanying pamphlet.

The behavioral interventions booklet included instructions on differentiating day and night routines for baby, avoiding digital devices and television in the evenings, playing more active games in the morning, dimming lights and reducing house noises in the afternoon, and having a consistent nighttime routine with consistent bedtime and sleep space. Participants completed an infant sleep diary prior to the intervention and repeated the sleep diary 8 weeks after the intervention. The infants whose mothers received the education on behavioral sleep interventions demonstrated an increase in nighttime sleep duration when compared to the control group (7.4 to 8.8 hours vs 7.3 to 7.5 hours; ANCOVA P < .001).

An RCT of 235 families with infants ages 6 to 8 months evaluated the effect of 45 minutes of nurse-provided education regarding normal infant sleep, effects of inadequate sleep, setting limits around infant sleep, importance of daytime routines, and negative sleep associations combined with a booklet and weekly phone follow-ups.³ This intervention was compared to routine infant education. At age 6 weeks, infants were monitored for 48 hours with actigraphy and the mothers completed a sleep diary to correlate activities. There was no difference in average nightly waking (2 nightly wakes; risk difference = –0.2%; 95% CI, –1.32 to 0.91).

The low cost and risk of these behavioral interventions to improve infants’ sleep make them worthwhile.

An RCT of 268 families with infants (ages 2-3 weeks) evaluated the effect of 45 minutes of nurse-provided education on behavioral sleep interventions including the cyclical nature of infant sleep, environmental factors that influence sleep, and parent-independent sleep cues (eg, leaving a settling infant alone for 5 minutes before responding) combined with written information.⁴ This was compared to infants receiving standard care without parental sleep intervention education. Participants recorded sleep diaries for 7 days when their infant reached age 6 weeks and again at age 12 weeks. At both 6 weeks and 12 weeks, there was a significant increase in infant nocturnal sleep time in the intervention group vs the control group (mean difference [MD] at 6 weeks = 0.5 hours; 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.69 vs MD at 12 weeks = 0.64 hours; 95% CI, 0.19 to 0.89).

A nonrandomized controlled trial with 84 mothers and infants (ages 0-6 months) evaluated the effectiveness of a multifaceted intervention involving brief focused negotiation by pediatricians, motivational counseling by a health educator, and group parenting workshops, compared to mother–infant pairs receiving standard care.⁵ Parents completed the BISQ at 0 and 6 months to assess nocturnal sleep duration. At 6 months, the intervention group had a significantly higher increase in infant nocturnal sleep duration compared to the control group (mean increase = 1.9 vs 1.3 hours; P = .05).

In a prospective cohort study involving 79 infants (ages 3-24 months) with parent- or pediatrician-reported day and night sleep problems, parents were given education on the promotion of nighttime sleep by gradually reducing contact with the infant over several nights and only leaving the room after the infant fell asleep or allowing the child to self-soothe for 1-3 minutes.⁶ The intervention was performed over 3 weeks, with in-person follow-up performed on Day 15 and phone follow-up on Days 8 and 21. Infants in this study demonstrated an increase in the average hours of total night sleep from 10.2 to 10.5 hours (P < .001).

Editor’s takeaway

Providing behavioral recommendations to parents about infant sleep routines improves sleep duration. This increased sleep duration, and the supporting evidence, is modest, but the low cost and risk of these interventions make them worthwhile.

Evidence summary

Depression symptoms improved with any of 4 antipsychotics

A 2021 systematic review of 16 RCTs (N = 3649) assessed data from trials that used an atypical antipsychotic—either aripiprazole, quetiapine, olanzapine, or risperidone—as augmentation therapy to an antidepressant vs placebo.¹ Study participants included adults ages 18 to 65 who experienced an episode of depression and did not respond adequately to at least 1 optimally dosed antidepressant. In most studies, ­treatment-resistant depression (TRD) was defined as the failure of at least 1 major class of antidepressants. Trial lengths ranged from 4 to 12 weeks.

Six RCTs evaluated the effectiveness of augmentation with aripiprazole (2-20 mg/d) in patients with unipolar depression, with 5 trials demonstrating greater improvement in clinical symptoms with aripiprazole compared to placebo. Augmentation with quetiapine (150-300 mg/d) was evaluated in 5 trials, with all trials showing improvement in depression symptoms; however, in 1 trial the difference in remission rates was not significant, and in another trial significant improvement was seen only at a quetia-pine dose of 300 mg/d. Two trials examining olanzapine found that patients receiving fluoxetine plus olanzapine augmentation demonstrated greater improvement in depression symptoms than did those receiving either agent alone. Three trials examined augmentation with risperidone (0.5-3 mg/d); in all 3, risperidone demonstrated significant improvement in depression symptoms and remission rates compared to placebo.¹

This systematic review was limited by small sample size and heterogeneity of antipsychotic dosages in the RCTs included, as well as the lack of a standardized and globally accepted definition of TRD.

Augmentation reduced symptom severity, but dropout rates were high

A 2019 Cochrane review of 10 RCTs (N = 2731) compared 5 strategies, including augmenting treatment with an antipsychotic vs continuing antidepressant monotherapy.² Participants were adults ages 18 to 74 with unipolar depression who had not responded to a minimum of 4 weeks of antidepressant treatment at a recommended dose. The primary outcome was depressive symptom severity, as measured by the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS; range of 0-60) or the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D; range, 0-52).

Compared with continued antidepressant monotherapy, symptom severity was reduced when current treatment was augmented with cariprazine 1-4.5 mg/d (1 trial; N = 808; mean difference [MD] on MADRS = –1.5; 95% CI, –2.7 to –0.25; high-quality evidence); quetiapine 150-300 mg/d (3 trials; N = 977; standardized MD = –0.32; 95% CI, –0.46 to –0.18; high-quality evidence); ziprasidone 40-160 mg/d (2 trials; N = 199; MD on HAM-D = –2.7; 95% CI, –4.5 to –0.93; ­moderate-quality evidence); or olanzapine 5-20 mg/d (1 trial; N = 20; MD on MADRS = –12; 95% CI, –22 to –2.4; low-quality evidence). One trial did not show a significant difference on the HAM-D for olanzapine (1 trial; N = 20; MD = –7.9; 95% CI, –17 to 0.96; low-quality evidence).²

Dropout rates, which were most commonly secondary to adverse effects, ranged from 10% to 39% in the groups augmented with an antipsychotic and from 12% to 23% in the comparison groups.² This systematic review was limited by the small number of studies included in the various comparisons.

Antipsychotic augmentation was effective but came with adverse effects

A 2017 RCT (N = 1522) examined the effectiveness of augmenting an antidepressant with aripiprazole in patients with TRD.³ Participants were adults (mean age, 54.4 years; 85% men) at 35 US Veterans Health Administration (VA) medical centers who had a diagnosis of nonpsychotic major depressive disorder that was unresponsive to at least 1 antidepressant course meeting minimal standards for treatment dose and duration.

Continue to: Patients were randomly...

Patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 different treatment groups, which included switching to a different antidepressant (bupropion sustained release 150-500 mg/d); augmenting current treatment with bupropion; or augmenting with an atypical antipsychotic (aripiprazole 2-15 mg/d) for 12 to 36 weeks. The primary outcome was remission rate at 12 weeks, which was defined as a score ≤ 5 on the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology–Clinician Rated (QIDS-C; range, 0-27) at 2 consecutive visits. The secondary outcome, symptom response to treatment, was defined as ≥ 50% reduction on QIDS-C score.

Adjunctive antipsychotic medications more effectively treat resistant depression than increasing antidepressant dosage, switching to a different antidepressant, or adding another antidepressant.

The augment-aripiprazole group (N = 146) exceeded the switch group (N = 114) in remission rate (absolute remission rates = 28.9% vs 22.3%; relative risk [RR] = 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1-1.6; number needed to treat [NNT] = 15), but had similar remission rates to the augment-bupropion group (N = 136; absolute remission rate = 26.9%; RR = 1.1; 95% CI, 0.88-1.3). Symptom response in the augment-aripiprazole group (74.3%) was higher than in either the switch group (62.4%; RR = 1.19; 95% CI, 1.09-1.29; NNT = 8) or the augment-bupropion group (65.6%; RR = 1.13; 95% CI, 1.0-1.2; NNT = 11). There was no difference noted in response rate between the switch group and the augment-bupropion group (RR = 1.05; 95% CI, 0.96-1.15).³

The adverse events that occurred more often in the augment-aripiprazole group than in the other groups included weight gain ≥ 7% (25% at 36 weeks) and extrapyramidal symptoms (19%).³ Limitations of the study included the evaluation of only 1 antipsychotic and 1 antidepressant, the dropout rate (only 75% of patients completed the 12-week follow-up), and the homogeneity of the patient population (older, male, veterans), all of which may limit the effect size.

Editor’s takeaway

Multiple trials show that adjunctive antipsychotic medications such as aripiprazole and quetiapine more effectively treat resistant depression than adding a placebo, increasing antidepressant dosage, switching to a different antidepressant, or adding another antidepressant. However, while primary care physicians should be comfortable with this option, the magnitude of difference between these options was modest, and adverse effects were common. All options can still be reasonably considered.

Evidence summary

Depression symptoms improved with any of 4 antipsychotics

A 2021 systematic review of 16 RCTs (N = 3649) assessed data from trials that used an atypical antipsychotic—either aripiprazole, quetiapine, olanzapine, or risperidone—as augmentation therapy to an antidepressant vs placebo.¹ Study participants included adults ages 18 to 65 who experienced an episode of depression and did not respond adequately to at least 1 optimally dosed antidepressant. In most studies, ­treatment-resistant depression (TRD) was defined as the failure of at least 1 major class of antidepressants. Trial lengths ranged from 4 to 12 weeks.

Six RCTs evaluated the effectiveness of augmentation with aripiprazole (2-20 mg/d) in patients with unipolar depression, with 5 trials demonstrating greater improvement in clinical symptoms with aripiprazole compared to placebo. Augmentation with quetiapine (150-300 mg/d) was evaluated in 5 trials, with all trials showing improvement in depression symptoms; however, in 1 trial the difference in remission rates was not significant, and in another trial significant improvement was seen only at a quetia-pine dose of 300 mg/d. Two trials examining olanzapine found that patients receiving fluoxetine plus olanzapine augmentation demonstrated greater improvement in depression symptoms than did those receiving either agent alone. Three trials examined augmentation with risperidone (0.5-3 mg/d); in all 3, risperidone demonstrated significant improvement in depression symptoms and remission rates compared to placebo.¹

This systematic review was limited by small sample size and heterogeneity of antipsychotic dosages in the RCTs included, as well as the lack of a standardized and globally accepted definition of TRD.

Augmentation reduced symptom severity, but dropout rates were high

A 2019 Cochrane review of 10 RCTs (N = 2731) compared 5 strategies, including augmenting treatment with an antipsychotic vs continuing antidepressant monotherapy.² Participants were adults ages 18 to 74 with unipolar depression who had not responded to a minimum of 4 weeks of antidepressant treatment at a recommended dose. The primary outcome was depressive symptom severity, as measured by the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS; range of 0-60) or the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D; range, 0-52).

Compared with continued antidepressant monotherapy, symptom severity was reduced when current treatment was augmented with cariprazine 1-4.5 mg/d (1 trial; N = 808; mean difference [MD] on MADRS = –1.5; 95% CI, –2.7 to –0.25; high-quality evidence); quetiapine 150-300 mg/d (3 trials; N = 977; standardized MD = –0.32; 95% CI, –0.46 to –0.18; high-quality evidence); ziprasidone 40-160 mg/d (2 trials; N = 199; MD on HAM-D = –2.7; 95% CI, –4.5 to –0.93; ­moderate-quality evidence); or olanzapine 5-20 mg/d (1 trial; N = 20; MD on MADRS = –12; 95% CI, –22 to –2.4; low-quality evidence). One trial did not show a significant difference on the HAM-D for olanzapine (1 trial; N = 20; MD = –7.9; 95% CI, –17 to 0.96; low-quality evidence).²

Dropout rates, which were most commonly secondary to adverse effects, ranged from 10% to 39% in the groups augmented with an antipsychotic and from 12% to 23% in the comparison groups.² This systematic review was limited by the small number of studies included in the various comparisons.

Antipsychotic augmentation was effective but came with adverse effects

A 2017 RCT (N = 1522) examined the effectiveness of augmenting an antidepressant with aripiprazole in patients with TRD.³ Participants were adults (mean age, 54.4 years; 85% men) at 35 US Veterans Health Administration (VA) medical centers who had a diagnosis of nonpsychotic major depressive disorder that was unresponsive to at least 1 antidepressant course meeting minimal standards for treatment dose and duration.

Continue to: Patients were randomly...

Patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 different treatment groups, which included switching to a different antidepressant (bupropion sustained release 150-500 mg/d); augmenting current treatment with bupropion; or augmenting with an atypical antipsychotic (aripiprazole 2-15 mg/d) for 12 to 36 weeks. The primary outcome was remission rate at 12 weeks, which was defined as a score ≤ 5 on the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology–Clinician Rated (QIDS-C; range, 0-27) at 2 consecutive visits. The secondary outcome, symptom response to treatment, was defined as ≥ 50% reduction on QIDS-C score.

Adjunctive antipsychotic medications more effectively treat resistant depression than increasing antidepressant dosage, switching to a different antidepressant, or adding another antidepressant.

The augment-aripiprazole group (N = 146) exceeded the switch group (N = 114) in remission rate (absolute remission rates = 28.9% vs 22.3%; relative risk [RR] = 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1-1.6; number needed to treat [NNT] = 15), but had similar remission rates to the augment-bupropion group (N = 136; absolute remission rate = 26.9%; RR = 1.1; 95% CI, 0.88-1.3). Symptom response in the augment-aripiprazole group (74.3%) was higher than in either the switch group (62.4%; RR = 1.19; 95% CI, 1.09-1.29; NNT = 8) or the augment-bupropion group (65.6%; RR = 1.13; 95% CI, 1.0-1.2; NNT = 11). There was no difference noted in response rate between the switch group and the augment-bupropion group (RR = 1.05; 95% CI, 0.96-1.15).³

The adverse events that occurred more often in the augment-aripiprazole group than in the other groups included weight gain ≥ 7% (25% at 36 weeks) and extrapyramidal symptoms (19%).³ Limitations of the study included the evaluation of only 1 antipsychotic and 1 antidepressant, the dropout rate (only 75% of patients completed the 12-week follow-up), and the homogeneity of the patient population (older, male, veterans), all of which may limit the effect size.

Editor’s takeaway

Multiple trials show that adjunctive antipsychotic medications such as aripiprazole and quetiapine more effectively treat resistant depression than adding a placebo, increasing antidepressant dosage, switching to a different antidepressant, or adding another antidepressant. However, while primary care physicians should be comfortable with this option, the magnitude of difference between these options was modest, and adverse effects were common. All options can still be reasonably considered.

Evidence summary

Depression symptoms improved with any of 4 antipsychotics

A 2021 systematic review of 16 RCTs (N = 3649) assessed data from trials that used an atypical antipsychotic—either aripiprazole, quetiapine, olanzapine, or risperidone—as augmentation therapy to an antidepressant vs placebo.¹ Study participants included adults ages 18 to 65 who experienced an episode of depression and did not respond adequately to at least 1 optimally dosed antidepressant. In most studies, ­treatment-resistant depression (TRD) was defined as the failure of at least 1 major class of antidepressants. Trial lengths ranged from 4 to 12 weeks.

Six RCTs evaluated the effectiveness of augmentation with aripiprazole (2-20 mg/d) in patients with unipolar depression, with 5 trials demonstrating greater improvement in clinical symptoms with aripiprazole compared to placebo. Augmentation with quetiapine (150-300 mg/d) was evaluated in 5 trials, with all trials showing improvement in depression symptoms; however, in 1 trial the difference in remission rates was not significant, and in another trial significant improvement was seen only at a quetia-pine dose of 300 mg/d. Two trials examining olanzapine found that patients receiving fluoxetine plus olanzapine augmentation demonstrated greater improvement in depression symptoms than did those receiving either agent alone. Three trials examined augmentation with risperidone (0.5-3 mg/d); in all 3, risperidone demonstrated significant improvement in depression symptoms and remission rates compared to placebo.¹

This systematic review was limited by small sample size and heterogeneity of antipsychotic dosages in the RCTs included, as well as the lack of a standardized and globally accepted definition of TRD.

