Storks everywhere, rejoice. A new study shows that the ability to stand on one leg for at least 10 seconds is strongly linked to the risk of death over the next 7 years.

According to the findings, people in middle age and older who couldn’t perform the 10-second standing test were nearly four times as likely to die of any cause – heart attacks, strokes, cancer, and more – in the coming years than those who could, well, stand the test of time.

Claudio Gil Araújo, MD, PhD, research director of the Exercise Medicine Clinic-CLINIMEX in Rio de Janeiro, who led the study, called the results “awesome!”

“As a physician who has worked with cardiac patients for over 4 decades, I was very impressed in finding out that, for those between 51 and 75 years of age, it is riskier for survival to not complete the 10-second one-leg standing test than to have been diagnosed as having coronary artery disease or in being hypertensive” or having abnormal cholesterol, Dr. Araújo said in an interview.

The findings appeared in the British Journal of Sports Medicine.

Researchers have known for at least a half century that balance and mortality are connected. One reason is falls: Worldwide, nearly 700,000 people each year die as a result of a fall, according to the World Health Organization, and more than 37 million falls annually require medical attention. But as the new study indicates, falls aren’t the only problem.

Dr. Araújo and colleagues have been working on ways to improve balance and strength as people age. In addition to the one-legged standing test, they have previously shown that the ability to rise from a sitting position on the floor is also a strong predictor of longevity.

For the new study, the researchers assessed 1,702 people in Brazil (68% men) aged 51-75 years who had been participating in an ongoing exercise study that began there in 1994.
 

Three tries to succeed

Starting in 2008, the team introduced the standing test, which involves balancing on one leg and placing the other foot at the back weight-bearing limb for support. People get three tries to maintain that posture for at least 10 seconds.

Not surprisingly, the ability to perform the test dropped with age. Although 20% of people in the study overall were unable to stand on one leg for 10 seconds, that figure rose to about 70% for those aged 76-80 years, and nearly 90% for those aged 81-85, according to the researchers. Of the two dozen 85-year-olds in the study, only two were able to complete the standing test, Dr. Araújo told this news organization.

At roughly age 70, half of people could not complete the 10-second test.

Over an average of 7 years of follow-up, 17.5% of people who could not manage the 10-second stand had died, compared with 4.5% of those who could last that long, the study found.

After accounting for age and many other risk factors, such as diabetes, body mass index, and a history of heart disease, people who were unable to complete the standing test were 84% more likely to die from any cause over the study period than their peers with better one-legged static balance (95% confidence interval, 1.23-2.78; P < .001).

The researchers said their study was limited by its lack of diversity – all the participants were relatively affluent Brazilians – and the inability to control for a history of falls and physical activity. But they said the size of the cohort, the long follow-up period, and their use of sophistical statistical methods helped mitigate the shortcomings.

Although low aerobic fitness is a marker of poor health, much less attention has been paid to nonaerobic fitness – things like balance, flexibility, and muscle strength and power, Dr. Araújo said.

“We are accumulating evidence that these three components of nonaerobic physical fitness are potentially relevant for good health and even more relevant for survival in older subjects,” Dr. Araújo said. Poor nonaerobic fitness, which is normally but not always associated with a sedentary lifestyle, “is the background of most cases of frailty, and being frail is strongly associated with a poor quality of life, less physical activity and exercise, and so on. It’s a bad circle.”

Dr. Araújo’s group has been using the standing test in their clinic for more than a dozen years and have seen gains in their patients. “Patients are often unaware that they are unable to sustain 10 seconds standing one legged. After this simple evaluation, they are much more prone to engage in balance training,” he said.

For now, the researchers don’t have data to show that improving static balance or performance on the standing test can affect survival, a “quite attractive” possibility, he added. But balance can be substantially improved through training.

“After only a few sessions, an improvement can be perceived, and this influences quality of life,” Dr. Araújo said. “And this is exactly what we do with the patients that we evaluated and for those that are attending our medically supervised exercise program.”

George A. Kuchel, MD, CM, FRCP, professor and Travelers Chair in Geriatrics and Gerontology at the University of Connecticut, Farmington, called the research “well done” and said the results “make perfect sense, since we have known for a long time that muscle strength is an important determinant of health, independence, and survival.”

Identifying frail patients quickly, simply, and reliably in the clinical setting is a pressing need, Dr. Kuchel, director of the UConn Center on Aging, said in an interview. The 10-second test “has considerable appeal” for this purpose.

“This could be, or rather should be, of great interest to all busy clinicians who see older adults in primary care or consultative capacities,” Dr. Kuchel added. “I hate to be nihilistic as regards what is possible in the context of really busy clinical practices, but even the minute or so that this takes to do may very well be too much for busy clinicians to do.”

Dr. Araújo and Dr. Kuchel reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Storks everywhere, rejoice. A new study shows that the ability to stand on one leg for at least 10 seconds is strongly linked to the risk of death over the next 7 years.

According to the findings, people in middle age and older who couldn’t perform the 10-second standing test were nearly four times as likely to die of any cause – heart attacks, strokes, cancer, and more – in the coming years than those who could, well, stand the test of time.

Claudio Gil Araújo, MD, PhD, research director of the Exercise Medicine Clinic-CLINIMEX in Rio de Janeiro, who led the study, called the results “awesome!”

“As a physician who has worked with cardiac patients for over 4 decades, I was very impressed in finding out that, for those between 51 and 75 years of age, it is riskier for survival to not complete the 10-second one-leg standing test than to have been diagnosed as having coronary artery disease or in being hypertensive” or having abnormal cholesterol, Dr. Araújo said in an interview.

The findings appeared in the British Journal of Sports Medicine.

Researchers have known for at least a half century that balance and mortality are connected. One reason is falls: Worldwide, nearly 700,000 people each year die as a result of a fall, according to the World Health Organization, and more than 37 million falls annually require medical attention. But as the new study indicates, falls aren’t the only problem.

Dr. Araújo and colleagues have been working on ways to improve balance and strength as people age. In addition to the one-legged standing test, they have previously shown that the ability to rise from a sitting position on the floor is also a strong predictor of longevity.

For the new study, the researchers assessed 1,702 people in Brazil (68% men) aged 51-75 years who had been participating in an ongoing exercise study that began there in 1994.
 

Three tries to succeed

Starting in 2008, the team introduced the standing test, which involves balancing on one leg and placing the other foot at the back weight-bearing limb for support. People get three tries to maintain that posture for at least 10 seconds.

Not surprisingly, the ability to perform the test dropped with age. Although 20% of people in the study overall were unable to stand on one leg for 10 seconds, that figure rose to about 70% for those aged 76-80 years, and nearly 90% for those aged 81-85, according to the researchers. Of the two dozen 85-year-olds in the study, only two were able to complete the standing test, Dr. Araújo told this news organization.

At roughly age 70, half of people could not complete the 10-second test.

Over an average of 7 years of follow-up, 17.5% of people who could not manage the 10-second stand had died, compared with 4.5% of those who could last that long, the study found.

After accounting for age and many other risk factors, such as diabetes, body mass index, and a history of heart disease, people who were unable to complete the standing test were 84% more likely to die from any cause over the study period than their peers with better one-legged static balance (95% confidence interval, 1.23-2.78; P < .001).

The researchers said their study was limited by its lack of diversity – all the participants were relatively affluent Brazilians – and the inability to control for a history of falls and physical activity. But they said the size of the cohort, the long follow-up period, and their use of sophistical statistical methods helped mitigate the shortcomings.

Although low aerobic fitness is a marker of poor health, much less attention has been paid to nonaerobic fitness – things like balance, flexibility, and muscle strength and power, Dr. Araújo said.