Augmentation reduced symptom severity, but dropout rates were high

A 2019 Cochrane review of 10 RCTs (N = 2731) compared 5 strategies, including augmenting treatment with an antipsychotic vs continuing antidepressant monotherapy.² Participants were adults ages 18 to 74 with unipolar depression who had not responded to a minimum of 4 weeks of antidepressant treatment at a recommended dose. The primary outcome was depressive symptom severity, as measured by the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS; range of 0-60) or the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D; range, 0-52).

Compared with continued antidepressant monotherapy, symptom severity was reduced when current treatment was augmented with cariprazine 1-4.5 mg/d (1 trial; N = 808; mean difference [MD] on MADRS = –1.5; 95% CI, –2.7 to –0.25; high-quality evidence); quetiapine 150-300 mg/d (3 trials; N = 977; standardized MD = –0.32; 95% CI, –0.46 to –0.18; high-quality evidence); ziprasidone 40-160 mg/d (2 trials; N = 199; MD on HAM-D = –2.7; 95% CI, –4.5 to –0.93; ­moderate-quality evidence); or olanzapine 5-20 mg/d (1 trial; N = 20; MD on MADRS = –12; 95% CI, –22 to –2.4; low-quality evidence). One trial did not show a significant difference on the HAM-D for olanzapine (1 trial; N = 20; MD = –7.9; 95% CI, –17 to 0.96; low-quality evidence).²

Dropout rates, which were most commonly secondary to adverse effects, ranged from 10% to 39% in the groups augmented with an antipsychotic and from 12% to 23% in the comparison groups.² This systematic review was limited by the small number of studies included in the various comparisons.

Antipsychotic augmentation was effective but came with adverse effects

A 2017 RCT (N = 1522) examined the effectiveness of augmenting an antidepressant with aripiprazole in patients with TRD.³ Participants were adults (mean age, 54.4 years; 85% men) at 35 US Veterans Health Administration (VA) medical centers who had a diagnosis of nonpsychotic major depressive disorder that was unresponsive to at least 1 antidepressant course meeting minimal standards for treatment dose and duration.

Continue to: Patients were randomly...

Patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 different treatment groups, which included switching to a different antidepressant (bupropion sustained release 150-500 mg/d); augmenting current treatment with bupropion; or augmenting with an atypical antipsychotic (aripiprazole 2-15 mg/d) for 12 to 36 weeks. The primary outcome was remission rate at 12 weeks, which was defined as a score ≤ 5 on the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology–Clinician Rated (QIDS-C; range, 0-27) at 2 consecutive visits. The secondary outcome, symptom response to treatment, was defined as ≥ 50% reduction on QIDS-C score.

Adjunctive antipsychotic medications more effectively treat resistant depression than increasing antidepressant dosage, switching to a different antidepressant, or adding another antidepressant.

The augment-aripiprazole group (N = 146) exceeded the switch group (N = 114) in remission rate (absolute remission rates = 28.9% vs 22.3%; relative risk [RR] = 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1-1.6; number needed to treat [NNT] = 15), but had similar remission rates to the augment-bupropion group (N = 136; absolute remission rate = 26.9%; RR = 1.1; 95% CI, 0.88-1.3). Symptom response in the augment-aripiprazole group (74.3%) was higher than in either the switch group (62.4%; RR = 1.19; 95% CI, 1.09-1.29; NNT = 8) or the augment-bupropion group (65.6%; RR = 1.13; 95% CI, 1.0-1.2; NNT = 11). There was no difference noted in response rate between the switch group and the augment-bupropion group (RR = 1.05; 95% CI, 0.96-1.15).³

The adverse events that occurred more often in the augment-aripiprazole group than in the other groups included weight gain ≥ 7% (25% at 36 weeks) and extrapyramidal symptoms (19%).³ Limitations of the study included the evaluation of only 1 antipsychotic and 1 antidepressant, the dropout rate (only 75% of patients completed the 12-week follow-up), and the homogeneity of the patient population (older, male, veterans), all of which may limit the effect size.

Editor’s takeaway

Multiple trials show that adjunctive antipsychotic medications such as aripiprazole and quetiapine more effectively treat resistant depression than adding a placebo, increasing antidepressant dosage, switching to a different antidepressant, or adding another antidepressant. However, while primary care physicians should be comfortable with this option, the magnitude of difference between these options was modest, and adverse effects were common. All options can still be reasonably considered.

The picture around the BA.4 and BA.5 subvariants of Omicron has been really confusing in that the pair is driving up cases but global COVID-19 deaths remain at their lowest level since the beginning of the pandemic. I wanted to explain what is happening with these subvariants, in that the picture seems to be one of antibody evasion without the dodging of cellular immunity. Explaining the two components of the immune response – antibodies versus cellular immune responses – can help us understand where we are in the pandemic and future booster options.

These two subvariants of Omicron, as of July 5, make up more than half of the COVID-19 strains in the United States and are expected to keep increasing. One of two reasons can lead to a variant or subvariant becoming dominant strain: increased transmissibility or evasion of antibodies.

Although BA.4 and BA.5 could be more transmissible than other subvariants of Omicron (which is already very transmissible), this has not yet been established in experiments showing increased affinity for the human receptor or in animal models. What we do know is that BA.4 and BA.5 seem to evade neutralizing antibodies conferred by the vaccines or even prior BA.1 infection (an earlier subvariant of Omicron), which could be the reason we are seeing so many reinfections now. Of note, BA.1 infection conferred antibodies that protected against subsequent BA.2 infection, so we did not see the same spike in cases in the United States with BA.2 (after a large BA.1 spike over the winter) earlier this spring.

Okay, so isn’t evasion of antibodies a bad thing? Of course it is but, luckily, our immune system is “redundant” and doesn›t just rely on antibodies to protect us from infection. In fact, antibodies (such as IgA, which is the mucosal antibody most prevalent in the nose and mouth, and IgG, which is the most prevalent antibody in the bloodstream) are our first line of COVID-19 defense in the nasal mucosa. Therefore, mild upper respiratory infections will be common as BA.4/BA.5 evade our nasal antibodies. Luckily, the rate of severe disease is remaining low throughout the world, probably because of the high amounts of cellular immunity to the virus. B and T cells are our protectors from severe disease.

For instance, two-dose vaccines are still conferring high rates of protection from severe disease with the BA.4 and BA.5 variants, with 87% protection against hospitalization per South Africa data. This is probably attributable to the fact that T-cell immunity from the vaccines remains protective across variants “from Alpha to Omicron,” as described by a recent and elegant paper.

Data from Qatar show that natural infection (even occurring up to 14 months ago) remains very protective (97.3%) against severe disease with the current circulating subvariants, including BA.4 and BA.5. Again, this is probably attributable to T cells which specifically amplify in response to a piece of the virus and help recruit cells to attack the pathogen directly.

The original BA.1 subvariant of Omicron has 26-32 mutations along its spike protein that differ from the “ancestral strain,” and BA.4 and BA.5 variants have a few more. Our T-cell response, even across a mutated spike protein, is so robust that we have not seen Omicron yet able to evade the many T cells (which we produce from the vaccines or infection) that descend upon the mutated virus to fight severe disease. Antibody-producing memory B cells, generated by the vaccines (or prior infection), have been shown to actually adapt their immune response to the variant to which they are exposed.

Therefore, the story of the BA.4 and BA.5 subvariants seems to remain about antibodies vs. cellular immunity. Our immunity in the United States is growing and is from both vaccination and natural infection, with 78.3% of the population having had at least one dose of the vaccine and at least 60% of adults (and 75% of children 0-18) having been exposed to the virus by February 2022, per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (with exposure probably much higher now in July 2022 after subsequent Omicron subvariants waves).

So, what about Omicron-specific boosters? A booster shot will just raise antibodies temporarily, but their effectiveness wanes several months later. Moreover, a booster shot against the ancestral strain is not very effective in neutralizing BA.4 and BA.5 (with a prior BA.1 Omicron infection being more effective than a booster). Luckily, Pfizer has promised a BA.4/BA.5-specific mRNA vaccine by October, and Moderna has promised a bivalent vaccine containing BA.4/BA.5 mRNA sequences around the same time. A vaccine that specifically increases antibodies against the most prevalent circulating strain should be important as a booster for those who are predisposed to severe breakthrough infections (for example, those with immunocompromise or older individuals with multiple comorbidities). Moreover, BA.4/BA.5–specific booster vaccines may help prevent mild infections for many individuals. Finally, any booster (or exposure) should diversify and broaden T-cell responses to the virus, and a booster shot will also expand the potency of B cells, making them better able to respond to the newest subvariants as we continue to live with COVID-19.
 

Monica Gandhi, MD, MPH, is an infectious diseases doctor, professor of medicine, and associate chief in the division of HIV, infectious diseases, and global medicine at the University of California, San Francisco.

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

The picture around the BA.4 and BA.5 subvariants of Omicron has been really confusing in that the pair is driving up cases but global COVID-19 deaths remain at their lowest level since the beginning of the pandemic. I wanted to explain what is happening with these subvariants, in that the picture seems to be one of antibody evasion without the dodging of cellular immunity. Explaining the two components of the immune response – antibodies versus cellular immune responses – can help us understand where we are in the pandemic and future booster options.

These two subvariants of Omicron, as of July 5, make up more than half of the COVID-19 strains in the United States and are expected to keep increasing. One of two reasons can lead to a variant or subvariant becoming dominant strain: increased transmissibility or evasion of antibodies.

Although BA.4 and BA.5 could be more transmissible than other subvariants of Omicron (which is already very transmissible), this has not yet been established in experiments showing increased affinity for the human receptor or in animal models. What we do know is that BA.4 and BA.5 seem to evade neutralizing antibodies conferred by the vaccines or even prior BA.1 infection (an earlier subvariant of Omicron), which could be the reason we are seeing so many reinfections now. Of note, BA.1 infection conferred antibodies that protected against subsequent BA.2 infection, so we did not see the same spike in cases in the United States with BA.2 (after a large BA.1 spike over the winter) earlier this spring.

Okay, so isn’t evasion of antibodies a bad thing? Of course it is but, luckily, our immune system is “redundant” and doesn›t just rely on antibodies to protect us from infection. In fact, antibodies (such as IgA, which is the mucosal antibody most prevalent in the nose and mouth, and IgG, which is the most prevalent antibody in the bloodstream) are our first line of COVID-19 defense in the nasal mucosa. Therefore, mild upper respiratory infections will be common as BA.4/BA.5 evade our nasal antibodies. Luckily, the rate of severe disease is remaining low throughout the world, probably because of the high amounts of cellular immunity to the virus. B and T cells are our protectors from severe disease.

For instance, two-dose vaccines are still conferring high rates of protection from severe disease with the BA.4 and BA.5 variants, with 87% protection against hospitalization per South Africa data. This is probably attributable to the fact that T-cell immunity from the vaccines remains protective across variants “from Alpha to Omicron,” as described by a recent and elegant paper.

Data from Qatar show that natural infection (even occurring up to 14 months ago) remains very protective (97.3%) against severe disease with the current circulating subvariants, including BA.4 and BA.5. Again, this is probably attributable to T cells which specifically amplify in response to a piece of the virus and help recruit cells to attack the pathogen directly.

The original BA.1 subvariant of Omicron has 26-32 mutations along its spike protein that differ from the “ancestral strain,” and BA.4 and BA.5 variants have a few more. Our T-cell response, even across a mutated spike protein, is so robust that we have not seen Omicron yet able to evade the many T cells (which we produce from the vaccines or infection) that descend upon the mutated virus to fight severe disease. Antibody-producing memory B cells, generated by the vaccines (or prior infection), have been shown to actually adapt their immune response to the variant to which they are exposed.

Therefore, the story of the BA.4 and BA.5 subvariants seems to remain about antibodies vs. cellular immunity. Our immunity in the United States is growing and is from both vaccination and natural infection, with 78.3% of the population having had at least one dose of the vaccine and at least 60% of adults (and 75% of children 0-18) having been exposed to the virus by February 2022, per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (with exposure probably much higher now in July 2022 after subsequent Omicron subvariants waves).

So, what about Omicron-specific boosters? A booster shot will just raise antibodies temporarily, but their effectiveness wanes several months later. Moreover, a booster shot against the ancestral strain is not very effective in neutralizing BA.4 and BA.5 (with a prior BA.1 Omicron infection being more effective than a booster). Luckily, Pfizer has promised a BA.4/BA.5-specific mRNA vaccine by October, and Moderna has promised a bivalent vaccine containing BA.4/BA.5 mRNA sequences around the same time. A vaccine that specifically increases antibodies against the most prevalent circulating strain should be important as a booster for those who are predisposed to severe breakthrough infections (for example, those with immunocompromise or older individuals with multiple comorbidities). Moreover, BA.4/BA.5–specific booster vaccines may help prevent mild infections for many individuals. Finally, any booster (or exposure) should diversify and broaden T-cell responses to the virus, and a booster shot will also expand the potency of B cells, making them better able to respond to the newest subvariants as we continue to live with COVID-19.
 

Monica Gandhi, MD, MPH, is an infectious diseases doctor, professor of medicine, and associate chief in the division of HIV, infectious diseases, and global medicine at the University of California, San Francisco.

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

The picture around the BA.4 and BA.5 subvariants of Omicron has been really confusing in that the pair is driving up cases but global COVID-19 deaths remain at their lowest level since the beginning of the pandemic. I wanted to explain what is happening with these subvariants, in that the picture seems to be one of antibody evasion without the dodging of cellular immunity. Explaining the two components of the immune response – antibodies versus cellular immune responses – can help us understand where we are in the pandemic and future booster options.

These two subvariants of Omicron, as of July 5, make up more than half of the COVID-19 strains in the United States and are expected to keep increasing. One of two reasons can lead to a variant or subvariant becoming dominant strain: increased transmissibility or evasion of antibodies.

Although BA.4 and BA.5 could be more transmissible than other subvariants of Omicron (which is already very transmissible), this has not yet been established in experiments showing increased affinity for the human receptor or in animal models. What we do know is that BA.4 and BA.5 seem to evade neutralizing antibodies conferred by the vaccines or even prior BA.1 infection (an earlier subvariant of Omicron), which could be the reason we are seeing so many reinfections now. Of note, BA.1 infection conferred antibodies that protected against subsequent BA.2 infection, so we did not see the same spike in cases in the United States with BA.2 (after a large BA.1 spike over the winter) earlier this spring.

Okay, so isn’t evasion of antibodies a bad thing? Of course it is but, luckily, our immune system is “redundant” and doesn›t just rely on antibodies to protect us from infection. In fact, antibodies (such as IgA, which is the mucosal antibody most prevalent in the nose and mouth, and IgG, which is the most prevalent antibody in the bloodstream) are our first line of COVID-19 defense in the nasal mucosa. Therefore, mild upper respiratory infections will be common as BA.4/BA.5 evade our nasal antibodies. Luckily, the rate of severe disease is remaining low throughout the world, probably because of the high amounts of cellular immunity to the virus. B and T cells are our protectors from severe disease.

For instance, two-dose vaccines are still conferring high rates of protection from severe disease with the BA.4 and BA.5 variants, with 87% protection against hospitalization per South Africa data. This is probably attributable to the fact that T-cell immunity from the vaccines remains protective across variants “from Alpha to Omicron,” as described by a recent and elegant paper.

Data from Qatar show that natural infection (even occurring up to 14 months ago) remains very protective (97.3%) against severe disease with the current circulating subvariants, including BA.4 and BA.5. Again, this is probably attributable to T cells which specifically amplify in response to a piece of the virus and help recruit cells to attack the pathogen directly.

The original BA.1 subvariant of Omicron has 26-32 mutations along its spike protein that differ from the “ancestral strain,” and BA.4 and BA.5 variants have a few more. Our T-cell response, even across a mutated spike protein, is so robust that we have not seen Omicron yet able to evade the many T cells (which we produce from the vaccines or infection) that descend upon the mutated virus to fight severe disease. Antibody-producing memory B cells, generated by the vaccines (or prior infection), have been shown to actually adapt their immune response to the variant to which they are exposed.

Therefore, the story of the BA.4 and BA.5 subvariants seems to remain about antibodies vs. cellular immunity. Our immunity in the United States is growing and is from both vaccination and natural infection, with 78.3% of the population having had at least one dose of the vaccine and at least 60% of adults (and 75% of children 0-18) having been exposed to the virus by February 2022, per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (with exposure probably much higher now in July 2022 after subsequent Omicron subvariants waves).

So, what about Omicron-specific boosters? A booster shot will just raise antibodies temporarily, but their effectiveness wanes several months later. Moreover, a booster shot against the ancestral strain is not very effective in neutralizing BA.4 and BA.5 (with a prior BA.1 Omicron infection being more effective than a booster). Luckily, Pfizer has promised a BA.4/BA.5-specific mRNA vaccine by October, and Moderna has promised a bivalent vaccine containing BA.4/BA.5 mRNA sequences around the same time. A vaccine that specifically increases antibodies against the most prevalent circulating strain should be important as a booster for those who are predisposed to severe breakthrough infections (for example, those with immunocompromise or older individuals with multiple comorbidities). Moreover, BA.4/BA.5–specific booster vaccines may help prevent mild infections for many individuals. Finally, any booster (or exposure) should diversify and broaden T-cell responses to the virus, and a booster shot will also expand the potency of B cells, making them better able to respond to the newest subvariants as we continue to live with COVID-19.
 

Monica Gandhi, MD, MPH, is an infectious diseases doctor, professor of medicine, and associate chief in the division of HIV, infectious diseases, and global medicine at the University of California, San Francisco.

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

A new study confirms the very high risk of hepatocellular carcinoma faced by patients with cirrhosis who have been cured of hepatitis C, a finding the researchers hope will encourage clinicians to communicate risk information to patients and encourage regular HCC screening.

On average, the predicted probability of HCC in cirrhosis patients was 410 times greater than the equivalent probability in the general population, the study team found.

“As the prospect of HCV elimination approaches, a key challenge to the clinical community is the management of those who are cured of HCV but have a residual risk of HCC,” Hamish Innes, PhD, with Public Health Scotland, Glasgow, and colleagues wrote.

“Central to this is ensuring that cured cirrhosis patients understand the risk of HCC and are provided with appropriate surveillance,” they added. 

“Most patients with cirrhosis do not adhere to HCC screening guidelines,” Nina Beri, MD, medical oncologist with New York University Perlmutter Cancer Center, who wasn’t involved in the study, said in an interview.

The “important” finding in this study “should be conveyed to patients, as this may help improve screening adherence rates,” Dr. Beri said.

The study was published online in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.
 

Findings may help promote screening uptake

Dr. Innes and colleagues compared the predicted probability of HCC in 1,803 Scottish adults (mean age, 50 years; 74% male) with cirrhosis and cured hepatitis C to the background risk in the general population of Scotland.

The mean predicted 3-year probability of HCC at the time of sustained viral response (SVR), determined using the aMAP prognostic model, was 3.64% (range, 0.012%-36.12%).

This contrasts with a 3-year HCC probability in the general population ranging from less than 0.0001% to 0.25% depending on demographics.

All patients with cirrhosis – even those at lowest risk – had a higher probability of HCC than the general population, but there was considerable heterogeneity from one patient to the next.

For example, the mean 3-year predicted probability was 18 times higher in the top quintile (9.8%) versus the lowest quintile (0.5%) of risk, the researchers found.

They could not identify a patient subgroup who exhibited a similar HCC risk profile to the general population, as was their hope going into the study.

Dr. Innes and colleagues have developed an online tool that allows clinicians to frame a patient›s 3-year HCC probability against the equivalent probability in the general population.

In the future, they said the scope of the tool could be extended by incorporating general population data from countries beyond Scotland.

“Our hope is that this tool will springboard patient-clinician discussions about HCC risk, and could mitigate low screening uptake,” Dr. Innes and colleagues wrote.
 

Curing HCV doesn’t eliminate risk

Commenting on the study, Nancy Reau, MD, section chief of hepatology at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, said curing HCV is “very important and significantly reduces risk for complications, but it doesn’t return you to the normal population.”

Dr. Reau’s advice to cirrhosis patients: “Get screened twice a year.”

Dr. Beri said, in addition to conveying this risk to patients, “it is also important to disseminate this information to the community and to primary care practices, particularly as some patients may not currently follow in a specialized liver disease clinic.”

Also weighing in, Amit Singal, MD, chief of hepatology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said this study highlights that underlying cirrhosis is “the strongest risk factor for the development of HCC.”

In contrast to other cancers, such as breast and colorectal cancer, in which high risk populations can be identified by readily available information such as age and sex, implementation of HCC screening programs requires identification of patients with cirrhosis, Dr. Singal noted.

“Underuse of HCC screening in clinical practice is often related to providers having difficulty at this step in the process and contributes to the high proportion of HCC detected at late stages,” he told this news organization.

“Availability of accurate noninvasive markers of fibrosis will hopefully help with better identification of patients with cirrhosis moving forward,” Dr. Singal said, “although we as hepatologists need to work closely with our primary care colleagues to ensure these tools are used routinely in at-risk patients, such as those with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, alcohol-associated liver disease, or history of cured (post-SVR) hepatitis C infection.”

The study was supported by the Medical Research Foundation and Public Health Scotland. Dr. Innes, Dr. Beri, Dr. Reau, and Dr. Singal reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new study confirms the very high risk of hepatocellular carcinoma faced by patients with cirrhosis who have been cured of hepatitis C, a finding the researchers hope will encourage clinicians to communicate risk information to patients and encourage regular HCC screening.

On average, the predicted probability of HCC in cirrhosis patients was 410 times greater than the equivalent probability in the general population, the study team found.

“As the prospect of HCV elimination approaches, a key challenge to the clinical community is the management of those who are cured of HCV but have a residual risk of HCC,” Hamish Innes, PhD, with Public Health Scotland, Glasgow, and colleagues wrote.

“Central to this is ensuring that cured cirrhosis patients understand the risk of HCC and are provided with appropriate surveillance,” they added. 

“Most patients with cirrhosis do not adhere to HCC screening guidelines,” Nina Beri, MD, medical oncologist with New York University Perlmutter Cancer Center, who wasn’t involved in the study, said in an interview.

The “important” finding in this study “should be conveyed to patients, as this may help improve screening adherence rates,” Dr. Beri said.

The study was published online in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.
 

Findings may help promote screening uptake

Dr. Innes and colleagues compared the predicted probability of HCC in 1,803 Scottish adults (mean age, 50 years; 74% male) with cirrhosis and cured hepatitis C to the background risk in the general population of Scotland.

The mean predicted 3-year probability of HCC at the time of sustained viral response (SVR), determined using the aMAP prognostic model, was 3.64% (range, 0.012%-36.12%).

This contrasts with a 3-year HCC probability in the general population ranging from less than 0.0001% to 0.25% depending on demographics.

All patients with cirrhosis – even those at lowest risk – had a higher probability of HCC than the general population, but there was considerable heterogeneity from one patient to the next.

For example, the mean 3-year predicted probability was 18 times higher in the top quintile (9.8%) versus the lowest quintile (0.5%) of risk, the researchers found.

They could not identify a patient subgroup who exhibited a similar HCC risk profile to the general population, as was their hope going into the study.

Dr. Innes and colleagues have developed an online tool that allows clinicians to frame a patient›s 3-year HCC probability against the equivalent probability in the general population.

In the future, they said the scope of the tool could be extended by incorporating general population data from countries beyond Scotland.

“Our hope is that this tool will springboard patient-clinician discussions about HCC risk, and could mitigate low screening uptake,” Dr. Innes and colleagues wrote.
 

Curing HCV doesn’t eliminate risk

Commenting on the study, Nancy Reau, MD, section chief of hepatology at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, said curing HCV is “very important and significantly reduces risk for complications, but it doesn’t return you to the normal population.”

Dr. Reau’s advice to cirrhosis patients: “Get screened twice a year.”

Dr. Beri said, in addition to conveying this risk to patients, “it is also important to disseminate this information to the community and to primary care practices, particularly as some patients may not currently follow in a specialized liver disease clinic.”

Also weighing in, Amit Singal, MD, chief of hepatology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said this study highlights that underlying cirrhosis is “the strongest risk factor for the development of HCC.”

In contrast to other cancers, such as breast and colorectal cancer, in which high risk populations can be identified by readily available information such as age and sex, implementation of HCC screening programs requires identification of patients with cirrhosis, Dr. Singal noted.

“Underuse of HCC screening in clinical practice is often related to providers having difficulty at this step in the process and contributes to the high proportion of HCC detected at late stages,” he told this news organization.

“Availability of accurate noninvasive markers of fibrosis will hopefully help with better identification of patients with cirrhosis moving forward,” Dr. Singal said, “although we as hepatologists need to work closely with our primary care colleagues to ensure these tools are used routinely in at-risk patients, such as those with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, alcohol-associated liver disease, or history of cured (post-SVR) hepatitis C infection.”

The study was supported by the Medical Research Foundation and Public Health Scotland. Dr. Innes, Dr. Beri, Dr. Reau, and Dr. Singal reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new study confirms the very high risk of hepatocellular carcinoma faced by patients with cirrhosis who have been cured of hepatitis C, a finding the researchers hope will encourage clinicians to communicate risk information to patients and encourage regular HCC screening.

On average, the predicted probability of HCC in cirrhosis patients was 410 times greater than the equivalent probability in the general population, the study team found.

“As the prospect of HCV elimination approaches, a key challenge to the clinical community is the management of those who are cured of HCV but have a residual risk of HCC,” Hamish Innes, PhD, with Public Health Scotland, Glasgow, and colleagues wrote.

“Central to this is ensuring that cured cirrhosis patients understand the risk of HCC and are provided with appropriate surveillance,” they added. 

“Most patients with cirrhosis do not adhere to HCC screening guidelines,” Nina Beri, MD, medical oncologist with New York University Perlmutter Cancer Center, who wasn’t involved in the study, said in an interview.

The “important” finding in this study “should be conveyed to patients, as this may help improve screening adherence rates,” Dr. Beri said.

The study was published online in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.
 

Findings may help promote screening uptake

Dr. Innes and colleagues compared the predicted probability of HCC in 1,803 Scottish adults (mean age, 50 years; 74% male) with cirrhosis and cured hepatitis C to the background risk in the general population of Scotland.

The mean predicted 3-year probability of HCC at the time of sustained viral response (SVR), determined using the aMAP prognostic model, was 3.64% (range, 0.012%-36.12%).

This contrasts with a 3-year HCC probability in the general population ranging from less than 0.0001% to 0.25% depending on demographics.

All patients with cirrhosis – even those at lowest risk – had a higher probability of HCC than the general population, but there was considerable heterogeneity from one patient to the next.

For example, the mean 3-year predicted probability was 18 times higher in the top quintile (9.8%) versus the lowest quintile (0.5%) of risk, the researchers found.

They could not identify a patient subgroup who exhibited a similar HCC risk profile to the general population, as was their hope going into the study.

Dr. Innes and colleagues have developed an online tool that allows clinicians to frame a patient›s 3-year HCC probability against the equivalent probability in the general population.

In the future, they said the scope of the tool could be extended by incorporating general population data from countries beyond Scotland.

“Our hope is that this tool will springboard patient-clinician discussions about HCC risk, and could mitigate low screening uptake,” Dr. Innes and colleagues wrote.
 

Curing HCV doesn’t eliminate risk

Commenting on the study, Nancy Reau, MD, section chief of hepatology at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, said curing HCV is “very important and significantly reduces risk for complications, but it doesn’t return you to the normal population.”

Dr. Reau’s advice to cirrhosis patients: “Get screened twice a year.”

Dr. Beri said, in addition to conveying this risk to patients, “it is also important to disseminate this information to the community and to primary care practices, particularly as some patients may not currently follow in a specialized liver disease clinic.”

Also weighing in, Amit Singal, MD, chief of hepatology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said this study highlights that underlying cirrhosis is “the strongest risk factor for the development of HCC.”

In contrast to other cancers, such as breast and colorectal cancer, in which high risk populations can be identified by readily available information such as age and sex, implementation of HCC screening programs requires identification of patients with cirrhosis, Dr. Singal noted.

“Underuse of HCC screening in clinical practice is often related to providers having difficulty at this step in the process and contributes to the high proportion of HCC detected at late stages,” he told this news organization.

“Availability of accurate noninvasive markers of fibrosis will hopefully help with better identification of patients with cirrhosis moving forward,” Dr. Singal said, “although we as hepatologists need to work closely with our primary care colleagues to ensure these tools are used routinely in at-risk patients, such as those with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, alcohol-associated liver disease, or history of cured (post-SVR) hepatitis C infection.”

The study was supported by the Medical Research Foundation and Public Health Scotland. Dr. Innes, Dr. Beri, Dr. Reau, and Dr. Singal reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Researchers published the study covered in this summary on medRxiv.org as a preprint that has not yet been peer reviewed.

Key takeaways

• The study results suggest that obesity may accelerate waning of antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and increased breakthrough infections with COVID-19.
• The findings documented evidence of reduced neutralizing antibody capacity 6 months after primary vaccination in people with severe obesity.
• This was a large study involving about more than 3.5 million people who had received at least two doses of COVID-19 vaccine, including more than 650,000 with obesity.

Why this matters

• Obesity is associated with comorbidities that independently increase the risk for severe COVID-19, including type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and heart failure.
• The authors concluded that additional or more frequent booster doses are likely to be required to maintain protection among people with obesity against COVID-19.

Study design

• Prospective longitudinal study of the incidence and severity of COVID-19 infections and immune responses in a cohort of more than 3.5 million adults from a Scottish healthcare database who received two or three doses of COVID-19 vaccine. The data came from the study, centered at the University of Edinburgh.
• About 16% had obesity with a body mass index of 30-39.9 kg/m², and an additional 3% had severe obesity with a BMI of 40 or greater.
• Although not specified in this preprint, another said that the vaccines administered in Scotland have been the Pfizer-BioNTech and Oxford-AstraZeneca formulations.

Key results

• Between Sept. 14, 2020, and March 19, 2022, 10,983 people (0.3% of the total cohort; 6.0 events per 1,000 person-years) had severe COVID-19, consisting of 9,733 who were hospitalized and 2,207 who died (957 of those hospitalized also died).
• People with obesity or severe obesity were at higher risk of hospitalization or death from COVID-19 after both a second and third (booster) dose of vaccine.
• Compared with those with normal weight, those with severe obesity (BMI higher than 40) were at significantly increased risk for severe COVID-19 after a second vaccine dose, with an adjusted rate ratio 1.76, whereas those with standard obesity (BMI, 30-40) were at a modestly but significantly increased risk with an adjusted rate ratio of 1.11.
• Breakthrough infections after the second dose for those with severe obesity, obesity, and normal weight occurred on average at 10 weeks, 15 weeks, and 20 weeks, respectively.
• Interaction testing showed that vaccine effectiveness significantly diminished over time across BMI groups, and protection waned more rapidly as BMI increased.
• Results from immunophenotyping studies run in a subgroup of several dozen subjects with severe obesity or normal weight showed significant decrements in the robustness of antibody responses in those with severe obesity 6 months after a second or third vaccine dose.

Limitations

• The authors did not specify any limitations.

Disclosures

• The study received no commercial funding.
• One author received funding from Wellcome.

This is a summary of a preprint research study , “Accelerated waning of the humoral response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in obesity,” published by researchers primarily at the University of Cambridge (England), on medRxiv. This study has not yet been peer reviewed. The full text of the study can be found on medRxiv.org.



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

Researchers published the study covered in this summary on medRxiv.org as a preprint that has not yet been peer reviewed.

Key takeaways

• The study results suggest that obesity may accelerate waning of antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and increased breakthrough infections with COVID-19.
• The findings documented evidence of reduced neutralizing antibody capacity 6 months after primary vaccination in people with severe obesity.
• This was a large study involving about more than 3.5 million people who had received at least two doses of COVID-19 vaccine, including more than 650,000 with obesity.

Why this matters

• Obesity is associated with comorbidities that independently increase the risk for severe COVID-19, including type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and heart failure.
• The authors concluded that additional or more frequent booster doses are likely to be required to maintain protection among people with obesity against COVID-19.