“We are accumulating evidence that these three components of nonaerobic physical fitness are potentially relevant for good health and even more relevant for survival in older subjects,” Dr. Araújo said. Poor nonaerobic fitness, which is normally but not always associated with a sedentary lifestyle, “is the background of most cases of frailty, and being frail is strongly associated with a poor quality of life, less physical activity and exercise, and so on. It’s a bad circle.”

Dr. Araújo’s group has been using the standing test in their clinic for more than a dozen years and have seen gains in their patients. “Patients are often unaware that they are unable to sustain 10 seconds standing one legged. After this simple evaluation, they are much more prone to engage in balance training,” he said.

For now, the researchers don’t have data to show that improving static balance or performance on the standing test can affect survival, a “quite attractive” possibility, he added. But balance can be substantially improved through training.

“After only a few sessions, an improvement can be perceived, and this influences quality of life,” Dr. Araújo said. “And this is exactly what we do with the patients that we evaluated and for those that are attending our medically supervised exercise program.”

George A. Kuchel, MD, CM, FRCP, professor and Travelers Chair in Geriatrics and Gerontology at the University of Connecticut, Farmington, called the research “well done” and said the results “make perfect sense, since we have known for a long time that muscle strength is an important determinant of health, independence, and survival.”

Identifying frail patients quickly, simply, and reliably in the clinical setting is a pressing need, Dr. Kuchel, director of the UConn Center on Aging, said in an interview. The 10-second test “has considerable appeal” for this purpose.

“This could be, or rather should be, of great interest to all busy clinicians who see older adults in primary care or consultative capacities,” Dr. Kuchel added. “I hate to be nihilistic as regards what is possible in the context of really busy clinical practices, but even the minute or so that this takes to do may very well be too much for busy clinicians to do.”

Dr. Araújo and Dr. Kuchel reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Storks everywhere, rejoice. A new study shows that the ability to stand on one leg for at least 10 seconds is strongly linked to the risk of death over the next 7 years.

According to the findings, people in middle age and older who couldn’t perform the 10-second standing test were nearly four times as likely to die of any cause – heart attacks, strokes, cancer, and more – in the coming years than those who could, well, stand the test of time.

Claudio Gil Araújo, MD, PhD, research director of the Exercise Medicine Clinic-CLINIMEX in Rio de Janeiro, who led the study, called the results “awesome!”

“As a physician who has worked with cardiac patients for over 4 decades, I was very impressed in finding out that, for those between 51 and 75 years of age, it is riskier for survival to not complete the 10-second one-leg standing test than to have been diagnosed as having coronary artery disease or in being hypertensive” or having abnormal cholesterol, Dr. Araújo said in an interview.

The findings appeared in the British Journal of Sports Medicine.

Researchers have known for at least a half century that balance and mortality are connected. One reason is falls: Worldwide, nearly 700,000 people each year die as a result of a fall, according to the World Health Organization, and more than 37 million falls annually require medical attention. But as the new study indicates, falls aren’t the only problem.

Dr. Araújo and colleagues have been working on ways to improve balance and strength as people age. In addition to the one-legged standing test, they have previously shown that the ability to rise from a sitting position on the floor is also a strong predictor of longevity.

For the new study, the researchers assessed 1,702 people in Brazil (68% men) aged 51-75 years who had been participating in an ongoing exercise study that began there in 1994.
 

Three tries to succeed

Starting in 2008, the team introduced the standing test, which involves balancing on one leg and placing the other foot at the back weight-bearing limb for support. People get three tries to maintain that posture for at least 10 seconds.

Not surprisingly, the ability to perform the test dropped with age. Although 20% of people in the study overall were unable to stand on one leg for 10 seconds, that figure rose to about 70% for those aged 76-80 years, and nearly 90% for those aged 81-85, according to the researchers. Of the two dozen 85-year-olds in the study, only two were able to complete the standing test, Dr. Araújo told this news organization.

At roughly age 70, half of people could not complete the 10-second test.

Over an average of 7 years of follow-up, 17.5% of people who could not manage the 10-second stand had died, compared with 4.5% of those who could last that long, the study found.

After accounting for age and many other risk factors, such as diabetes, body mass index, and a history of heart disease, people who were unable to complete the standing test were 84% more likely to die from any cause over the study period than their peers with better one-legged static balance (95% confidence interval, 1.23-2.78; P < .001).

The researchers said their study was limited by its lack of diversity – all the participants were relatively affluent Brazilians – and the inability to control for a history of falls and physical activity. But they said the size of the cohort, the long follow-up period, and their use of sophistical statistical methods helped mitigate the shortcomings.

Although low aerobic fitness is a marker of poor health, much less attention has been paid to nonaerobic fitness – things like balance, flexibility, and muscle strength and power, Dr. Araújo said.

“We are accumulating evidence that these three components of nonaerobic physical fitness are potentially relevant for good health and even more relevant for survival in older subjects,” Dr. Araújo said. Poor nonaerobic fitness, which is normally but not always associated with a sedentary lifestyle, “is the background of most cases of frailty, and being frail is strongly associated with a poor quality of life, less physical activity and exercise, and so on. It’s a bad circle.”

Dr. Araújo’s group has been using the standing test in their clinic for more than a dozen years and have seen gains in their patients. “Patients are often unaware that they are unable to sustain 10 seconds standing one legged. After this simple evaluation, they are much more prone to engage in balance training,” he said.

For now, the researchers don’t have data to show that improving static balance or performance on the standing test can affect survival, a “quite attractive” possibility, he added. But balance can be substantially improved through training.

“After only a few sessions, an improvement can be perceived, and this influences quality of life,” Dr. Araújo said. “And this is exactly what we do with the patients that we evaluated and for those that are attending our medically supervised exercise program.”

George A. Kuchel, MD, CM, FRCP, professor and Travelers Chair in Geriatrics and Gerontology at the University of Connecticut, Farmington, called the research “well done” and said the results “make perfect sense, since we have known for a long time that muscle strength is an important determinant of health, independence, and survival.”

Identifying frail patients quickly, simply, and reliably in the clinical setting is a pressing need, Dr. Kuchel, director of the UConn Center on Aging, said in an interview. The 10-second test “has considerable appeal” for this purpose.

“This could be, or rather should be, of great interest to all busy clinicians who see older adults in primary care or consultative capacities,” Dr. Kuchel added. “I hate to be nihilistic as regards what is possible in the context of really busy clinical practices, but even the minute or so that this takes to do may very well be too much for busy clinicians to do.”

Dr. Araújo and Dr. Kuchel reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

It’s no secret that the fitness level of all age groups in our country is poor. A recent study in Pediatrics sharpens the focus on the question of how we might address the problem in the teenage population. Based in England, the investigators placed wrist accelerometers on their 13- and 14-year-old subjects who were then assessed using shuttle runs at progressively faster speeds.

The researchers found that the participants’ cardiorespiratory fitness improved as the subjects’ time doing vigorous activity increased up to 20 minutes and then plateaued. The study authors could not prove that the vigorous activity caused the increased in fitness. However, they were impressed by the plateau phenomenon and suggest that this might suggest a change in the recommendations by the World Health Organization and U.S. Department of Health & Human Services which currently call for 60 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity per day for adolescents

At first blush a shift down to 20 minutes of vigorous activity would appear to be workable and achievable. This would be particularly true for public school systems that are already struggling to get any kind of activity shoehorned into their schedules that are already crammed in an attempt to address mandated academic achievement goals. Freeing up an additional 40 minutes of the school day and yielding improved cardiorespiratory fitness sounds like a win-win.