Study design

• Prospective longitudinal study of the incidence and severity of COVID-19 infections and immune responses in a cohort of more than 3.5 million adults from a Scottish healthcare database who received two or three doses of COVID-19 vaccine. The data came from the study, centered at the University of Edinburgh.
• About 16% had obesity with a body mass index of 30-39.9 kg/m², and an additional 3% had severe obesity with a BMI of 40 or greater.
• Although not specified in this preprint, another said that the vaccines administered in Scotland have been the Pfizer-BioNTech and Oxford-AstraZeneca formulations.

Key results

• Between Sept. 14, 2020, and March 19, 2022, 10,983 people (0.3% of the total cohort; 6.0 events per 1,000 person-years) had severe COVID-19, consisting of 9,733 who were hospitalized and 2,207 who died (957 of those hospitalized also died).
• People with obesity or severe obesity were at higher risk of hospitalization or death from COVID-19 after both a second and third (booster) dose of vaccine.
• Compared with those with normal weight, those with severe obesity (BMI higher than 40) were at significantly increased risk for severe COVID-19 after a second vaccine dose, with an adjusted rate ratio 1.76, whereas those with standard obesity (BMI, 30-40) were at a modestly but significantly increased risk with an adjusted rate ratio of 1.11.
• Breakthrough infections after the second dose for those with severe obesity, obesity, and normal weight occurred on average at 10 weeks, 15 weeks, and 20 weeks, respectively.
• Interaction testing showed that vaccine effectiveness significantly diminished over time across BMI groups, and protection waned more rapidly as BMI increased.
• Results from immunophenotyping studies run in a subgroup of several dozen subjects with severe obesity or normal weight showed significant decrements in the robustness of antibody responses in those with severe obesity 6 months after a second or third vaccine dose.

Limitations

• The authors did not specify any limitations.

Disclosures

• The study received no commercial funding.
• One author received funding from Wellcome.

This is a summary of a preprint research study , “Accelerated waning of the humoral response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in obesity,” published by researchers primarily at the University of Cambridge (England), on medRxiv. This study has not yet been peer reviewed. The full text of the study can be found on medRxiv.org.



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

Researchers published the study covered in this summary on medRxiv.org as a preprint that has not yet been peer reviewed.

Key takeaways

• The study results suggest that obesity may accelerate waning of antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and increased breakthrough infections with COVID-19.
• The findings documented evidence of reduced neutralizing antibody capacity 6 months after primary vaccination in people with severe obesity.
• This was a large study involving about more than 3.5 million people who had received at least two doses of COVID-19 vaccine, including more than 650,000 with obesity.

Why this matters

• Obesity is associated with comorbidities that independently increase the risk for severe COVID-19, including type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and heart failure.
• The authors concluded that additional or more frequent booster doses are likely to be required to maintain protection among people with obesity against COVID-19.

Study design

• Prospective longitudinal study of the incidence and severity of COVID-19 infections and immune responses in a cohort of more than 3.5 million adults from a Scottish healthcare database who received two or three doses of COVID-19 vaccine. The data came from the study, centered at the University of Edinburgh.
• About 16% had obesity with a body mass index of 30-39.9 kg/m², and an additional 3% had severe obesity with a BMI of 40 or greater.
• Although not specified in this preprint, another said that the vaccines administered in Scotland have been the Pfizer-BioNTech and Oxford-AstraZeneca formulations.

Key results

• Between Sept. 14, 2020, and March 19, 2022, 10,983 people (0.3% of the total cohort; 6.0 events per 1,000 person-years) had severe COVID-19, consisting of 9,733 who were hospitalized and 2,207 who died (957 of those hospitalized also died).
• People with obesity or severe obesity were at higher risk of hospitalization or death from COVID-19 after both a second and third (booster) dose of vaccine.
• Compared with those with normal weight, those with severe obesity (BMI higher than 40) were at significantly increased risk for severe COVID-19 after a second vaccine dose, with an adjusted rate ratio 1.76, whereas those with standard obesity (BMI, 30-40) were at a modestly but significantly increased risk with an adjusted rate ratio of 1.11.
• Breakthrough infections after the second dose for those with severe obesity, obesity, and normal weight occurred on average at 10 weeks, 15 weeks, and 20 weeks, respectively.
• Interaction testing showed that vaccine effectiveness significantly diminished over time across BMI groups, and protection waned more rapidly as BMI increased.
• Results from immunophenotyping studies run in a subgroup of several dozen subjects with severe obesity or normal weight showed significant decrements in the robustness of antibody responses in those with severe obesity 6 months after a second or third vaccine dose.

Limitations

• The authors did not specify any limitations.

Disclosures

• The study received no commercial funding.
• One author received funding from Wellcome.

This is a summary of a preprint research study , “Accelerated waning of the humoral response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in obesity,” published by researchers primarily at the University of Cambridge (England), on medRxiv. This study has not yet been peer reviewed. The full text of the study can be found on medRxiv.org.



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

As obstacles to hepatitis C treatment uptake were removed, rates of hepatitis-related liver disease in marginalized groups plummeted, according to a new study in Baltimore, published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

A community-based cohort study that follows current and former people who inject drugs (PWID) with hepatitis C documented drastic reductions in liver disease and death as effective oral antivirals became more readily accessible there between 2015 and 2019.

The researchers concluded that hepatitis C elimination targets are achievable. But, they warned, uptake is uneven, and more needs to be done to facilitate treatment.

“[The study] gives us a real-world perspective on what’s happening on the ground, in terms of people getting treated,” said first author Javier Cepeda, PhD, MPH, an assistant professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, in an interview. “Changing policy, reducing barriers, [and] getting them access to treatment really does have this really important public health benefit.”

“It’s compelling to see these improved outcomes amongst a cohort of people who inject drugs with baseline hep C,” said Maria Corcorran, MD, MPH. Dr. Corcorran, an acting assistant professor for the department of medicine at the University of Washington, was not involved with the study. “It’s just further evidence that we need to really be linking people to care and getting people treated and cured.”

The World Health Organization has called for the disease’s global elimination by 2030. Cure rates top 95%. But, there are so many new cases and so many barriers to detection and treatment that how to develop and roll out a public health response is the most important question in the field, wrote study co-author David L. Thomas, MD, MPH, in a review article in The New England Journal of Medicine.

“Folks who inject drugs ... do well on hep C treatment and have similar rates of sustained virologic response or cure,” said Dr. Corcorran, who runs a low-barrier clinic for people experiencing homelessness.

But, she added, “there are barriers that are still put up to treatment in terms of who can treat and what insurance is going to cover.”
 

A look at a vulnerable population

The authors studied adults enrolled in ALIVE (AIDS Linked to the Intravenous Experience), a cohort study that has recruited current and former PWID in the Baltimore area since 1988.

Participants visit the clinic twice a year for health-related interviews and blood testing, including HIV serology, hepatitis C virus (HCV) antibody and RNA testing, and liver function tests. They are counseled about HCV testing and treatment but do not receive treatment through the study.

Beginning in 2006, researchers added liver stiffness measures (LSMs), a noninvasive measure conducted with transient elastography.

From 2006 to 2019, the authors followed 1,323 ALIVE participants with chronic HCV infection. The primary outcome was LSMs.
 

Less liver disease, fewer deaths

At baseline, participants’ median age was 49 years; 82% of participants were Black individuals, 71% percent were male, and two-thirds were HIV-negative.

Three percent reported receiving hepatitis C treatment in 2014, which increased to 39% in 2019.

Among 10,350 LSMs, 15% showed cirrhosis at baseline in 2006. In 2015, that rose to 19%, but by 2019, it had fallen to 8%.

By definition, 100% had detectable HCV RNA at baseline. In 2015, 91% still did. By 2019, that rate had fallen to 48%.

Undetectable HCV RNA correlated with lower log LSM in adjusted models (P < .001). It also correlated strongly with lower odds of liver cirrhosis, with an adjusted odds ratio of 0.28 (95% confidence interval, 0.17-0.45; P < .001). In addition, it correlated with lower risk for all-cause mortality, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.54 (95% CI, 0.38-0.77; P < .001).

Limitations include the fact that, although transient elastography is considered the most valid way to detect cirrhosis in people with hepatitis C, liver stiffness has not been validated as a measure of fibrosis among people with a sustained virologic response.

In addition, ALIVE participants are older and more likely to be African American individuals, compared with the general population of PWID in Baltimore, wrote co-author Shruti H. Mehta, PhD, a professor of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, in an email exchange with this news organization. That could affect generalizability.
 

Treatment is crucial

The first direct-acting antiviral (DAA) for hepatitis C was approved in 2011, and an oral fixed-dose combination antiviral was approved in 2014, ushering in treatments with cure rates far exceeding those with interferon-based therapy.

But until recently, Medicaid patients in Maryland seeking DAA therapy for hepatitis C required prior authorization, with initial restrictions related to disease stage, substance use, and provider type, according to Dr. Mehta.

Gradually, those restrictions were lifted, Dr. Mehta added, and all were eliminated by 2019.

Dr. Cepeda urges clinicians to treat patients infected with hepatitis C immediately.

“There are really important implications on both reducing liver disease progression and all-cause mortality,” he said.

“Hep C is just one part of a whole constellation of health care delivery [and] of treating all of the other potential problems that might need to be addressed – especially with people who inject drugs,” Dr. Cepeda added. “Getting them into care is really, really important.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Cepeda and Dr. Corcorran report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Mehta reports receiving payments or honoraria and travel support from Gilead Sciences, the makers of the oral hepatitis C medication ledipasvir/sofosbuvir (Harvoni), as well as equipment, materials, drugs, medical writing, gifts, or other services from Abbott, which sells hepatitis C diagnostics. Dr. Thomas reports ties to Excision Bio and to Merck DSMB.

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

As obstacles to hepatitis C treatment uptake were removed, rates of hepatitis-related liver disease in marginalized groups plummeted, according to a new study in Baltimore, published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

A community-based cohort study that follows current and former people who inject drugs (PWID) with hepatitis C documented drastic reductions in liver disease and death as effective oral antivirals became more readily accessible there between 2015 and 2019.

The researchers concluded that hepatitis C elimination targets are achievable. But, they warned, uptake is uneven, and more needs to be done to facilitate treatment.

“[The study] gives us a real-world perspective on what’s happening on the ground, in terms of people getting treated,” said first author Javier Cepeda, PhD, MPH, an assistant professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, in an interview. “Changing policy, reducing barriers, [and] getting them access to treatment really does have this really important public health benefit.”

“It’s compelling to see these improved outcomes amongst a cohort of people who inject drugs with baseline hep C,” said Maria Corcorran, MD, MPH. Dr. Corcorran, an acting assistant professor for the department of medicine at the University of Washington, was not involved with the study. “It’s just further evidence that we need to really be linking people to care and getting people treated and cured.”

The World Health Organization has called for the disease’s global elimination by 2030. Cure rates top 95%. But, there are so many new cases and so many barriers to detection and treatment that how to develop and roll out a public health response is the most important question in the field, wrote study co-author David L. Thomas, MD, MPH, in a review article in The New England Journal of Medicine.

“Folks who inject drugs ... do well on hep C treatment and have similar rates of sustained virologic response or cure,” said Dr. Corcorran, who runs a low-barrier clinic for people experiencing homelessness.

But, she added, “there are barriers that are still put up to treatment in terms of who can treat and what insurance is going to cover.”
 

A look at a vulnerable population

The authors studied adults enrolled in ALIVE (AIDS Linked to the Intravenous Experience), a cohort study that has recruited current and former PWID in the Baltimore area since 1988.

Participants visit the clinic twice a year for health-related interviews and blood testing, including HIV serology, hepatitis C virus (HCV) antibody and RNA testing, and liver function tests. They are counseled about HCV testing and treatment but do not receive treatment through the study.

Beginning in 2006, researchers added liver stiffness measures (LSMs), a noninvasive measure conducted with transient elastography.

From 2006 to 2019, the authors followed 1,323 ALIVE participants with chronic HCV infection. The primary outcome was LSMs.
 

Less liver disease, fewer deaths

At baseline, participants’ median age was 49 years; 82% of participants were Black individuals, 71% percent were male, and two-thirds were HIV-negative.

Three percent reported receiving hepatitis C treatment in 2014, which increased to 39% in 2019.

Among 10,350 LSMs, 15% showed cirrhosis at baseline in 2006. In 2015, that rose to 19%, but by 2019, it had fallen to 8%.

By definition, 100% had detectable HCV RNA at baseline. In 2015, 91% still did. By 2019, that rate had fallen to 48%.

Undetectable HCV RNA correlated with lower log LSM in adjusted models (P < .001). It also correlated strongly with lower odds of liver cirrhosis, with an adjusted odds ratio of 0.28 (95% confidence interval, 0.17-0.45; P < .001). In addition, it correlated with lower risk for all-cause mortality, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.54 (95% CI, 0.38-0.77; P < .001).

Limitations include the fact that, although transient elastography is considered the most valid way to detect cirrhosis in people with hepatitis C, liver stiffness has not been validated as a measure of fibrosis among people with a sustained virologic response.

In addition, ALIVE participants are older and more likely to be African American individuals, compared with the general population of PWID in Baltimore, wrote co-author Shruti H. Mehta, PhD, a professor of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, in an email exchange with this news organization. That could affect generalizability.
 

Treatment is crucial

The first direct-acting antiviral (DAA) for hepatitis C was approved in 2011, and an oral fixed-dose combination antiviral was approved in 2014, ushering in treatments with cure rates far exceeding those with interferon-based therapy.

But until recently, Medicaid patients in Maryland seeking DAA therapy for hepatitis C required prior authorization, with initial restrictions related to disease stage, substance use, and provider type, according to Dr. Mehta.

Gradually, those restrictions were lifted, Dr. Mehta added, and all were eliminated by 2019.

Dr. Cepeda urges clinicians to treat patients infected with hepatitis C immediately.

“There are really important implications on both reducing liver disease progression and all-cause mortality,” he said.

“Hep C is just one part of a whole constellation of health care delivery [and] of treating all of the other potential problems that might need to be addressed – especially with people who inject drugs,” Dr. Cepeda added. “Getting them into care is really, really important.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Cepeda and Dr. Corcorran report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Mehta reports receiving payments or honoraria and travel support from Gilead Sciences, the makers of the oral hepatitis C medication ledipasvir/sofosbuvir (Harvoni), as well as equipment, materials, drugs, medical writing, gifts, or other services from Abbott, which sells hepatitis C diagnostics. Dr. Thomas reports ties to Excision Bio and to Merck DSMB.

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

As obstacles to hepatitis C treatment uptake were removed, rates of hepatitis-related liver disease in marginalized groups plummeted, according to a new study in Baltimore, published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

A community-based cohort study that follows current and former people who inject drugs (PWID) with hepatitis C documented drastic reductions in liver disease and death as effective oral antivirals became more readily accessible there between 2015 and 2019.

The researchers concluded that hepatitis C elimination targets are achievable. But, they warned, uptake is uneven, and more needs to be done to facilitate treatment.

“[The study] gives us a real-world perspective on what’s happening on the ground, in terms of people getting treated,” said first author Javier Cepeda, PhD, MPH, an assistant professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, in an interview. “Changing policy, reducing barriers, [and] getting them access to treatment really does have this really important public health benefit.”

“It’s compelling to see these improved outcomes amongst a cohort of people who inject drugs with baseline hep C,” said Maria Corcorran, MD, MPH. Dr. Corcorran, an acting assistant professor for the department of medicine at the University of Washington, was not involved with the study. “It’s just further evidence that we need to really be linking people to care and getting people treated and cured.”

The World Health Organization has called for the disease’s global elimination by 2030. Cure rates top 95%. But, there are so many new cases and so many barriers to detection and treatment that how to develop and roll out a public health response is the most important question in the field, wrote study co-author David L. Thomas, MD, MPH, in a review article in The New England Journal of Medicine.

“Folks who inject drugs ... do well on hep C treatment and have similar rates of sustained virologic response or cure,” said Dr. Corcorran, who runs a low-barrier clinic for people experiencing homelessness.

But, she added, “there are barriers that are still put up to treatment in terms of who can treat and what insurance is going to cover.”
 

A look at a vulnerable population

The authors studied adults enrolled in ALIVE (AIDS Linked to the Intravenous Experience), a cohort study that has recruited current and former PWID in the Baltimore area since 1988.

Participants visit the clinic twice a year for health-related interviews and blood testing, including HIV serology, hepatitis C virus (HCV) antibody and RNA testing, and liver function tests. They are counseled about HCV testing and treatment but do not receive treatment through the study.

Beginning in 2006, researchers added liver stiffness measures (LSMs), a noninvasive measure conducted with transient elastography.

From 2006 to 2019, the authors followed 1,323 ALIVE participants with chronic HCV infection. The primary outcome was LSMs.
 

Less liver disease, fewer deaths

At baseline, participants’ median age was 49 years; 82% of participants were Black individuals, 71% percent were male, and two-thirds were HIV-negative.

Three percent reported receiving hepatitis C treatment in 2014, which increased to 39% in 2019.

Among 10,350 LSMs, 15% showed cirrhosis at baseline in 2006. In 2015, that rose to 19%, but by 2019, it had fallen to 8%.

By definition, 100% had detectable HCV RNA at baseline. In 2015, 91% still did. By 2019, that rate had fallen to 48%.

Undetectable HCV RNA correlated with lower log LSM in adjusted models (P < .001). It also correlated strongly with lower odds of liver cirrhosis, with an adjusted odds ratio of 0.28 (95% confidence interval, 0.17-0.45; P < .001). In addition, it correlated with lower risk for all-cause mortality, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.54 (95% CI, 0.38-0.77; P < .001).

Limitations include the fact that, although transient elastography is considered the most valid way to detect cirrhosis in people with hepatitis C, liver stiffness has not been validated as a measure of fibrosis among people with a sustained virologic response.

In addition, ALIVE participants are older and more likely to be African American individuals, compared with the general population of PWID in Baltimore, wrote co-author Shruti H. Mehta, PhD, a professor of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, in an email exchange with this news organization. That could affect generalizability.
 

Treatment is crucial

The first direct-acting antiviral (DAA) for hepatitis C was approved in 2011, and an oral fixed-dose combination antiviral was approved in 2014, ushering in treatments with cure rates far exceeding those with interferon-based therapy.

But until recently, Medicaid patients in Maryland seeking DAA therapy for hepatitis C required prior authorization, with initial restrictions related to disease stage, substance use, and provider type, according to Dr. Mehta.

Gradually, those restrictions were lifted, Dr. Mehta added, and all were eliminated by 2019.

Dr. Cepeda urges clinicians to treat patients infected with hepatitis C immediately.

“There are really important implications on both reducing liver disease progression and all-cause mortality,” he said.

“Hep C is just one part of a whole constellation of health care delivery [and] of treating all of the other potential problems that might need to be addressed – especially with people who inject drugs,” Dr. Cepeda added. “Getting them into care is really, really important.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Cepeda and Dr. Corcorran report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Mehta reports receiving payments or honoraria and travel support from Gilead Sciences, the makers of the oral hepatitis C medication ledipasvir/sofosbuvir (Harvoni), as well as equipment, materials, drugs, medical writing, gifts, or other services from Abbott, which sells hepatitis C diagnostics. Dr. Thomas reports ties to Excision Bio and to Merck DSMB.

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

Among scientists, the existence of long COVID-19 in children and adolescents has been the subject of debate. Two published studies have drawn attention to long COVID-19 signs and symptoms in these patients.

Published by a Mexican multidisciplinary group in Scientific Reports, the first study is a systematic review and meta-analysis. It identified mood symptoms as the most prevalent clinical manifestations of long COVID-19 in children and adolescents. These symptoms included sadness, tension, anger, depression, and anxiety (16.50%); fatigue (9.66%); and sleep disorders (8.42%).

The second study, LongCOVIDKidsDK, was conducted in Denmark. It compared 11,000 children younger than 14 years who had tested positive for COVID-19 with 33,000 children who had no history of COVID-19. The study was published in The Lancet Child and Adolescent Health.
 

Definitions are changing

In their meta-analysis, the researchers estimated the prevalence and counted signs and symptoms of long COVID-19, as defined by the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Long COVID-19 was defined as the presence of one or more symptoms more than 4 weeks after SARS-CoV-2 infection. For search terms, the researchers used “COVID-19,” “COVID,” “SARSCOV-2,” “coronavirus,” “long COVID,” “postCOVID,” “PASC,” “long-haulers,” “prolonged,” “post-acute,” “persistent,” “convalescent,” “sequelae,” and “postviral.”

Of the 8,373 citations returned by the search as of Feb. 10, 2022, 21 prospective studies, 2 of them on preprint servers, met the authors’ selection criteria. Those studies included a total of 80,071 children and adolescents younger than 18 years.

In the meta-analysis, the prevalence of long COVID-19 among children and adolescents was reported to be 25.24% (95% confidence interval, 18.17-33.02; I2, 99.61%), regardless of whether the case had been asymptomatic, mild, moderate, severe, or serious. For patients who had been hospitalized, the prevalence was 29.19% (95% CI, 17.83-41.98; I2, 80.84%).

These numbers, while striking, are not the focus of the study, according to first author Sandra Lopez-Leon, MD, PhD, associate professor of pharmacoepidemiology at Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N.J. “It’s important that we don’t focus on that 25%,” she said in an interview. “It’s a disease that we’re learning about, we’re at a time when the definitions are still changing, and, depending on when it is measured, a different number will be given. The message we want to give is that long COVID-19 exists, it’s happening in children and adolescents, and patients need this recognition. And also to show that it can affect the whole body.”

The study showed that the children and adolescents who presented with SARS-CoV-2 infection were at higher risk of subsequent long dyspnea, anosmia/ageusia, or fever, compared with control persons.

In total, in the studies that were included, more than 40 long-term clinical manifestations associated with COVID-19 in the pediatric population were identified.

The most common symptoms among children aged 0-3 years were mood swings, skin rashes, and stomachaches. In 4- to 11-year-olds, the most common symptoms were mood swings, trouble remembering or concentrating, and skin rashes. In 12- to 14-year-olds, they were fatigue, mood swings, and trouble remembering or concentrating. These data are based on parent responses.

The list of signs and symptoms also includes headache, respiratory symptoms, cognitive symptoms (such as decreased concentration, learning difficulties, confusion, and memory loss), loss of appetite, and smell disorder (hyposmia, anosmia, hyperosmia, parosmia, and phantom smell).

In the studies, the prevalence of the following symptoms was less than 5%: hyperhidrosis, chest pain, dizziness, cough, myalgia/arthralgia, changes in body weight, taste disorder, otalgia (tinnitus, ear pain, vertigo), ophthalmologic symptoms (conjunctivitis, dry eye, blurred vision, photophobia, pain), dermatologic symptoms (dry skin, itchy skin, rashes, hives, hair loss), urinary symptoms, abdominal pain, throat pain, chest tightness, variations in heart rate, palpitations, constipation, dysphonia, fever, diarrhea, vomiting/nausea, menstrual changes, neurological abnormalities, speech disorders, and dysphagia.

The authors made it clear that the frequency and severity of these symptoms can fluctuate from one patient to another.

“The meta-analysis is important because it brings together 21 studies selected from more than 8,000 articles – and in them, a large number of children – to study the most common manifestations of long COVID-19,” Gabriela Ensinck, MD, head of the infectious diseases department at the Víctor J. Vilela Children’s Hospital in Rosario, Argentina, told this news organization. Dr. Ensinck did not participate in the study. “The important thing here is that long COVID-19 exists in pediatrics. And that it is a prolongation of signs or symptoms over time, a time for which there is no single definition.”

“It’s a snapshot of all the symptoms that can remain after COVID-19,” Dr. Lopez-Leon explained. “The meta-analysis seeks to see if there’s an association between having had COVID-19 and having the symptoms, but at no time does it speak of causality.”

The prevalence of symptoms largely depends on the time since the onset of acute COVID-19. Most symptoms improve over time. In the studies that were included in the meta-analysis, the follow-up time varied between 1 and 13 months. It is important to understand what symptoms are associated with each period after the onset of infection, the authors said.
 

Danish parent survey

The Danish study LongCOVIDKidsDK followed the World Health Organization criteria for long COVID-19 and included children and adolescents aged 0-14 years who received a diagnosis of COVID-19 and who experienced symptoms that lasted at least 2 months.

Between July 20, 2021, and Sept. 15, 2021, a questionnaire was sent to 38,152 case patients and 147,212 control persons. Of this group, 10,997 (28.8%) case patients and 33,016 (22.4%) control persons answered the survey.

Children who had been diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection were more likely to experience long-lasting symptoms than children who had never been diagnosed. Approximately one-third of children with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test experienced symptoms that were not present before infection. Children who experienced long-lasting symptoms included 40% of children diagnosed with COVID-19 and 27% of control persons aged 0-3 years, 38% of case patients and 34% of control persons aged 4-11 years, and 46% of case patients and 41% of control persons aged 12-14 years.

Interestingly, those diagnosed with COVID-19 reported fewer psychological and social problems than those in the control group. Among the oldest (aged 12-14 years), quality of life scores were higher and anxiety scores were lower for those who had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.
 

More information needed

Given the diversity of symptoms in the meta-analysis and the LongCOVIDKidsDK study, a multidisciplinary approach is imperative. Dr. Lopez-Leon suggests that there is a need to raise awareness among parents, clinicians, researchers, and the health system about the conditions that can occur after COVID-19. Clinicians must better understand the sequelae to provide targeted care and treatment. The authors of the Danish study recommend establishing clinics for long COVID-19 with multispecialty care.

Maren J. Heilskov Rytter, PhD, associate professor of clinical medicine at the University of Copenhagen, wrote an editorial in The Lancet Child and Adolescent Health about the Danish study. Until it is clarified whether SARS-CoV-2 does indeed cause persistent symptoms, she wrote, “it seems excessive and premature to establish specific multidisciplinary clinics for children with long COVID-19.”

Dr. Rytter highlighted the difficulty of interpreting LongCOVIDKidsDK data, owing to recall bias, the failure to exclude other causes of symptoms in the cases analyzed, and the number of symptoms in the control persons. In addition, the data analyzed in Denmark are of limited clinical relevance, she said, given a greater presence of mild symptoms and, paradoxically, a higher quality of life.

She concluded, “In the majority of children with nonspecific symptoms after COVID-19, the symptoms presented are more likely to have been caused by something other than COVID-19, and if they are related to COVID-19, they are likely to go away over time.”

Dr. Ensinck, who is coauthor of the Argentine Ministry of Health’s guide for long COVID-19 monitoring for children and adolescents and who represented the Infectious Diseases Committee of the Argentine Society of Pediatrics, highlighted another aspect of the problem. “What should be taken into account in these data is to see how much the confinement contributed. Children are the ones who suffered the most in the period in which schools were closed; they could not meet their peers, they had sick relatives, they felt fear. … all this must be taken into account.”

There is as yet no agreement on how to define and diagnose long COVID-19 in adults, a population that has been studied more closely. Part of the problem is that long COVID-19 has been linked to more than 200 symptoms, which can range in severity from inconvenient to debilitating, can last for months or years, and can recur, sometimes months after apparent recovery. Thus, there are still disparate answers to basic questions about the syndrome’s frequency and its effects on vaccination, reinfection, and the latest variant of SARS-CoV-2.

This article has been translated from the Medscape Spanish edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

Among scientists, the existence of long COVID-19 in children and adolescents has been the subject of debate. Two published studies have drawn attention to long COVID-19 signs and symptoms in these patients.

Published by a Mexican multidisciplinary group in Scientific Reports, the first study is a systematic review and meta-analysis. It identified mood symptoms as the most prevalent clinical manifestations of long COVID-19 in children and adolescents. These symptoms included sadness, tension, anger, depression, and anxiety (16.50%); fatigue (9.66%); and sleep disorders (8.42%).

The second study, LongCOVIDKidsDK, was conducted in Denmark. It compared 11,000 children younger than 14 years who had tested positive for COVID-19 with 33,000 children who had no history of COVID-19. The study was published in The Lancet Child and Adolescent Health.
 

Definitions are changing

In their meta-analysis, the researchers estimated the prevalence and counted signs and symptoms of long COVID-19, as defined by the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Long COVID-19 was defined as the presence of one or more symptoms more than 4 weeks after SARS-CoV-2 infection. For search terms, the researchers used “COVID-19,” “COVID,” “SARSCOV-2,” “coronavirus,” “long COVID,” “postCOVID,” “PASC,” “long-haulers,” “prolonged,” “post-acute,” “persistent,” “convalescent,” “sequelae,” and “postviral.”

Of the 8,373 citations returned by the search as of Feb. 10, 2022, 21 prospective studies, 2 of them on preprint servers, met the authors’ selection criteria. Those studies included a total of 80,071 children and adolescents younger than 18 years.

In the meta-analysis, the prevalence of long COVID-19 among children and adolescents was reported to be 25.24% (95% confidence interval, 18.17-33.02; I2, 99.61%), regardless of whether the case had been asymptomatic, mild, moderate, severe, or serious. For patients who had been hospitalized, the prevalence was 29.19% (95% CI, 17.83-41.98; I2, 80.84%).

These numbers, while striking, are not the focus of the study, according to first author Sandra Lopez-Leon, MD, PhD, associate professor of pharmacoepidemiology at Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N.J. “It’s important that we don’t focus on that 25%,” she said in an interview. “It’s a disease that we’re learning about, we’re at a time when the definitions are still changing, and, depending on when it is measured, a different number will be given. The message we want to give is that long COVID-19 exists, it’s happening in children and adolescents, and patients need this recognition. And also to show that it can affect the whole body.”

The study showed that the children and adolescents who presented with SARS-CoV-2 infection were at higher risk of subsequent long dyspnea, anosmia/ageusia, or fever, compared with control persons.

In total, in the studies that were included, more than 40 long-term clinical manifestations associated with COVID-19 in the pediatric population were identified.

The most common symptoms among children aged 0-3 years were mood swings, skin rashes, and stomachaches. In 4- to 11-year-olds, the most common symptoms were mood swings, trouble remembering or concentrating, and skin rashes. In 12- to 14-year-olds, they were fatigue, mood swings, and trouble remembering or concentrating. These data are based on parent responses.

The list of signs and symptoms also includes headache, respiratory symptoms, cognitive symptoms (such as decreased concentration, learning difficulties, confusion, and memory loss), loss of appetite, and smell disorder (hyposmia, anosmia, hyperosmia, parosmia, and phantom smell).

In the studies, the prevalence of the following symptoms was less than 5%: hyperhidrosis, chest pain, dizziness, cough, myalgia/arthralgia, changes in body weight, taste disorder, otalgia (tinnitus, ear pain, vertigo), ophthalmologic symptoms (conjunctivitis, dry eye, blurred vision, photophobia, pain), dermatologic symptoms (dry skin, itchy skin, rashes, hives, hair loss), urinary symptoms, abdominal pain, throat pain, chest tightness, variations in heart rate, palpitations, constipation, dysphonia, fever, diarrhea, vomiting/nausea, menstrual changes, neurological abnormalities, speech disorders, and dysphagia.

The authors made it clear that the frequency and severity of these symptoms can fluctuate from one patient to another.

“The meta-analysis is important because it brings together 21 studies selected from more than 8,000 articles – and in them, a large number of children – to study the most common manifestations of long COVID-19,” Gabriela Ensinck, MD, head of the infectious diseases department at the Víctor J. Vilela Children’s Hospital in Rosario, Argentina, told this news organization. Dr. Ensinck did not participate in the study. “The important thing here is that long COVID-19 exists in pediatrics. And that it is a prolongation of signs or symptoms over time, a time for which there is no single definition.”

“It’s a snapshot of all the symptoms that can remain after COVID-19,” Dr. Lopez-Leon explained. “The meta-analysis seeks to see if there’s an association between having had COVID-19 and having the symptoms, but at no time does it speak of causality.”

The prevalence of symptoms largely depends on the time since the onset of acute COVID-19. Most symptoms improve over time. In the studies that were included in the meta-analysis, the follow-up time varied between 1 and 13 months. It is important to understand what symptoms are associated with each period after the onset of infection, the authors said.
 

Danish parent survey

The Danish study LongCOVIDKidsDK followed the World Health Organization criteria for long COVID-19 and included children and adolescents aged 0-14 years who received a diagnosis of COVID-19 and who experienced symptoms that lasted at least 2 months.