But, let’s take a deep breath and for a few moments return to the world of reality. First, how many school systems are providing that 60 minutes of moderate activity (let’s forget the vigorous piece for the moment) included in the current WHO/HHS recommendations? Next, let’s take a look at what “vigorous” activity means. There are variety of definitions but in general they include sweating, flushing, and dyspnea to the point of having difficulty speaking.

Let’s just focus on the “sweating” part. To me that sounds like an activity that would require some wardrobe alteration at a minimum and very likely a locker room and a shower. Those can be fightin’ words for many teenagers. Even if a school can provide adequate locker room and shower infrastructure change-ups and showers are time-gobbling activities. And, more realistically, what are the chances of getting body image–challenged adolescents to willingly take advantage of them? You don’t have to talk to very many adults before you will hear stories of discomfort and embarrassment resulting from forced locker room and shower experiences. When I was a teenager the only way you could flunk physical education was to refuse to go in the locker room and “change up.” I think or at least hope that physical educators are more sensitive to the fragility of their adolescents students. But, the bottom line is that creating a curriculum that will improve cardiorespiratory fitness is fraught with challenges most school systems can’t address. It’s sad but true.

So, where does that leave us? This new study from England may be helpful for families who are caught in a time crunch and looking improve their fitness or for the physical educator who would like to help his/her motivated students get on a healthier track. But, this study should not prompt us to throw up our hands and toss out the current recommendations of an hour of moderate activity. As unrealistic as it may be for most school systems it allows for the injection of physical activity into academic settings where creative educators can offer things like walking lectures and field trips. It all boils down to the fact that some activity is better than none at all with or without the sweat equity.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

It’s no secret that the fitness level of all age groups in our country is poor. A recent study in Pediatrics sharpens the focus on the question of how we might address the problem in the teenage population. Based in England, the investigators placed wrist accelerometers on their 13- and 14-year-old subjects who were then assessed using shuttle runs at progressively faster speeds.

The researchers found that the participants’ cardiorespiratory fitness improved as the subjects’ time doing vigorous activity increased up to 20 minutes and then plateaued. The study authors could not prove that the vigorous activity caused the increased in fitness. However, they were impressed by the plateau phenomenon and suggest that this might suggest a change in the recommendations by the World Health Organization and U.S. Department of Health & Human Services which currently call for 60 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity per day for adolescents

At first blush a shift down to 20 minutes of vigorous activity would appear to be workable and achievable. This would be particularly true for public school systems that are already struggling to get any kind of activity shoehorned into their schedules that are already crammed in an attempt to address mandated academic achievement goals. Freeing up an additional 40 minutes of the school day and yielding improved cardiorespiratory fitness sounds like a win-win.

But, let’s take a deep breath and for a few moments return to the world of reality. First, how many school systems are providing that 60 minutes of moderate activity (let’s forget the vigorous piece for the moment) included in the current WHO/HHS recommendations? Next, let’s take a look at what “vigorous” activity means. There are variety of definitions but in general they include sweating, flushing, and dyspnea to the point of having difficulty speaking.

Let’s just focus on the “sweating” part. To me that sounds like an activity that would require some wardrobe alteration at a minimum and very likely a locker room and a shower. Those can be fightin’ words for many teenagers. Even if a school can provide adequate locker room and shower infrastructure change-ups and showers are time-gobbling activities. And, more realistically, what are the chances of getting body image–challenged adolescents to willingly take advantage of them? You don’t have to talk to very many adults before you will hear stories of discomfort and embarrassment resulting from forced locker room and shower experiences. When I was a teenager the only way you could flunk physical education was to refuse to go in the locker room and “change up.” I think or at least hope that physical educators are more sensitive to the fragility of their adolescents students. But, the bottom line is that creating a curriculum that will improve cardiorespiratory fitness is fraught with challenges most school systems can’t address. It’s sad but true.

So, where does that leave us? This new study from England may be helpful for families who are caught in a time crunch and looking improve their fitness or for the physical educator who would like to help his/her motivated students get on a healthier track. But, this study should not prompt us to throw up our hands and toss out the current recommendations of an hour of moderate activity. As unrealistic as it may be for most school systems it allows for the injection of physical activity into academic settings where creative educators can offer things like walking lectures and field trips. It all boils down to the fact that some activity is better than none at all with or without the sweat equity.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

It’s no secret that the fitness level of all age groups in our country is poor. A recent study in Pediatrics sharpens the focus on the question of how we might address the problem in the teenage population. Based in England, the investigators placed wrist accelerometers on their 13- and 14-year-old subjects who were then assessed using shuttle runs at progressively faster speeds.

The researchers found that the participants’ cardiorespiratory fitness improved as the subjects’ time doing vigorous activity increased up to 20 minutes and then plateaued. The study authors could not prove that the vigorous activity caused the increased in fitness. However, they were impressed by the plateau phenomenon and suggest that this might suggest a change in the recommendations by the World Health Organization and U.S. Department of Health & Human Services which currently call for 60 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity per day for adolescents

At first blush a shift down to 20 minutes of vigorous activity would appear to be workable and achievable. This would be particularly true for public school systems that are already struggling to get any kind of activity shoehorned into their schedules that are already crammed in an attempt to address mandated academic achievement goals. Freeing up an additional 40 minutes of the school day and yielding improved cardiorespiratory fitness sounds like a win-win.

But, let’s take a deep breath and for a few moments return to the world of reality. First, how many school systems are providing that 60 minutes of moderate activity (let’s forget the vigorous piece for the moment) included in the current WHO/HHS recommendations? Next, let’s take a look at what “vigorous” activity means. There are variety of definitions but in general they include sweating, flushing, and dyspnea to the point of having difficulty speaking.

Let’s just focus on the “sweating” part. To me that sounds like an activity that would require some wardrobe alteration at a minimum and very likely a locker room and a shower. Those can be fightin’ words for many teenagers. Even if a school can provide adequate locker room and shower infrastructure change-ups and showers are time-gobbling activities. And, more realistically, what are the chances of getting body image–challenged adolescents to willingly take advantage of them? You don’t have to talk to very many adults before you will hear stories of discomfort and embarrassment resulting from forced locker room and shower experiences. When I was a teenager the only way you could flunk physical education was to refuse to go in the locker room and “change up.” I think or at least hope that physical educators are more sensitive to the fragility of their adolescents students. But, the bottom line is that creating a curriculum that will improve cardiorespiratory fitness is fraught with challenges most school systems can’t address. It’s sad but true.

So, where does that leave us? This new study from England may be helpful for families who are caught in a time crunch and looking improve their fitness or for the physical educator who would like to help his/her motivated students get on a healthier track. But, this study should not prompt us to throw up our hands and toss out the current recommendations of an hour of moderate activity. As unrealistic as it may be for most school systems it allows for the injection of physical activity into academic settings where creative educators can offer things like walking lectures and field trips. It all boils down to the fact that some activity is better than none at all with or without the sweat equity.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

Hormone receptor positive (HR+) basal tumors are biologically analogous to triple negative breast cancer (TNBC), independent of race. That finding, suggested by transcriptomic analyses of a racially diverse cohort that identified racial disparities in the proportion of HR-positive basal tumors, underscores a need for diverse racial representation in clinical trials, researchers recently reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The leading cause of cancer-associated death among Black women is breast cancer, and compared with White women, Black women are 41% more likely to die from breast cancer, said Sonya A. Reid, MD, MPH, a medical oncologist with the Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, Tenn., and the study author.

Few studies, Dr. Reid said, have evaluated if tumor biology differences contribute to the racial outcome disparity. Hormone receptor-positive tumors classified as basal-type with Blueprint genomic analysis (HR+/Basal) are overrepresented among Black women. These tumors are thought to be similar to triple negative breast cancer tumors (TNBC) which are more aggressive and tend to have worse outcomes.

TNBC, Dr. Reid said, is associated with low ACKR1 expression, which encodes the Duffy antigen and correlates with worse breast cancer outcomes. Given the overrepresentation and worse outcomes among Black women with HR-positive basal tumors, Dr. Reid and colleagues compared differentially expressed genes (DEGs) by race and subtype.

Their analysis of data from 2,657 women with stage 1, 2, and 3 breast cancer, showed that among 455 Black women, 315 had luminal (HR-positive luminal) and 140 had basal tumors (66 HR-positive basal and 74 HR-negative basal). Among White women included as a reference group (n = 2,202), tumors were were HR-positive luminal in 1,825 and HR-positive basal or HR-negative basal in 158 and 219, respectively. The proportion of Black women with HR-positive basal tumors was significantly higher, compared with White women (15% versus 7%; P <0.001) as was the proportion of Black women with HR-negative basal tumors, compared with White women (16% versus 10%; P <0.001).

Women included in the study were participants in the ongoing BEST study (5R01CA204819) at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashvlile, Tenn., or FLEX study (NCT03053193). In a multidimensional scaling analysis, HR-positive basal tumors clustered with TNBC rather than with HR-positive luminal tumors. While a differential gene expression analysis comparing HR-positive basal with HR-positive luminal tumors resulted in over 700 differently expressed genes in Black women, no such genes were identified when comparing HR-positive basal tumors with TNBC. ACKR1 expression in HR-positive basal tumors was comparable to TNBC in Black women (P = 0.81) and White women (P = 0.46). In contrast, HR-positive basal tumors had significantly lower ACKR1 expression than HR-positive luminal tumors in Black (P < 0.01) and White women (P < 0.01).

The findings highlight the importance of further genomic classification for patients with HR-positive tumors, Dr. Reid said.

“Molecular subtype classification is not standard of care for patients with localized breast cancer. However, the current analysis suggests that genomic classification could have important clinical implications. Women with HR-positive basal tumors should not be treated uniformly with HR-poisitive luminal tumors. Our data suggest that HR-positive basal tumors are transcriptomically similar to TNBC tumors and should potentially be treated similar to TNBC,” she said.

There are several genomic tests that are widely available clinically to guide treatment decisions and are covered by insurance, Dr. Reid said. Prior studies have shown racial disparity in the omission of genomic tests to guide treatment decisions, however. “Increasing access [to] and awareness of genomic testing will improve guideline-adherent care for all patients. We must intentionally recruit minority patients into clinical trials, knowing that Black women are more likely to die of their breast cancer,” she said.

A further impediment lies in the fact that while most minority patients receive their care in the community, most clinical trials are offered at large academic centers, Dr. Reid said. Future trials, she urged, should include a predetermined percentage of racial/ethnic groups in the clinical trial design to reflect the breast cancer population.

Limitations of the study included that race was self-reported. She noted further that the data for survival are not yet mature. She added, “We will also be evaluating the association of different systemic treatment options across the different molecular subtypes.”

Dr. Reid reported no relevant disclosures.

Hormone receptor positive (HR+) basal tumors are biologically analogous to triple negative breast cancer (TNBC), independent of race. That finding, suggested by transcriptomic analyses of a racially diverse cohort that identified racial disparities in the proportion of HR-positive basal tumors, underscores a need for diverse racial representation in clinical trials, researchers recently reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The leading cause of cancer-associated death among Black women is breast cancer, and compared with White women, Black women are 41% more likely to die from breast cancer, said Sonya A. Reid, MD, MPH, a medical oncologist with the Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, Tenn., and the study author.

Few studies, Dr. Reid said, have evaluated if tumor biology differences contribute to the racial outcome disparity. Hormone receptor-positive tumors classified as basal-type with Blueprint genomic analysis (HR+/Basal) are overrepresented among Black women. These tumors are thought to be similar to triple negative breast cancer tumors (TNBC) which are more aggressive and tend to have worse outcomes.

TNBC, Dr. Reid said, is associated with low ACKR1 expression, which encodes the Duffy antigen and correlates with worse breast cancer outcomes. Given the overrepresentation and worse outcomes among Black women with HR-positive basal tumors, Dr. Reid and colleagues compared differentially expressed genes (DEGs) by race and subtype.

Their analysis of data from 2,657 women with stage 1, 2, and 3 breast cancer, showed that among 455 Black women, 315 had luminal (HR-positive luminal) and 140 had basal tumors (66 HR-positive basal and 74 HR-negative basal). Among White women included as a reference group (n = 2,202), tumors were were HR-positive luminal in 1,825 and HR-positive basal or HR-negative basal in 158 and 219, respectively. The proportion of Black women with HR-positive basal tumors was significantly higher, compared with White women (15% versus 7%; P <0.001) as was the proportion of Black women with HR-negative basal tumors, compared with White women (16% versus 10%; P <0.001).

Women included in the study were participants in the ongoing BEST study (5R01CA204819) at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashvlile, Tenn., or FLEX study (NCT03053193). In a multidimensional scaling analysis, HR-positive basal tumors clustered with TNBC rather than with HR-positive luminal tumors. While a differential gene expression analysis comparing HR-positive basal with HR-positive luminal tumors resulted in over 700 differently expressed genes in Black women, no such genes were identified when comparing HR-positive basal tumors with TNBC. ACKR1 expression in HR-positive basal tumors was comparable to TNBC in Black women (P = 0.81) and White women (P = 0.46). In contrast, HR-positive basal tumors had significantly lower ACKR1 expression than HR-positive luminal tumors in Black (P < 0.01) and White women (P < 0.01).

The findings highlight the importance of further genomic classification for patients with HR-positive tumors, Dr. Reid said.

“Molecular subtype classification is not standard of care for patients with localized breast cancer. However, the current analysis suggests that genomic classification could have important clinical implications. Women with HR-positive basal tumors should not be treated uniformly with HR-poisitive luminal tumors. Our data suggest that HR-positive basal tumors are transcriptomically similar to TNBC tumors and should potentially be treated similar to TNBC,” she said.

There are several genomic tests that are widely available clinically to guide treatment decisions and are covered by insurance, Dr. Reid said. Prior studies have shown racial disparity in the omission of genomic tests to guide treatment decisions, however. “Increasing access [to] and awareness of genomic testing will improve guideline-adherent care for all patients. We must intentionally recruit minority patients into clinical trials, knowing that Black women are more likely to die of their breast cancer,” she said.

A further impediment lies in the fact that while most minority patients receive their care in the community, most clinical trials are offered at large academic centers, Dr. Reid said. Future trials, she urged, should include a predetermined percentage of racial/ethnic groups in the clinical trial design to reflect the breast cancer population.

Limitations of the study included that race was self-reported. She noted further that the data for survival are not yet mature. She added, “We will also be evaluating the association of different systemic treatment options across the different molecular subtypes.”

Dr. Reid reported no relevant disclosures.

Hormone receptor positive (HR+) basal tumors are biologically analogous to triple negative breast cancer (TNBC), independent of race. That finding, suggested by transcriptomic analyses of a racially diverse cohort that identified racial disparities in the proportion of HR-positive basal tumors, underscores a need for diverse racial representation in clinical trials, researchers recently reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The leading cause of cancer-associated death among Black women is breast cancer, and compared with White women, Black women are 41% more likely to die from breast cancer, said Sonya A. Reid, MD, MPH, a medical oncologist with the Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, Tenn., and the study author.

Few studies, Dr. Reid said, have evaluated if tumor biology differences contribute to the racial outcome disparity. Hormone receptor-positive tumors classified as basal-type with Blueprint genomic analysis (HR+/Basal) are overrepresented among Black women. These tumors are thought to be similar to triple negative breast cancer tumors (TNBC) which are more aggressive and tend to have worse outcomes.