Between July 20, 2021, and Sept. 15, 2021, a questionnaire was sent to 38,152 case patients and 147,212 control persons. Of this group, 10,997 (28.8%) case patients and 33,016 (22.4%) control persons answered the survey.

Children who had been diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection were more likely to experience long-lasting symptoms than children who had never been diagnosed. Approximately one-third of children with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test experienced symptoms that were not present before infection. Children who experienced long-lasting symptoms included 40% of children diagnosed with COVID-19 and 27% of control persons aged 0-3 years, 38% of case patients and 34% of control persons aged 4-11 years, and 46% of case patients and 41% of control persons aged 12-14 years.

Interestingly, those diagnosed with COVID-19 reported fewer psychological and social problems than those in the control group. Among the oldest (aged 12-14 years), quality of life scores were higher and anxiety scores were lower for those who had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.
 

More information needed

Given the diversity of symptoms in the meta-analysis and the LongCOVIDKidsDK study, a multidisciplinary approach is imperative. Dr. Lopez-Leon suggests that there is a need to raise awareness among parents, clinicians, researchers, and the health system about the conditions that can occur after COVID-19. Clinicians must better understand the sequelae to provide targeted care and treatment. The authors of the Danish study recommend establishing clinics for long COVID-19 with multispecialty care.

Maren J. Heilskov Rytter, PhD, associate professor of clinical medicine at the University of Copenhagen, wrote an editorial in The Lancet Child and Adolescent Health about the Danish study. Until it is clarified whether SARS-CoV-2 does indeed cause persistent symptoms, she wrote, “it seems excessive and premature to establish specific multidisciplinary clinics for children with long COVID-19.”

Dr. Rytter highlighted the difficulty of interpreting LongCOVIDKidsDK data, owing to recall bias, the failure to exclude other causes of symptoms in the cases analyzed, and the number of symptoms in the control persons. In addition, the data analyzed in Denmark are of limited clinical relevance, she said, given a greater presence of mild symptoms and, paradoxically, a higher quality of life.

She concluded, “In the majority of children with nonspecific symptoms after COVID-19, the symptoms presented are more likely to have been caused by something other than COVID-19, and if they are related to COVID-19, they are likely to go away over time.”

Dr. Ensinck, who is coauthor of the Argentine Ministry of Health’s guide for long COVID-19 monitoring for children and adolescents and who represented the Infectious Diseases Committee of the Argentine Society of Pediatrics, highlighted another aspect of the problem. “What should be taken into account in these data is to see how much the confinement contributed. Children are the ones who suffered the most in the period in which schools were closed; they could not meet their peers, they had sick relatives, they felt fear. … all this must be taken into account.”

There is as yet no agreement on how to define and diagnose long COVID-19 in adults, a population that has been studied more closely. Part of the problem is that long COVID-19 has been linked to more than 200 symptoms, which can range in severity from inconvenient to debilitating, can last for months or years, and can recur, sometimes months after apparent recovery. Thus, there are still disparate answers to basic questions about the syndrome’s frequency and its effects on vaccination, reinfection, and the latest variant of SARS-CoV-2.

This article has been translated from the Medscape Spanish edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

Among scientists, the existence of long COVID-19 in children and adolescents has been the subject of debate. Two published studies have drawn attention to long COVID-19 signs and symptoms in these patients.

Published by a Mexican multidisciplinary group in Scientific Reports, the first study is a systematic review and meta-analysis. It identified mood symptoms as the most prevalent clinical manifestations of long COVID-19 in children and adolescents. These symptoms included sadness, tension, anger, depression, and anxiety (16.50%); fatigue (9.66%); and sleep disorders (8.42%).

The second study, LongCOVIDKidsDK, was conducted in Denmark. It compared 11,000 children younger than 14 years who had tested positive for COVID-19 with 33,000 children who had no history of COVID-19. The study was published in The Lancet Child and Adolescent Health.
 

Definitions are changing

In their meta-analysis, the researchers estimated the prevalence and counted signs and symptoms of long COVID-19, as defined by the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Long COVID-19 was defined as the presence of one or more symptoms more than 4 weeks after SARS-CoV-2 infection. For search terms, the researchers used “COVID-19,” “COVID,” “SARSCOV-2,” “coronavirus,” “long COVID,” “postCOVID,” “PASC,” “long-haulers,” “prolonged,” “post-acute,” “persistent,” “convalescent,” “sequelae,” and “postviral.”

Of the 8,373 citations returned by the search as of Feb. 10, 2022, 21 prospective studies, 2 of them on preprint servers, met the authors’ selection criteria. Those studies included a total of 80,071 children and adolescents younger than 18 years.

In the meta-analysis, the prevalence of long COVID-19 among children and adolescents was reported to be 25.24% (95% confidence interval, 18.17-33.02; I2, 99.61%), regardless of whether the case had been asymptomatic, mild, moderate, severe, or serious. For patients who had been hospitalized, the prevalence was 29.19% (95% CI, 17.83-41.98; I2, 80.84%).

These numbers, while striking, are not the focus of the study, according to first author Sandra Lopez-Leon, MD, PhD, associate professor of pharmacoepidemiology at Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N.J. “It’s important that we don’t focus on that 25%,” she said in an interview. “It’s a disease that we’re learning about, we’re at a time when the definitions are still changing, and, depending on when it is measured, a different number will be given. The message we want to give is that long COVID-19 exists, it’s happening in children and adolescents, and patients need this recognition. And also to show that it can affect the whole body.”

The study showed that the children and adolescents who presented with SARS-CoV-2 infection were at higher risk of subsequent long dyspnea, anosmia/ageusia, or fever, compared with control persons.

In total, in the studies that were included, more than 40 long-term clinical manifestations associated with COVID-19 in the pediatric population were identified.

The most common symptoms among children aged 0-3 years were mood swings, skin rashes, and stomachaches. In 4- to 11-year-olds, the most common symptoms were mood swings, trouble remembering or concentrating, and skin rashes. In 12- to 14-year-olds, they were fatigue, mood swings, and trouble remembering or concentrating. These data are based on parent responses.

The list of signs and symptoms also includes headache, respiratory symptoms, cognitive symptoms (such as decreased concentration, learning difficulties, confusion, and memory loss), loss of appetite, and smell disorder (hyposmia, anosmia, hyperosmia, parosmia, and phantom smell).

In the studies, the prevalence of the following symptoms was less than 5%: hyperhidrosis, chest pain, dizziness, cough, myalgia/arthralgia, changes in body weight, taste disorder, otalgia (tinnitus, ear pain, vertigo), ophthalmologic symptoms (conjunctivitis, dry eye, blurred vision, photophobia, pain), dermatologic symptoms (dry skin, itchy skin, rashes, hives, hair loss), urinary symptoms, abdominal pain, throat pain, chest tightness, variations in heart rate, palpitations, constipation, dysphonia, fever, diarrhea, vomiting/nausea, menstrual changes, neurological abnormalities, speech disorders, and dysphagia.

The authors made it clear that the frequency and severity of these symptoms can fluctuate from one patient to another.

“The meta-analysis is important because it brings together 21 studies selected from more than 8,000 articles – and in them, a large number of children – to study the most common manifestations of long COVID-19,” Gabriela Ensinck, MD, head of the infectious diseases department at the Víctor J. Vilela Children’s Hospital in Rosario, Argentina, told this news organization. Dr. Ensinck did not participate in the study. “The important thing here is that long COVID-19 exists in pediatrics. And that it is a prolongation of signs or symptoms over time, a time for which there is no single definition.”

“It’s a snapshot of all the symptoms that can remain after COVID-19,” Dr. Lopez-Leon explained. “The meta-analysis seeks to see if there’s an association between having had COVID-19 and having the symptoms, but at no time does it speak of causality.”

The prevalence of symptoms largely depends on the time since the onset of acute COVID-19. Most symptoms improve over time. In the studies that were included in the meta-analysis, the follow-up time varied between 1 and 13 months. It is important to understand what symptoms are associated with each period after the onset of infection, the authors said.
 

Danish parent survey

The Danish study LongCOVIDKidsDK followed the World Health Organization criteria for long COVID-19 and included children and adolescents aged 0-14 years who received a diagnosis of COVID-19 and who experienced symptoms that lasted at least 2 months.

Between July 20, 2021, and Sept. 15, 2021, a questionnaire was sent to 38,152 case patients and 147,212 control persons. Of this group, 10,997 (28.8%) case patients and 33,016 (22.4%) control persons answered the survey.

Children who had been diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection were more likely to experience long-lasting symptoms than children who had never been diagnosed. Approximately one-third of children with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test experienced symptoms that were not present before infection. Children who experienced long-lasting symptoms included 40% of children diagnosed with COVID-19 and 27% of control persons aged 0-3 years, 38% of case patients and 34% of control persons aged 4-11 years, and 46% of case patients and 41% of control persons aged 12-14 years.

Interestingly, those diagnosed with COVID-19 reported fewer psychological and social problems than those in the control group. Among the oldest (aged 12-14 years), quality of life scores were higher and anxiety scores were lower for those who had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.
 

More information needed

Given the diversity of symptoms in the meta-analysis and the LongCOVIDKidsDK study, a multidisciplinary approach is imperative. Dr. Lopez-Leon suggests that there is a need to raise awareness among parents, clinicians, researchers, and the health system about the conditions that can occur after COVID-19. Clinicians must better understand the sequelae to provide targeted care and treatment. The authors of the Danish study recommend establishing clinics for long COVID-19 with multispecialty care.

Maren J. Heilskov Rytter, PhD, associate professor of clinical medicine at the University of Copenhagen, wrote an editorial in The Lancet Child and Adolescent Health about the Danish study. Until it is clarified whether SARS-CoV-2 does indeed cause persistent symptoms, she wrote, “it seems excessive and premature to establish specific multidisciplinary clinics for children with long COVID-19.”

Dr. Rytter highlighted the difficulty of interpreting LongCOVIDKidsDK data, owing to recall bias, the failure to exclude other causes of symptoms in the cases analyzed, and the number of symptoms in the control persons. In addition, the data analyzed in Denmark are of limited clinical relevance, she said, given a greater presence of mild symptoms and, paradoxically, a higher quality of life.

She concluded, “In the majority of children with nonspecific symptoms after COVID-19, the symptoms presented are more likely to have been caused by something other than COVID-19, and if they are related to COVID-19, they are likely to go away over time.”

Dr. Ensinck, who is coauthor of the Argentine Ministry of Health’s guide for long COVID-19 monitoring for children and adolescents and who represented the Infectious Diseases Committee of the Argentine Society of Pediatrics, highlighted another aspect of the problem. “What should be taken into account in these data is to see how much the confinement contributed. Children are the ones who suffered the most in the period in which schools were closed; they could not meet their peers, they had sick relatives, they felt fear. … all this must be taken into account.”

There is as yet no agreement on how to define and diagnose long COVID-19 in adults, a population that has been studied more closely. Part of the problem is that long COVID-19 has been linked to more than 200 symptoms, which can range in severity from inconvenient to debilitating, can last for months or years, and can recur, sometimes months after apparent recovery. Thus, there are still disparate answers to basic questions about the syndrome’s frequency and its effects on vaccination, reinfection, and the latest variant of SARS-CoV-2.

This article has been translated from the Medscape Spanish edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

My first thought when I heard the Supreme Court’s ruling on Roe v. Wade was of a patient of mine who I had been privileged to meet earlier in my residency. She was a child when she became pregnant after a nonconsensual encounter with a much older man.

I remember how small and shy she looked, curled into herself in her too-large hospital gown. I remember thinking that it was autumn, and she should have been at her first homecoming dance, not sitting in the ER staring mutely at the hospital-issued safety socks on her feet. Her mother, puffy-eyed from crying, was sitting on the bed beside her, stroking her hair.

Together, my patients and I talked about the pregnancy. She told me how scared she was, how she didn’t want to “kill her baby”, but that she also wasn’t sure she could take care of a child. She told me that she was terrified of childbirth, that she didn’t want her friends at school to know and to judge her. We talked about how she was a victim; how she was an innocent child, too. I reassured her, and her mom emphatically agreed – her body was still her own.

The man who hurt her did not take that from her. She could make any choice she wanted, and it would be the right choice.

Eventually, she was able to make a decision which was best for her. I don’t know what became of her, but I hope she is well now, and I hope she’s thriving and happy. I also hope that she doesn’t see the news about Roe v. Wade and feel stripped of her personhood, as many women did.

When I heard about the Supreme Court decision I thought of her, and how important our conversation was to the trajectory of her life. I wondered if across the country these conversations might be silenced, and patients might be left to navigate this important facet of their health alone.

Some version of the conversation I had with my young patient occurs in exam rooms across the country countless times a day. Sometimes these conversations are cut and dry. Other times, they are accompanied by heartbreak and tears.

These conversations are common – one in four women in the United States have had an abortion. I have had many friends who were faced with deciding what to do after an unexpectedly positive pregnancy test. The reasons were different for each person – one was raped at a party, another’s birth control failed, the boyfriend of a third friend wouldn’t wear a condom – but the underlying sentiments were the same for each woman. They thought: “This is a difficult choice, but it’s a choice I’m ready to make. I’m not ready to have a baby at this point in my life.”

My friends talked to their doctors, who assisted them in making an informed choice. Some of them chose abortion. Others chose to deliver their baby. All were helped along in their decision by a physician who was there to support them and assist them in making a well-considered choice for their individual circumstance.
 

Economic and health consequences of restricting access to abortion

The facts are clear: Nearly half of all pregnancies in American women in 2011 were unplanned, and about 4 in 10 of them ended in an elective abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute.¹ Restricting access to abortions does not stop abortions from happening; it limits the opportunity for women to seek advice from trusted friends and professionals and it reduces access to safe abortions.

The people who will be most harmed by these restrictions are the most socially and economically vulnerable. Wealthy, mobile women with the ability to travel to other states or countries will always be able to access abortion care; low-income, work-tethered women and women with other children to care for at home will struggle to do so.

Denying women abortion services puts them at increased risk for lifelong, multigenerational economic hardship. Women who sought abortions but were unable to obtain them experienced an increase in household poverty which lasted years relative to women who were able to receive an abortion, according to the authors of The Turnaway Study.² They were less socially, geographically, and economically mobile, and were less likely to go on to receive a higher education.

In a country where citizens do not have paid maternity leave, affordable and accessible childcare services, or universal health care, raising a child is an enormous financial burden. Women who are denied abortions also are much more likely to end up as a single parent, shouldering that burden alone.

Additionally, low socioeconomic status is associated with increased all-cause mortality. People who live in poverty are disproportionately affected by diabetes and other chronic health conditions, and have lower life expectancies overall.

The reversal of Roe v. Wade is not only going to lead directly to patient death by decreasing access to safe abortion, causing women to pursue unsafe alternatives; it will also indirectly result in more women being driven into and remaining in poverty and suffering the health consequences.

In addition to risking a woman’s life medically, pregnancy also significantly increases that individual’s risk of being a victim of intimate partner violence. The number one cause of death in pregnant women is homicide, most often by their sexual partner, said an article published in Nature in 2021.³ Therefore, restricting a woman’s ability to control if and when she has children could put her at risk for death from serious pregnancy-related complications and unsafe abortion consequences and increase her likelihood of dying by domestic violence.
 

Patient-physicians interactions are changed

As a physician I hope that I am able to convey my intense respect for and support of a woman’s autonomy into every family planning visit I conduct. Unfortunately, this ruling will not only have an immediate impact on the lives of women across the country – it will also alter the way many of us interact with our patients on a day-to-day basis. When patients can report doctors to authorities in some states for offering terminations, and doctors can report patients for seeking them, there will be absolutely no trust in the therapeutic relationship.

With this ruling, the content of private and protected conversations between patients and their physicians will be subject to censure and potentially criminal consequences.

Regardless of where I eventually practice medicine, I should not be in the position of talking to a patient and telling them that they do not have any agency over their body unless they have the money and resources to travel to a state where abortion is legal. I should not have to tell a child that she must carry and birth another child just to appease the often-fickle whims of lawmakers.

The conversation I had with my pediatric patient was important to her health and to her future, and she deserved to have the chance to discuss her feelings with a trusted physician. Every woman has the right to make her own decisions within the sanctity of the exam room, not from the distance of a courtroom.