TNBC, Dr. Reid said, is associated with low ACKR1 expression, which encodes the Duffy antigen and correlates with worse breast cancer outcomes. Given the overrepresentation and worse outcomes among Black women with HR-positive basal tumors, Dr. Reid and colleagues compared differentially expressed genes (DEGs) by race and subtype.

Their analysis of data from 2,657 women with stage 1, 2, and 3 breast cancer, showed that among 455 Black women, 315 had luminal (HR-positive luminal) and 140 had basal tumors (66 HR-positive basal and 74 HR-negative basal). Among White women included as a reference group (n = 2,202), tumors were were HR-positive luminal in 1,825 and HR-positive basal or HR-negative basal in 158 and 219, respectively. The proportion of Black women with HR-positive basal tumors was significantly higher, compared with White women (15% versus 7%; P <0.001) as was the proportion of Black women with HR-negative basal tumors, compared with White women (16% versus 10%; P <0.001).

Women included in the study were participants in the ongoing BEST study (5R01CA204819) at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashvlile, Tenn., or FLEX study (NCT03053193). In a multidimensional scaling analysis, HR-positive basal tumors clustered with TNBC rather than with HR-positive luminal tumors. While a differential gene expression analysis comparing HR-positive basal with HR-positive luminal tumors resulted in over 700 differently expressed genes in Black women, no such genes were identified when comparing HR-positive basal tumors with TNBC. ACKR1 expression in HR-positive basal tumors was comparable to TNBC in Black women (P = 0.81) and White women (P = 0.46). In contrast, HR-positive basal tumors had significantly lower ACKR1 expression than HR-positive luminal tumors in Black (P < 0.01) and White women (P < 0.01).

The findings highlight the importance of further genomic classification for patients with HR-positive tumors, Dr. Reid said.

“Molecular subtype classification is not standard of care for patients with localized breast cancer. However, the current analysis suggests that genomic classification could have important clinical implications. Women with HR-positive basal tumors should not be treated uniformly with HR-poisitive luminal tumors. Our data suggest that HR-positive basal tumors are transcriptomically similar to TNBC tumors and should potentially be treated similar to TNBC,” she said.

There are several genomic tests that are widely available clinically to guide treatment decisions and are covered by insurance, Dr. Reid said. Prior studies have shown racial disparity in the omission of genomic tests to guide treatment decisions, however. “Increasing access [to] and awareness of genomic testing will improve guideline-adherent care for all patients. We must intentionally recruit minority patients into clinical trials, knowing that Black women are more likely to die of their breast cancer,” she said.

A further impediment lies in the fact that while most minority patients receive their care in the community, most clinical trials are offered at large academic centers, Dr. Reid said. Future trials, she urged, should include a predetermined percentage of racial/ethnic groups in the clinical trial design to reflect the breast cancer population.

Limitations of the study included that race was self-reported. She noted further that the data for survival are not yet mature. She added, “We will also be evaluating the association of different systemic treatment options across the different molecular subtypes.”

Dr. Reid reported no relevant disclosures.

Treatment with an interleukin-6 neutralizing antibody significantly reduced airway mucus hypersecretion (AMH) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), based on data from human and mouse cells in a human organoid model.

AMH plays a large part in aggravating airway obstruction in patients with COPD, Yuan-Yuan Wei, MD, of First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China, and colleagues wrote.

Current pharmacotherapies relieve COPD symptoms and improve exercise tolerance, but have not proven effective for relieving the airflow limitations caused by mucus accumulation that “leads to irreversible structural damage and an unfavorable prognosis,” the researchers said. Although reducing AMH could help manage COPD, the molecular mechanisms of action have not been fully explored.

In a study published in Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy , the researchers examined the relationship between IL-6 and AMH. Since IL-6 has been shown to cause overexpression of the mucin-type protein known as Muc5ac, they hypothesized that IL-6 antibodies (IL-6Ab) might block this protein elevation.

The researchers recruited 30 adults with COPD and 30 controls from a single center. Bronchial epithelial cells were isolated from the participants and measured the levels of Muc5ac protein and mRNA in the lung tissue. Compared with controls, COPD patients had elevated Muc5ac positively correlated with IL-6.

The researchers then created an organoid model of a trachea for COPD patients and controls. In the model, Muc5ac was similarly elevated in COPD patients, compared with controls. “Furthermore, IL-6 significantly induced excessive secretion of mucus in the organoid model of trachea in COPD patients as observed under electron microscope, and IL-6Ab attenuated these effects,” they noted.

IL-6 significantly increased both Muc5ac mRNA and protein expression in the organoid model of trachea (P < .0001 and P < .005, respectively), but both of these significantly decreased when treated with IL-6Ab (P < .0001 and P < .05, respectively).

The researchers also examined human and mouse cells to explore the mechanism of action of IL-6Ab. Using high-throughput sequencing, they found that the IL-6Ab induced nuclear translocation of the Nrt2 gene in COPD patients, and that this action promoted the effect of IL-6Ab on excessive mucus secretion.

The study findings were limited by the relatively small study population from a single center, the researchers noted.

However, the results support the potential of IL-6Ab as “a novel therapeutic strategy in the treatment of IL-6–induced hypersecretion of airway mucus so as to improve airflow limitations in COPD,” they concluded.

The study was supported by supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Scientific Research Project of Education Department of Anhui Province. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Treatment with an interleukin-6 neutralizing antibody significantly reduced airway mucus hypersecretion (AMH) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), based on data from human and mouse cells in a human organoid model.

AMH plays a large part in aggravating airway obstruction in patients with COPD, Yuan-Yuan Wei, MD, of First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China, and colleagues wrote.

Current pharmacotherapies relieve COPD symptoms and improve exercise tolerance, but have not proven effective for relieving the airflow limitations caused by mucus accumulation that “leads to irreversible structural damage and an unfavorable prognosis,” the researchers said. Although reducing AMH could help manage COPD, the molecular mechanisms of action have not been fully explored.

In a study published in Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy , the researchers examined the relationship between IL-6 and AMH. Since IL-6 has been shown to cause overexpression of the mucin-type protein known as Muc5ac, they hypothesized that IL-6 antibodies (IL-6Ab) might block this protein elevation.

The researchers recruited 30 adults with COPD and 30 controls from a single center. Bronchial epithelial cells were isolated from the participants and measured the levels of Muc5ac protein and mRNA in the lung tissue. Compared with controls, COPD patients had elevated Muc5ac positively correlated with IL-6.

The researchers then created an organoid model of a trachea for COPD patients and controls. In the model, Muc5ac was similarly elevated in COPD patients, compared with controls. “Furthermore, IL-6 significantly induced excessive secretion of mucus in the organoid model of trachea in COPD patients as observed under electron microscope, and IL-6Ab attenuated these effects,” they noted.

IL-6 significantly increased both Muc5ac mRNA and protein expression in the organoid model of trachea (P < .0001 and P < .005, respectively), but both of these significantly decreased when treated with IL-6Ab (P < .0001 and P < .05, respectively).

The researchers also examined human and mouse cells to explore the mechanism of action of IL-6Ab. Using high-throughput sequencing, they found that the IL-6Ab induced nuclear translocation of the Nrt2 gene in COPD patients, and that this action promoted the effect of IL-6Ab on excessive mucus secretion.

The study findings were limited by the relatively small study population from a single center, the researchers noted.

However, the results support the potential of IL-6Ab as “a novel therapeutic strategy in the treatment of IL-6–induced hypersecretion of airway mucus so as to improve airflow limitations in COPD,” they concluded.

The study was supported by supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Scientific Research Project of Education Department of Anhui Province. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Treatment with an interleukin-6 neutralizing antibody significantly reduced airway mucus hypersecretion (AMH) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), based on data from human and mouse cells in a human organoid model.

AMH plays a large part in aggravating airway obstruction in patients with COPD, Yuan-Yuan Wei, MD, of First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China, and colleagues wrote.

Current pharmacotherapies relieve COPD symptoms and improve exercise tolerance, but have not proven effective for relieving the airflow limitations caused by mucus accumulation that “leads to irreversible structural damage and an unfavorable prognosis,” the researchers said. Although reducing AMH could help manage COPD, the molecular mechanisms of action have not been fully explored.

In a study published in Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy , the researchers examined the relationship between IL-6 and AMH. Since IL-6 has been shown to cause overexpression of the mucin-type protein known as Muc5ac, they hypothesized that IL-6 antibodies (IL-6Ab) might block this protein elevation.

The researchers recruited 30 adults with COPD and 30 controls from a single center. Bronchial epithelial cells were isolated from the participants and measured the levels of Muc5ac protein and mRNA in the lung tissue. Compared with controls, COPD patients had elevated Muc5ac positively correlated with IL-6.

The researchers then created an organoid model of a trachea for COPD patients and controls. In the model, Muc5ac was similarly elevated in COPD patients, compared with controls. “Furthermore, IL-6 significantly induced excessive secretion of mucus in the organoid model of trachea in COPD patients as observed under electron microscope, and IL-6Ab attenuated these effects,” they noted.

IL-6 significantly increased both Muc5ac mRNA and protein expression in the organoid model of trachea (P < .0001 and P < .005, respectively), but both of these significantly decreased when treated with IL-6Ab (P < .0001 and P < .05, respectively).

The researchers also examined human and mouse cells to explore the mechanism of action of IL-6Ab. Using high-throughput sequencing, they found that the IL-6Ab induced nuclear translocation of the Nrt2 gene in COPD patients, and that this action promoted the effect of IL-6Ab on excessive mucus secretion.

The study findings were limited by the relatively small study population from a single center, the researchers noted.

However, the results support the potential of IL-6Ab as “a novel therapeutic strategy in the treatment of IL-6–induced hypersecretion of airway mucus so as to improve airflow limitations in COPD,” they concluded.

The study was supported by supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Scientific Research Project of Education Department of Anhui Province. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The social behavior associated with the COVID-19 pandemic may have reduced the incidence of Kawasaki disease, according to results of a cohort study of nearly 4,000 children.

The incidence of Kawasaki disease in the United States declined by 28.2% between 2018 and 2020, possibly as a result of factors including school closures, mask mandates, and reduced ambient pollution that might reduce exposure to Kawasaki disease (KD) in the environment, but a potential association has not been explored, wrote Jennifer A. Burney, PhD, of the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues.

KD received greater attention in the public and medical communities because of the emergence of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), which is similar to, but distinct from, KD, and because of the noticeable drop in KD cases during the pandemic, the researchers said.

In a multicenter cohort study published in JAMA Network Open , the researchers reviewed data from 2,461 consecutive patients with KD who were diagnosed between Jan. 1, 2018, and Dec. 31, 2020. They conducted a detailed analysis of analysis of 1,461 children with KD who were diagnosed between Jan. 1, 2002, and Nov. 15, 2021, at Rady Children’s Hospital San Diego (RCHSD), using data from before, during, and after the height of the pandemic. The median age of the children in the RCHSD analysis was 2.8 years, 62% were male, and 35% were Hispanic.

Overall, the prevalence of KD declined from 894 in 2018 to 646 in 2020, across the United States, but the decline was uneven, the researchers noted.

In the RCHSD cohort in San Diego, KD cases in children aged 1-5 years decreased significantly from 2020 to 2021 compared to the mean number of cases in previous years (22 vs. 44.9, P = .02). KD cases also decreased significantly among males and Asian children.

Notably, the occurrence of the KD clinical features of strawberry tongue, enlarged cervical lymph node, and subacute periungual desquamation decreased during 2020 compared with the baseline period, although only strawberry tongue reached statistical significance (39% vs. 63%, P = .04). The prevalence of patients with an enlarged lymph node was 21% in 2020 vs. 32% prior to the pandemic (P = .09); the prevalence of periungual desquamation during these periods was 47% vs. 58%, P = .16).

The researchers also used data from Census Block Groups (CBGs) to assess the impact of mobility metrics and environmental exposures on KD during the pandemic for the San Diego patient cohort. They found that KD cases during the pandemic were more likely to occur in neighborhoods of higher socioeconomic status, and that neighborhoods with lower levels of nitrous oxides had fewer KD cases.

Overall, “The reduction in KD case numbers coincided with masking, school closures, reduced circulation of respiratory viruses, and reduced air pollution,” the researchers wrote in their discussion of the findings. “A rebound in KD case numbers to prepandemic levels coincided with the lifting of mask mandates and, subsequently, the return to in-person schooling,” they wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the small sample sizes, which also limit the interpretation of mobility and pollution data, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the high interannual variability of KD and the inclusion of 2021 rebound data from the San Diego region only.

“Although our original hypothesis was that shelter-in-place measures would track with reduced KD cases, this was not borne out by the San Diego region data. Instead, the San Diego case occurrence data suggest that exposures that triggered KD were more likely to occur in the home, with a shift toward households with higher SES during the pandemic,” the researchers noted. However, “The results presented here are consistent with a respiratory portal of entry for the trigger(s) of KD,” they said.
 

Study fails to validate its conclusions

“This study attempts to test the hypothesis that various social restrictions were associated with a decrease in rate of diagnosed Kawasaki disease cases during portions of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic,” Mark Gorelik, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics at Columbia University, New York, said in an interview.

“However, it appears that it fails to achieve this conclusion and I disagree with the findings,” said Dr. Gorelik, who was not involved in the study but served as first author on an updated Kawasaki disease treatment guideline published earlier this spring in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

“The study does not find statistically significant associations either with shelter in place orders or with cell phone mobility data, as stated in the conclusion, directly contradicting its own claim,” Dr. Gorelik said. “Secondly, the study makes an assumption that various methods, especially the wearing of masks by children and school closures, had a significant effect on the spread of respiratory viruses. There are no prospective, population based, controlled real world studies that validate this claim, and two prospective controlled real-world studies that dispute this,” he emphasized. “Cloth masks and surgical masks, which were the types of masks worn by school students, are also known to have a nonsignificant and paltry – in the latter, certainly less than 50%, and perhaps as little as 10% – effect on the reduction of respiratory viral spread,” he added.

“Mechanistic studies on mask wearing may suggest some mask efficacy, but these studies are as valid as mechanistic studies showing the effect of various antifungal pharmaceuticals on the replication of SARS-CoV-2 virus in culture, meaning only valid as hypothesis generating, and ultimately the latter hypothesis failed to bear out,” Dr. Gorelik explained. “We do not know the reason why other respiratory viruses and non-SARS-CoV-2 coronaviruses declined during the pandemic, but we do know that despite this, the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus itself did not appear to suffer the same fate. Thus, it is very possible that another factor was at work, and we know that during other viral pandemics, typically circulating viruses decline, potentially due to induction of interferon responses in hosts, in a general effect known as ‘viral interference,’ ” he said.

“Overall, we must have robust evidence to support benefits of hypotheses that have demonstrated clear damage to children during this pandemic (such as school closures), and this study fails to live up to that requirement,” Dr. Gorelik said.  

The study was supported by the Gordon and Marilyn Macklin Foundation and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Burney and Dr. Gorelik had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The social behavior associated with the COVID-19 pandemic may have reduced the incidence of Kawasaki disease, according to results of a cohort study of nearly 4,000 children.