Dr. Persampiere is a resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. You can contact her directly at [email protected] or via [email protected].

References

1. Unintended pregnancy in the United States. Guttmacher Institute. 2019 Jan 9. https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/unintended-pregnancy-united-states

2. Foster D et al. The harms of denying a woman a wanted abortion - ANSIRH. https://www.ansirh.org/sites/default/files/publications/files/the_harms_of_denying_a_woman_a_wanted_abortion_4-16-2020.pdf

3. Subbaraman N. 2021 Nov 12. Homicide is a top cause of maternal death in the United States. Nature News. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-03392-8

My first thought when I heard the Supreme Court’s ruling on Roe v. Wade was of a patient of mine who I had been privileged to meet earlier in my residency. She was a child when she became pregnant after a nonconsensual encounter with a much older man.

I remember how small and shy she looked, curled into herself in her too-large hospital gown. I remember thinking that it was autumn, and she should have been at her first homecoming dance, not sitting in the ER staring mutely at the hospital-issued safety socks on her feet. Her mother, puffy-eyed from crying, was sitting on the bed beside her, stroking her hair.

Together, my patients and I talked about the pregnancy. She told me how scared she was, how she didn’t want to “kill her baby”, but that she also wasn’t sure she could take care of a child. She told me that she was terrified of childbirth, that she didn’t want her friends at school to know and to judge her. We talked about how she was a victim; how she was an innocent child, too. I reassured her, and her mom emphatically agreed – her body was still her own.

The man who hurt her did not take that from her. She could make any choice she wanted, and it would be the right choice.

Eventually, she was able to make a decision which was best for her. I don’t know what became of her, but I hope she is well now, and I hope she’s thriving and happy. I also hope that she doesn’t see the news about Roe v. Wade and feel stripped of her personhood, as many women did.

When I heard about the Supreme Court decision I thought of her, and how important our conversation was to the trajectory of her life. I wondered if across the country these conversations might be silenced, and patients might be left to navigate this important facet of their health alone.

Some version of the conversation I had with my young patient occurs in exam rooms across the country countless times a day. Sometimes these conversations are cut and dry. Other times, they are accompanied by heartbreak and tears.

These conversations are common – one in four women in the United States have had an abortion. I have had many friends who were faced with deciding what to do after an unexpectedly positive pregnancy test. The reasons were different for each person – one was raped at a party, another’s birth control failed, the boyfriend of a third friend wouldn’t wear a condom – but the underlying sentiments were the same for each woman. They thought: “This is a difficult choice, but it’s a choice I’m ready to make. I’m not ready to have a baby at this point in my life.”

My friends talked to their doctors, who assisted them in making an informed choice. Some of them chose abortion. Others chose to deliver their baby. All were helped along in their decision by a physician who was there to support them and assist them in making a well-considered choice for their individual circumstance.
 

Economic and health consequences of restricting access to abortion

The facts are clear: Nearly half of all pregnancies in American women in 2011 were unplanned, and about 4 in 10 of them ended in an elective abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute.¹ Restricting access to abortions does not stop abortions from happening; it limits the opportunity for women to seek advice from trusted friends and professionals and it reduces access to safe abortions.

The people who will be most harmed by these restrictions are the most socially and economically vulnerable. Wealthy, mobile women with the ability to travel to other states or countries will always be able to access abortion care; low-income, work-tethered women and women with other children to care for at home will struggle to do so.

Denying women abortion services puts them at increased risk for lifelong, multigenerational economic hardship. Women who sought abortions but were unable to obtain them experienced an increase in household poverty which lasted years relative to women who were able to receive an abortion, according to the authors of The Turnaway Study.² They were less socially, geographically, and economically mobile, and were less likely to go on to receive a higher education.

In a country where citizens do not have paid maternity leave, affordable and accessible childcare services, or universal health care, raising a child is an enormous financial burden. Women who are denied abortions also are much more likely to end up as a single parent, shouldering that burden alone.

Additionally, low socioeconomic status is associated with increased all-cause mortality. People who live in poverty are disproportionately affected by diabetes and other chronic health conditions, and have lower life expectancies overall.

The reversal of Roe v. Wade is not only going to lead directly to patient death by decreasing access to safe abortion, causing women to pursue unsafe alternatives; it will also indirectly result in more women being driven into and remaining in poverty and suffering the health consequences.

In addition to risking a woman’s life medically, pregnancy also significantly increases that individual’s risk of being a victim of intimate partner violence. The number one cause of death in pregnant women is homicide, most often by their sexual partner, said an article published in Nature in 2021.³ Therefore, restricting a woman’s ability to control if and when she has children could put her at risk for death from serious pregnancy-related complications and unsafe abortion consequences and increase her likelihood of dying by domestic violence.
 

Patient-physicians interactions are changed

As a physician I hope that I am able to convey my intense respect for and support of a woman’s autonomy into every family planning visit I conduct. Unfortunately, this ruling will not only have an immediate impact on the lives of women across the country – it will also alter the way many of us interact with our patients on a day-to-day basis. When patients can report doctors to authorities in some states for offering terminations, and doctors can report patients for seeking them, there will be absolutely no trust in the therapeutic relationship.

With this ruling, the content of private and protected conversations between patients and their physicians will be subject to censure and potentially criminal consequences.

Regardless of where I eventually practice medicine, I should not be in the position of talking to a patient and telling them that they do not have any agency over their body unless they have the money and resources to travel to a state where abortion is legal. I should not have to tell a child that she must carry and birth another child just to appease the often-fickle whims of lawmakers.

The conversation I had with my pediatric patient was important to her health and to her future, and she deserved to have the chance to discuss her feelings with a trusted physician. Every woman has the right to make her own decisions within the sanctity of the exam room, not from the distance of a courtroom.

Dr. Persampiere is a resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. You can contact her directly at [email protected] or via [email protected].

References

1. Unintended pregnancy in the United States. Guttmacher Institute. 2019 Jan 9. https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/unintended-pregnancy-united-states

2. Foster D et al. The harms of denying a woman a wanted abortion - ANSIRH. https://www.ansirh.org/sites/default/files/publications/files/the_harms_of_denying_a_woman_a_wanted_abortion_4-16-2020.pdf

3. Subbaraman N. 2021 Nov 12. Homicide is a top cause of maternal death in the United States. Nature News. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-03392-8

My first thought when I heard the Supreme Court’s ruling on Roe v. Wade was of a patient of mine who I had been privileged to meet earlier in my residency. She was a child when she became pregnant after a nonconsensual encounter with a much older man.

I remember how small and shy she looked, curled into herself in her too-large hospital gown. I remember thinking that it was autumn, and she should have been at her first homecoming dance, not sitting in the ER staring mutely at the hospital-issued safety socks on her feet. Her mother, puffy-eyed from crying, was sitting on the bed beside her, stroking her hair.

Together, my patients and I talked about the pregnancy. She told me how scared she was, how she didn’t want to “kill her baby”, but that she also wasn’t sure she could take care of a child. She told me that she was terrified of childbirth, that she didn’t want her friends at school to know and to judge her. We talked about how she was a victim; how she was an innocent child, too. I reassured her, and her mom emphatically agreed – her body was still her own.

The man who hurt her did not take that from her. She could make any choice she wanted, and it would be the right choice.

Eventually, she was able to make a decision which was best for her. I don’t know what became of her, but I hope she is well now, and I hope she’s thriving and happy. I also hope that she doesn’t see the news about Roe v. Wade and feel stripped of her personhood, as many women did.

When I heard about the Supreme Court decision I thought of her, and how important our conversation was to the trajectory of her life. I wondered if across the country these conversations might be silenced, and patients might be left to navigate this important facet of their health alone.

Some version of the conversation I had with my young patient occurs in exam rooms across the country countless times a day. Sometimes these conversations are cut and dry. Other times, they are accompanied by heartbreak and tears.

These conversations are common – one in four women in the United States have had an abortion. I have had many friends who were faced with deciding what to do after an unexpectedly positive pregnancy test. The reasons were different for each person – one was raped at a party, another’s birth control failed, the boyfriend of a third friend wouldn’t wear a condom – but the underlying sentiments were the same for each woman. They thought: “This is a difficult choice, but it’s a choice I’m ready to make. I’m not ready to have a baby at this point in my life.”

My friends talked to their doctors, who assisted them in making an informed choice. Some of them chose abortion. Others chose to deliver their baby. All were helped along in their decision by a physician who was there to support them and assist them in making a well-considered choice for their individual circumstance.
 

Economic and health consequences of restricting access to abortion

The facts are clear: Nearly half of all pregnancies in American women in 2011 were unplanned, and about 4 in 10 of them ended in an elective abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute.¹ Restricting access to abortions does not stop abortions from happening; it limits the opportunity for women to seek advice from trusted friends and professionals and it reduces access to safe abortions.

The people who will be most harmed by these restrictions are the most socially and economically vulnerable. Wealthy, mobile women with the ability to travel to other states or countries will always be able to access abortion care; low-income, work-tethered women and women with other children to care for at home will struggle to do so.

Denying women abortion services puts them at increased risk for lifelong, multigenerational economic hardship. Women who sought abortions but were unable to obtain them experienced an increase in household poverty which lasted years relative to women who were able to receive an abortion, according to the authors of The Turnaway Study.² They were less socially, geographically, and economically mobile, and were less likely to go on to receive a higher education.

In a country where citizens do not have paid maternity leave, affordable and accessible childcare services, or universal health care, raising a child is an enormous financial burden. Women who are denied abortions also are much more likely to end up as a single parent, shouldering that burden alone.

Additionally, low socioeconomic status is associated with increased all-cause mortality. People who live in poverty are disproportionately affected by diabetes and other chronic health conditions, and have lower life expectancies overall.

The reversal of Roe v. Wade is not only going to lead directly to patient death by decreasing access to safe abortion, causing women to pursue unsafe alternatives; it will also indirectly result in more women being driven into and remaining in poverty and suffering the health consequences.

In addition to risking a woman’s life medically, pregnancy also significantly increases that individual’s risk of being a victim of intimate partner violence. The number one cause of death in pregnant women is homicide, most often by their sexual partner, said an article published in Nature in 2021.³ Therefore, restricting a woman’s ability to control if and when she has children could put her at risk for death from serious pregnancy-related complications and unsafe abortion consequences and increase her likelihood of dying by domestic violence.
 

Patient-physicians interactions are changed

As a physician I hope that I am able to convey my intense respect for and support of a woman’s autonomy into every family planning visit I conduct. Unfortunately, this ruling will not only have an immediate impact on the lives of women across the country – it will also alter the way many of us interact with our patients on a day-to-day basis. When patients can report doctors to authorities in some states for offering terminations, and doctors can report patients for seeking them, there will be absolutely no trust in the therapeutic relationship.

With this ruling, the content of private and protected conversations between patients and their physicians will be subject to censure and potentially criminal consequences.

Regardless of where I eventually practice medicine, I should not be in the position of talking to a patient and telling them that they do not have any agency over their body unless they have the money and resources to travel to a state where abortion is legal. I should not have to tell a child that she must carry and birth another child just to appease the often-fickle whims of lawmakers.

The conversation I had with my pediatric patient was important to her health and to her future, and she deserved to have the chance to discuss her feelings with a trusted physician. Every woman has the right to make her own decisions within the sanctity of the exam room, not from the distance of a courtroom.

Dr. Persampiere is a resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. You can contact her directly at [email protected] or via [email protected].

References

1. Unintended pregnancy in the United States. Guttmacher Institute. 2019 Jan 9. https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/unintended-pregnancy-united-states

2. Foster D et al. The harms of denying a woman a wanted abortion - ANSIRH. https://www.ansirh.org/sites/default/files/publications/files/the_harms_of_denying_a_woman_a_wanted_abortion_4-16-2020.pdf

3. Subbaraman N. 2021 Nov 12. Homicide is a top cause of maternal death in the United States. Nature News. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-03392-8

Based on biomarker findings, some patients may be able to avoid radiation therapy following breast-conserving surgery, suggest results from the LUMINA trial.

The women in this trial who skipped radiotherapy, and were treated with breast-conserving surgery followed by endocrine therapy, had an overall survival rate of 97.2%. The local recurrence rate was 2.3%, which was the study’s primary endpoint.

“Women 55 and over, with low-grade luminal A-type breast cancer, following breast conserving surgery and treated with endocrine therapy alone, had a very low rate of local recurrence at 5 years,” commented lead author Timothy Joseph Whelan, MD.

“The prospective and multicenter nature of this study supports that these patients are candidates for the omission of radiotherapy,” said Dr. Whelan, oncology professor and Canada Research Chair in Breast Cancer Research at McMaster University and a radiation oncologist at the Juravinski Cancer Centre, both in Hamilton, Ont.

“Over 300,000 [people] are diagnosed with invasive breast cancer in North America annually, the majority in the United States,” said Dr. Whelan. “We estimate that these results could apply to 10%-15% of them, so about 30,000-40,000 women per year who could avoid the morbidity, the cost, and inconvenience of radiotherapy.”

The results were presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Dr. Whelan explained that adjuvant radiation therapy is generally prescribed following breast conservation therapy to lower the risk of local recurrence, but the treatment is also associated with acute and late toxicity. In addition, it can incur high costs and inconvenience for the patient.

Previous studies have found that among women older than 60 with low-grade, luminal A-type breast cancer who received only breast-conserving surgery, there was a low rate of local recurrence. In women aged older than 70 years, the risk of local recurrence was about 4%-5%.

This latest study focused on patients with breast cancer with a luminal A subtype combined with clinical pathological factors (defined as estrogen receptor ≥ 1%, progesterone receptor > 20%, HER2 negative, and Ki67 ≤ 13.25%).

This was a prospective, multicenter cohort study that included 501 patients aged 55 years and older who had undergone breast-conserving surgery for grade 1-2 T1N0 cancer.

The median patient age was 67, with 442 (88%) older than 75 years. The median tumor size was 1.1 cm.

Median follow-up was 5 years. The cohort was followed every 6 months for the first 2 years and then annually.

The primary outcome was local recurrence defined as time from enrollment to any invasive or noninvasive cancer in the ipsilateral breast, and secondary endpoints included contralateral breast cancer, relapse-free survival based on any recurrence, disease free survival, second cancer or death, and overall survival.

At five years, there were 10 events of local recurrence, for a rate of 2.3%. For secondary outcomes, there were eight events of contralateral breast cancer (1.9%); 12 relapses for a recurrence-free survival rate of 97.3%; 47 disease progression (23 second nonbreast cancers) for a disease-free survival rate of 89.9%; and 13 deaths, including 1 from breast cancer, for an overall survival of 97.2%.
 

Confirms earlier data

Penny R. Anderson, MD, professor in the department of radiation oncology at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, commented that this was an “extremely well-designed and important study.

“It has identified a specific subset of patients to be appropriate candidates for consideration of omission of adjuvant breast radiation therapy after breast-conserving surgery,” she added.

Although previously published trials have helped identify certain patient groups who have a low risk of local recurrence – and therefore, for whom it may be appropriate to omit radiation – they have been based on the traditional clinical and pathologic factors of tumor size, margin status, receptor status, and patient age.

“This LUMINA trial utilizes the molecular-defined intrinsic subtype of luminal A breast cancer to provide additional prognostic information,” she said. “This finding certainly suggests that this group of patients are ideal candidates for the omission of radiation, and that this should be discussed with these patients as a potential option in their treatment management.”

Overall, this trial is a “significant addition and a very relevant contribution to the literature demonstrating that adjuvant breast radiation may safely be omitted in this particular subgroup of breast cancer patients,” she said.
 

Unanswered questions

Commenting on the study, Julie Gralow, MD, chief medical officer and executive vice president of ASCO, told this news organization that she thinks the take-home message is that there is “clearly a population of early-stage breast cancer [patients] who after lumpectomy do not benefit from radiation.”

“I think where there will be discussion will be what is the optimal way of identifying that group,” she said, noting that in this study the patients were screened for Ki67, a marker of proliferation. 

Testing for Ki67 is not the standard of care, Dr. Gralow pointed out, and there is also a problem with reproducibility since “every lab does it somewhat differently, because it is not a standard pathology approach.”

There are now many unanswered questions, she noted. “Do we need that central testing of Ki67? Do we need to develop guidelines for how to do this? Is this better than if you’ve already run an Oncotype or a MammaPrint test to see if the patient needs chemo, then would that suffice? That is where the discussion will be. We can reduce the number of patients who need radiation without an increase in local regional recurrence.”

In terms of clinical practice, Dr. Gralow explained that there are already some  data supporting the omission of radiation therapy in an older population with ER-positive small low-grade tumors, and this has become a standard clinical practice. “It’s not based on solid data, but based on an accumulation of retrospective analyses,” she said. “So we have already been doing it for an older population. This would bring down the age group, and it would better define it, and test it prospectively.”
 

Limitations to note

Also commenting on the study, Deborah Axelrod, MD, director of clinical breast surgery at New York University Langone’s Perlmutter Cancer Center, explained that, in the last decade, knowledge about the behavior of breast cancers based on molecular subtyping has greatly increased. “Results of studies such as this have given us information on which cancers need more treatment and for which cancers we can de-escalate treatment,” she said. “Refining this more, it’s about reducing the morbidity and improving quality of life without compromising the oncological outcome.”

She noted that a big strength of this LUMINA study is that it is prospective and multicenter. “It has been supported by other past studies as well and will define for which patients with newly treated breast cancers can we omit radiation, which has been the standard of care,” said Dr. Axelrod. “It is based on the age and biology of breast cancer in defining which patient can forgo radiation and showed a low risk of recurrence in a specific population of women with a favorable breast cancer profile”

There were limitations to the study. “There is a 5-year follow-up and local recurrence for ER-positive cancers continues to rise after 5 years, so longer-term follow-up will be important,” she said. Also, she pointed out that it is a single-arm study so there is no radiation therapy comparison arm.

Other limitations were that the patients were older with smaller tumors, and all were committed to 5 years of endocrine therapy, although compliance with that has not been reported. There may be some older patients who prefer radiation therapy, especially a week of accelerated partial breast irradiation, rather than commit to 5 years of endocrine therapy as mandated in this study.

“Overall, the takeaway message for patients is that the omission of radiation therapy should be considered an option for older women with localized breast cancer with favorable features who receive endocrine therapies,” said Dr. Axelrod.

LUMINA was sponsored by the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation and the Canadian Cancer Society. Dr. Whelan has reported research funding from Exact Sciences (Inst). Dr. Axelrod and Dr. Anderson reported no disclosures. Dr. Gralow reported relationships with Genentech, AstraZeneca, Hexal, Puma BioTechnology, Roche, Novartis, Seagen, and Genomic Health.

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

Based on biomarker findings, some patients may be able to avoid radiation therapy following breast-conserving surgery, suggest results from the LUMINA trial.

The women in this trial who skipped radiotherapy, and were treated with breast-conserving surgery followed by endocrine therapy, had an overall survival rate of 97.2%. The local recurrence rate was 2.3%, which was the study’s primary endpoint.

“Women 55 and over, with low-grade luminal A-type breast cancer, following breast conserving surgery and treated with endocrine therapy alone, had a very low rate of local recurrence at 5 years,” commented lead author Timothy Joseph Whelan, MD.

“The prospective and multicenter nature of this study supports that these patients are candidates for the omission of radiotherapy,” said Dr. Whelan, oncology professor and Canada Research Chair in Breast Cancer Research at McMaster University and a radiation oncologist at the Juravinski Cancer Centre, both in Hamilton, Ont.

“Over 300,000 [people] are diagnosed with invasive breast cancer in North America annually, the majority in the United States,” said Dr. Whelan. “We estimate that these results could apply to 10%-15% of them, so about 30,000-40,000 women per year who could avoid the morbidity, the cost, and inconvenience of radiotherapy.”

The results were presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Dr. Whelan explained that adjuvant radiation therapy is generally prescribed following breast conservation therapy to lower the risk of local recurrence, but the treatment is also associated with acute and late toxicity. In addition, it can incur high costs and inconvenience for the patient.

Previous studies have found that among women older than 60 with low-grade, luminal A-type breast cancer who received only breast-conserving surgery, there was a low rate of local recurrence. In women aged older than 70 years, the risk of local recurrence was about 4%-5%.

This latest study focused on patients with breast cancer with a luminal A subtype combined with clinical pathological factors (defined as estrogen receptor ≥ 1%, progesterone receptor > 20%, HER2 negative, and Ki67 ≤ 13.25%).

This was a prospective, multicenter cohort study that included 501 patients aged 55 years and older who had undergone breast-conserving surgery for grade 1-2 T1N0 cancer.

The median patient age was 67, with 442 (88%) older than 75 years. The median tumor size was 1.1 cm.

Median follow-up was 5 years. The cohort was followed every 6 months for the first 2 years and then annually.

The primary outcome was local recurrence defined as time from enrollment to any invasive or noninvasive cancer in the ipsilateral breast, and secondary endpoints included contralateral breast cancer, relapse-free survival based on any recurrence, disease free survival, second cancer or death, and overall survival.

At five years, there were 10 events of local recurrence, for a rate of 2.3%. For secondary outcomes, there were eight events of contralateral breast cancer (1.9%); 12 relapses for a recurrence-free survival rate of 97.3%; 47 disease progression (23 second nonbreast cancers) for a disease-free survival rate of 89.9%; and 13 deaths, including 1 from breast cancer, for an overall survival of 97.2%.
 

Confirms earlier data

Penny R. Anderson, MD, professor in the department of radiation oncology at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, commented that this was an “extremely well-designed and important study.

“It has identified a specific subset of patients to be appropriate candidates for consideration of omission of adjuvant breast radiation therapy after breast-conserving surgery,” she added.

Although previously published trials have helped identify certain patient groups who have a low risk of local recurrence – and therefore, for whom it may be appropriate to omit radiation – they have been based on the traditional clinical and pathologic factors of tumor size, margin status, receptor status, and patient age.

“This LUMINA trial utilizes the molecular-defined intrinsic subtype of luminal A breast cancer to provide additional prognostic information,” she said. “This finding certainly suggests that this group of patients are ideal candidates for the omission of radiation, and that this should be discussed with these patients as a potential option in their treatment management.”

Overall, this trial is a “significant addition and a very relevant contribution to the literature demonstrating that adjuvant breast radiation may safely be omitted in this particular subgroup of breast cancer patients,” she said.
 

Unanswered questions

Commenting on the study, Julie Gralow, MD, chief medical officer and executive vice president of ASCO, told this news organization that she thinks the take-home message is that there is “clearly a population of early-stage breast cancer [patients] who after lumpectomy do not benefit from radiation.”

“I think where there will be discussion will be what is the optimal way of identifying that group,” she said, noting that in this study the patients were screened for Ki67, a marker of proliferation. 

Testing for Ki67 is not the standard of care, Dr. Gralow pointed out, and there is also a problem with reproducibility since “every lab does it somewhat differently, because it is not a standard pathology approach.”

There are now many unanswered questions, she noted. “Do we need that central testing of Ki67? Do we need to develop guidelines for how to do this? Is this better than if you’ve already run an Oncotype or a MammaPrint test to see if the patient needs chemo, then would that suffice? That is where the discussion will be. We can reduce the number of patients who need radiation without an increase in local regional recurrence.”

In terms of clinical practice, Dr. Gralow explained that there are already some  data supporting the omission of radiation therapy in an older population with ER-positive small low-grade tumors, and this has become a standard clinical practice. “It’s not based on solid data, but based on an accumulation of retrospective analyses,” she said. “So we have already been doing it for an older population. This would bring down the age group, and it would better define it, and test it prospectively.”
 

Limitations to note

Also commenting on the study, Deborah Axelrod, MD, director of clinical breast surgery at New York University Langone’s Perlmutter Cancer Center, explained that, in the last decade, knowledge about the behavior of breast cancers based on molecular subtyping has greatly increased. “Results of studies such as this have given us information on which cancers need more treatment and for which cancers we can de-escalate treatment,” she said. “Refining this more, it’s about reducing the morbidity and improving quality of life without compromising the oncological outcome.”

She noted that a big strength of this LUMINA study is that it is prospective and multicenter. “It has been supported by other past studies as well and will define for which patients with newly treated breast cancers can we omit radiation, which has been the standard of care,” said Dr. Axelrod. “It is based on the age and biology of breast cancer in defining which patient can forgo radiation and showed a low risk of recurrence in a specific population of women with a favorable breast cancer profile”

There were limitations to the study. “There is a 5-year follow-up and local recurrence for ER-positive cancers continues to rise after 5 years, so longer-term follow-up will be important,” she said. Also, she pointed out that it is a single-arm study so there is no radiation therapy comparison arm.

Other limitations were that the patients were older with smaller tumors, and all were committed to 5 years of endocrine therapy, although compliance with that has not been reported. There may be some older patients who prefer radiation therapy, especially a week of accelerated partial breast irradiation, rather than commit to 5 years of endocrine therapy as mandated in this study.

“Overall, the takeaway message for patients is that the omission of radiation therapy should be considered an option for older women with localized breast cancer with favorable features who receive endocrine therapies,” said Dr. Axelrod.

LUMINA was sponsored by the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation and the Canadian Cancer Society. Dr. Whelan has reported research funding from Exact Sciences (Inst). Dr. Axelrod and Dr. Anderson reported no disclosures. Dr. Gralow reported relationships with Genentech, AstraZeneca, Hexal, Puma BioTechnology, Roche, Novartis, Seagen, and Genomic Health.

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

Based on biomarker findings, some patients may be able to avoid radiation therapy following breast-conserving surgery, suggest results from the LUMINA trial.

The women in this trial who skipped radiotherapy, and were treated with breast-conserving surgery followed by endocrine therapy, had an overall survival rate of 97.2%. The local recurrence rate was 2.3%, which was the study’s primary endpoint.

“Women 55 and over, with low-grade luminal A-type breast cancer, following breast conserving surgery and treated with endocrine therapy alone, had a very low rate of local recurrence at 5 years,” commented lead author Timothy Joseph Whelan, MD.

“The prospective and multicenter nature of this study supports that these patients are candidates for the omission of radiotherapy,” said Dr. Whelan, oncology professor and Canada Research Chair in Breast Cancer Research at McMaster University and a radiation oncologist at the Juravinski Cancer Centre, both in Hamilton, Ont.

“Over 300,000 [people] are diagnosed with invasive breast cancer in North America annually, the majority in the United States,” said Dr. Whelan. “We estimate that these results could apply to 10%-15% of them, so about 30,000-40,000 women per year who could avoid the morbidity, the cost, and inconvenience of radiotherapy.”

The results were presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Dr. Whelan explained that adjuvant radiation therapy is generally prescribed following breast conservation therapy to lower the risk of local recurrence, but the treatment is also associated with acute and late toxicity. In addition, it can incur high costs and inconvenience for the patient.

Previous studies have found that among women older than 60 with low-grade, luminal A-type breast cancer who received only breast-conserving surgery, there was a low rate of local recurrence. In women aged older than 70 years, the risk of local recurrence was about 4%-5%.

This latest study focused on patients with breast cancer with a luminal A subtype combined with clinical pathological factors (defined as estrogen receptor ≥ 1%, progesterone receptor > 20%, HER2 negative, and Ki67 ≤ 13.25%).

This was a prospective, multicenter cohort study that included 501 patients aged 55 years and older who had undergone breast-conserving surgery for grade 1-2 T1N0 cancer.

The median patient age was 67, with 442 (88%) older than 75 years. The median tumor size was 1.1 cm.

Median follow-up was 5 years. The cohort was followed every 6 months for the first 2 years and then annually.

The primary outcome was local recurrence defined as time from enrollment to any invasive or noninvasive cancer in the ipsilateral breast, and secondary endpoints included contralateral breast cancer, relapse-free survival based on any recurrence, disease free survival, second cancer or death, and overall survival.

At five years, there were 10 events of local recurrence, for a rate of 2.3%. For secondary outcomes, there were eight events of contralateral breast cancer (1.9%); 12 relapses for a recurrence-free survival rate of 97.3%; 47 disease progression (23 second nonbreast cancers) for a disease-free survival rate of 89.9%; and 13 deaths, including 1 from breast cancer, for an overall survival of 97.2%.
 

Confirms earlier data

Penny R. Anderson, MD, professor in the department of radiation oncology at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, commented that this was an “extremely well-designed and important study.

“It has identified a specific subset of patients to be appropriate candidates for consideration of omission of adjuvant breast radiation therapy after breast-conserving surgery,” she added.

Although previously published trials have helped identify certain patient groups who have a low risk of local recurrence – and therefore, for whom it may be appropriate to omit radiation – they have been based on the traditional clinical and pathologic factors of tumor size, margin status, receptor status, and patient age.

“This LUMINA trial utilizes the molecular-defined intrinsic subtype of luminal A breast cancer to provide additional prognostic information,” she said. “This finding certainly suggests that this group of patients are ideal candidates for the omission of radiation, and that this should be discussed with these patients as a potential option in their treatment management.”

Overall, this trial is a “significant addition and a very relevant contribution to the literature demonstrating that adjuvant breast radiation may safely be omitted in this particular subgroup of breast cancer patients,” she said.
 

Unanswered questions

Commenting on the study, Julie Gralow, MD, chief medical officer and executive vice president of ASCO, told this news organization that she thinks the take-home message is that there is “clearly a population of early-stage breast cancer [patients] who after lumpectomy do not benefit from radiation.”

“I think where there will be discussion will be what is the optimal way of identifying that group,” she said, noting that in this study the patients were screened for Ki67, a marker of proliferation. 

Testing for Ki67 is not the standard of care, Dr. Gralow pointed out, and there is also a problem with reproducibility since “every lab does it somewhat differently, because it is not a standard pathology approach.”

There are now many unanswered questions, she noted. “Do we need that central testing of Ki67? Do we need to develop guidelines for how to do this? Is this better than if you’ve already run an Oncotype or a MammaPrint test to see if the patient needs chemo, then would that suffice? That is where the discussion will be. We can reduce the number of patients who need radiation without an increase in local regional recurrence.”

In terms of clinical practice, Dr. Gralow explained that there are already some  data supporting the omission of radiation therapy in an older population with ER-positive small low-grade tumors, and this has become a standard clinical practice. “It’s not based on solid data, but based on an accumulation of retrospective analyses,” she said. “So we have already been doing it for an older population. This would bring down the age group, and it would better define it, and test it prospectively.”
 

Limitations to note

Also commenting on the study, Deborah Axelrod, MD, director of clinical breast surgery at New York University Langone’s Perlmutter Cancer Center, explained that, in the last decade, knowledge about the behavior of breast cancers based on molecular subtyping has greatly increased. “Results of studies such as this have given us information on which cancers need more treatment and for which cancers we can de-escalate treatment,” she said. “Refining this more, it’s about reducing the morbidity and improving quality of life without compromising the oncological outcome.”

She noted that a big strength of this LUMINA study is that it is prospective and multicenter. “It has been supported by other past studies as well and will define for which patients with newly treated breast cancers can we omit radiation, which has been the standard of care,” said Dr. Axelrod. “It is based on the age and biology of breast cancer in defining which patient can forgo radiation and showed a low risk of recurrence in a specific population of women with a favorable breast cancer profile”

There were limitations to the study. “There is a 5-year follow-up and local recurrence for ER-positive cancers continues to rise after 5 years, so longer-term follow-up will be important,” she said. Also, she pointed out that it is a single-arm study so there is no radiation therapy comparison arm.

Other limitations were that the patients were older with smaller tumors, and all were committed to 5 years of endocrine therapy, although compliance with that has not been reported. There may be some older patients who prefer radiation therapy, especially a week of accelerated partial breast irradiation, rather than commit to 5 years of endocrine therapy as mandated in this study.

“Overall, the takeaway message for patients is that the omission of radiation therapy should be considered an option for older women with localized breast cancer with favorable features who receive endocrine therapies,” said Dr. Axelrod.

LUMINA was sponsored by the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation and the Canadian Cancer Society. Dr. Whelan has reported research funding from Exact Sciences (Inst). Dr. Axelrod and Dr. Anderson reported no disclosures. Dr. Gralow reported relationships with Genentech, AstraZeneca, Hexal, Puma BioTechnology, Roche, Novartis, Seagen, and Genomic Health.

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