The incidence of Kawasaki disease in the United States declined by 28.2% between 2018 and 2020, possibly as a result of factors including school closures, mask mandates, and reduced ambient pollution that might reduce exposure to Kawasaki disease (KD) in the environment, but a potential association has not been explored, wrote Jennifer A. Burney, PhD, of the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues.

KD received greater attention in the public and medical communities because of the emergence of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), which is similar to, but distinct from, KD, and because of the noticeable drop in KD cases during the pandemic, the researchers said.

In a multicenter cohort study published in JAMA Network Open , the researchers reviewed data from 2,461 consecutive patients with KD who were diagnosed between Jan. 1, 2018, and Dec. 31, 2020. They conducted a detailed analysis of analysis of 1,461 children with KD who were diagnosed between Jan. 1, 2002, and Nov. 15, 2021, at Rady Children’s Hospital San Diego (RCHSD), using data from before, during, and after the height of the pandemic. The median age of the children in the RCHSD analysis was 2.8 years, 62% were male, and 35% were Hispanic.

Overall, the prevalence of KD declined from 894 in 2018 to 646 in 2020, across the United States, but the decline was uneven, the researchers noted.

In the RCHSD cohort in San Diego, KD cases in children aged 1-5 years decreased significantly from 2020 to 2021 compared to the mean number of cases in previous years (22 vs. 44.9, P = .02). KD cases also decreased significantly among males and Asian children.

Notably, the occurrence of the KD clinical features of strawberry tongue, enlarged cervical lymph node, and subacute periungual desquamation decreased during 2020 compared with the baseline period, although only strawberry tongue reached statistical significance (39% vs. 63%, P = .04). The prevalence of patients with an enlarged lymph node was 21% in 2020 vs. 32% prior to the pandemic (P = .09); the prevalence of periungual desquamation during these periods was 47% vs. 58%, P = .16).

The researchers also used data from Census Block Groups (CBGs) to assess the impact of mobility metrics and environmental exposures on KD during the pandemic for the San Diego patient cohort. They found that KD cases during the pandemic were more likely to occur in neighborhoods of higher socioeconomic status, and that neighborhoods with lower levels of nitrous oxides had fewer KD cases.

Overall, “The reduction in KD case numbers coincided with masking, school closures, reduced circulation of respiratory viruses, and reduced air pollution,” the researchers wrote in their discussion of the findings. “A rebound in KD case numbers to prepandemic levels coincided with the lifting of mask mandates and, subsequently, the return to in-person schooling,” they wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the small sample sizes, which also limit the interpretation of mobility and pollution data, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the high interannual variability of KD and the inclusion of 2021 rebound data from the San Diego region only.

“Although our original hypothesis was that shelter-in-place measures would track with reduced KD cases, this was not borne out by the San Diego region data. Instead, the San Diego case occurrence data suggest that exposures that triggered KD were more likely to occur in the home, with a shift toward households with higher SES during the pandemic,” the researchers noted. However, “The results presented here are consistent with a respiratory portal of entry for the trigger(s) of KD,” they said.
 

Study fails to validate its conclusions

“This study attempts to test the hypothesis that various social restrictions were associated with a decrease in rate of diagnosed Kawasaki disease cases during portions of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic,” Mark Gorelik, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics at Columbia University, New York, said in an interview.

“However, it appears that it fails to achieve this conclusion and I disagree with the findings,” said Dr. Gorelik, who was not involved in the study but served as first author on an updated Kawasaki disease treatment guideline published earlier this spring in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

“The study does not find statistically significant associations either with shelter in place orders or with cell phone mobility data, as stated in the conclusion, directly contradicting its own claim,” Dr. Gorelik said. “Secondly, the study makes an assumption that various methods, especially the wearing of masks by children and school closures, had a significant effect on the spread of respiratory viruses. There are no prospective, population based, controlled real world studies that validate this claim, and two prospective controlled real-world studies that dispute this,” he emphasized. “Cloth masks and surgical masks, which were the types of masks worn by school students, are also known to have a nonsignificant and paltry – in the latter, certainly less than 50%, and perhaps as little as 10% – effect on the reduction of respiratory viral spread,” he added.

“Mechanistic studies on mask wearing may suggest some mask efficacy, but these studies are as valid as mechanistic studies showing the effect of various antifungal pharmaceuticals on the replication of SARS-CoV-2 virus in culture, meaning only valid as hypothesis generating, and ultimately the latter hypothesis failed to bear out,” Dr. Gorelik explained. “We do not know the reason why other respiratory viruses and non-SARS-CoV-2 coronaviruses declined during the pandemic, but we do know that despite this, the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus itself did not appear to suffer the same fate. Thus, it is very possible that another factor was at work, and we know that during other viral pandemics, typically circulating viruses decline, potentially due to induction of interferon responses in hosts, in a general effect known as ‘viral interference,’ ” he said.

“Overall, we must have robust evidence to support benefits of hypotheses that have demonstrated clear damage to children during this pandemic (such as school closures), and this study fails to live up to that requirement,” Dr. Gorelik said.  

The study was supported by the Gordon and Marilyn Macklin Foundation and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Burney and Dr. Gorelik had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The social behavior associated with the COVID-19 pandemic may have reduced the incidence of Kawasaki disease, according to results of a cohort study of nearly 4,000 children.

The incidence of Kawasaki disease in the United States declined by 28.2% between 2018 and 2020, possibly as a result of factors including school closures, mask mandates, and reduced ambient pollution that might reduce exposure to Kawasaki disease (KD) in the environment, but a potential association has not been explored, wrote Jennifer A. Burney, PhD, of the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues.

KD received greater attention in the public and medical communities because of the emergence of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), which is similar to, but distinct from, KD, and because of the noticeable drop in KD cases during the pandemic, the researchers said.

In a multicenter cohort study published in JAMA Network Open , the researchers reviewed data from 2,461 consecutive patients with KD who were diagnosed between Jan. 1, 2018, and Dec. 31, 2020. They conducted a detailed analysis of analysis of 1,461 children with KD who were diagnosed between Jan. 1, 2002, and Nov. 15, 2021, at Rady Children’s Hospital San Diego (RCHSD), using data from before, during, and after the height of the pandemic. The median age of the children in the RCHSD analysis was 2.8 years, 62% were male, and 35% were Hispanic.

Overall, the prevalence of KD declined from 894 in 2018 to 646 in 2020, across the United States, but the decline was uneven, the researchers noted.

In the RCHSD cohort in San Diego, KD cases in children aged 1-5 years decreased significantly from 2020 to 2021 compared to the mean number of cases in previous years (22 vs. 44.9, P = .02). KD cases also decreased significantly among males and Asian children.

Notably, the occurrence of the KD clinical features of strawberry tongue, enlarged cervical lymph node, and subacute periungual desquamation decreased during 2020 compared with the baseline period, although only strawberry tongue reached statistical significance (39% vs. 63%, P = .04). The prevalence of patients with an enlarged lymph node was 21% in 2020 vs. 32% prior to the pandemic (P = .09); the prevalence of periungual desquamation during these periods was 47% vs. 58%, P = .16).

The researchers also used data from Census Block Groups (CBGs) to assess the impact of mobility metrics and environmental exposures on KD during the pandemic for the San Diego patient cohort. They found that KD cases during the pandemic were more likely to occur in neighborhoods of higher socioeconomic status, and that neighborhoods with lower levels of nitrous oxides had fewer KD cases.

Overall, “The reduction in KD case numbers coincided with masking, school closures, reduced circulation of respiratory viruses, and reduced air pollution,” the researchers wrote in their discussion of the findings. “A rebound in KD case numbers to prepandemic levels coincided with the lifting of mask mandates and, subsequently, the return to in-person schooling,” they wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the small sample sizes, which also limit the interpretation of mobility and pollution data, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the high interannual variability of KD and the inclusion of 2021 rebound data from the San Diego region only.

“Although our original hypothesis was that shelter-in-place measures would track with reduced KD cases, this was not borne out by the San Diego region data. Instead, the San Diego case occurrence data suggest that exposures that triggered KD were more likely to occur in the home, with a shift toward households with higher SES during the pandemic,” the researchers noted. However, “The results presented here are consistent with a respiratory portal of entry for the trigger(s) of KD,” they said.
 

Study fails to validate its conclusions

“This study attempts to test the hypothesis that various social restrictions were associated with a decrease in rate of diagnosed Kawasaki disease cases during portions of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic,” Mark Gorelik, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics at Columbia University, New York, said in an interview.

“However, it appears that it fails to achieve this conclusion and I disagree with the findings,” said Dr. Gorelik, who was not involved in the study but served as first author on an updated Kawasaki disease treatment guideline published earlier this spring in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

“The study does not find statistically significant associations either with shelter in place orders or with cell phone mobility data, as stated in the conclusion, directly contradicting its own claim,” Dr. Gorelik said. “Secondly, the study makes an assumption that various methods, especially the wearing of masks by children and school closures, had a significant effect on the spread of respiratory viruses. There are no prospective, population based, controlled real world studies that validate this claim, and two prospective controlled real-world studies that dispute this,” he emphasized. “Cloth masks and surgical masks, which were the types of masks worn by school students, are also known to have a nonsignificant and paltry – in the latter, certainly less than 50%, and perhaps as little as 10% – effect on the reduction of respiratory viral spread,” he added.

“Mechanistic studies on mask wearing may suggest some mask efficacy, but these studies are as valid as mechanistic studies showing the effect of various antifungal pharmaceuticals on the replication of SARS-CoV-2 virus in culture, meaning only valid as hypothesis generating, and ultimately the latter hypothesis failed to bear out,” Dr. Gorelik explained. “We do not know the reason why other respiratory viruses and non-SARS-CoV-2 coronaviruses declined during the pandemic, but we do know that despite this, the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus itself did not appear to suffer the same fate. Thus, it is very possible that another factor was at work, and we know that during other viral pandemics, typically circulating viruses decline, potentially due to induction of interferon responses in hosts, in a general effect known as ‘viral interference,’ ” he said.

“Overall, we must have robust evidence to support benefits of hypotheses that have demonstrated clear damage to children during this pandemic (such as school closures), and this study fails to live up to that requirement,” Dr. Gorelik said.  

The study was supported by the Gordon and Marilyn Macklin Foundation and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Burney and Dr. Gorelik had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Growing up, my dad would often go to his law office on weekends to get work done.

As a kid I didn’t really understand this. Dad had an office at home, and could close the door if he needed to. Usually he did this, but sometimes he left to go to his REAL office.

And now ... I sometimes do the same thing.

I don’t see patients on Fridays these days. In the postpandemic world my schedule still hasn’t returned to normal (maybe it never will and this is the new normal), and with research and case reviews and other stuff it seemed logical to just work from home and do them that day. My staff works from home, so if I’m not seeing patients, why can’t I?

After a few Fridays of this, I began going to my empty office, too, and understood where my dad was coming from.

My little solo office, as non-fancy as it is (the carpeting and interior are all from 1993), is quiet. From my back office I can’t hear the corridor hustle and bustle of people going to their appointments or arguing on a cell phone. Just the hum of the air conditioner and the occasional few seconds of a car alarm outside. If I put on iTunes no one complains about my musical tastes.

There isn’t much to do there BUT work, which is the idea. The building’s wifi is too slow to stream or watch Youtube. I’m not tempted to work on a puzzle with my daughter, take a book off a shelf, play with my dogs, or go down the hall for a nap. All the little things we do to procrastinate aren’t there, like convincing myself that I need to clean the pool or balance the checkbook ASAP.

I don’t have the distractions of my dogs barking at passing cars, or kids going up and down the hall, or the phone ringing with people asking who I’m voting for.

My little office is a private oasis, of sorts. Quiet and undisturbed.

Not quite Superman’s Fortress of Solitude, but close enough for me.

And, with all due respect to the Man of Steel, the Fortress of Solitude doesn’t have a Keurig.

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

Growing up, my dad would often go to his law office on weekends to get work done.

As a kid I didn’t really understand this. Dad had an office at home, and could close the door if he needed to. Usually he did this, but sometimes he left to go to his REAL office.

And now ... I sometimes do the same thing.

I don’t see patients on Fridays these days. In the postpandemic world my schedule still hasn’t returned to normal (maybe it never will and this is the new normal), and with research and case reviews and other stuff it seemed logical to just work from home and do them that day. My staff works from home, so if I’m not seeing patients, why can’t I?

After a few Fridays of this, I began going to my empty office, too, and understood where my dad was coming from.

My little solo office, as non-fancy as it is (the carpeting and interior are all from 1993), is quiet. From my back office I can’t hear the corridor hustle and bustle of people going to their appointments or arguing on a cell phone. Just the hum of the air conditioner and the occasional few seconds of a car alarm outside. If I put on iTunes no one complains about my musical tastes.

There isn’t much to do there BUT work, which is the idea. The building’s wifi is too slow to stream or watch Youtube. I’m not tempted to work on a puzzle with my daughter, take a book off a shelf, play with my dogs, or go down the hall for a nap. All the little things we do to procrastinate aren’t there, like convincing myself that I need to clean the pool or balance the checkbook ASAP.

I don’t have the distractions of my dogs barking at passing cars, or kids going up and down the hall, or the phone ringing with people asking who I’m voting for.

My little office is a private oasis, of sorts. Quiet and undisturbed.

Not quite Superman’s Fortress of Solitude, but close enough for me.

And, with all due respect to the Man of Steel, the Fortress of Solitude doesn’t have a Keurig.

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

Growing up, my dad would often go to his law office on weekends to get work done.

As a kid I didn’t really understand this. Dad had an office at home, and could close the door if he needed to. Usually he did this, but sometimes he left to go to his REAL office.

And now ... I sometimes do the same thing.

I don’t see patients on Fridays these days. In the postpandemic world my schedule still hasn’t returned to normal (maybe it never will and this is the new normal), and with research and case reviews and other stuff it seemed logical to just work from home and do them that day. My staff works from home, so if I’m not seeing patients, why can’t I?

After a few Fridays of this, I began going to my empty office, too, and understood where my dad was coming from.

My little solo office, as non-fancy as it is (the carpeting and interior are all from 1993), is quiet. From my back office I can’t hear the corridor hustle and bustle of people going to their appointments or arguing on a cell phone. Just the hum of the air conditioner and the occasional few seconds of a car alarm outside. If I put on iTunes no one complains about my musical tastes.

There isn’t much to do there BUT work, which is the idea. The building’s wifi is too slow to stream or watch Youtube. I’m not tempted to work on a puzzle with my daughter, take a book off a shelf, play with my dogs, or go down the hall for a nap. All the little things we do to procrastinate aren’t there, like convincing myself that I need to clean the pool or balance the checkbook ASAP.

I don’t have the distractions of my dogs barking at passing cars, or kids going up and down the hall, or the phone ringing with people asking who I’m voting for.

My little office is a private oasis, of sorts. Quiet and undisturbed.

Not quite Superman’s Fortress of Solitude, but close enough for me.

And, with all due respect to the Man of Steel, the Fortress of Solitude doesn’t have a Keurig.

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

Use of the targeted therapy combination of venetoclax plus obinutuzumab for fit patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) at 3 years, compared with standard chemoimmunotherapy, new phase 3 data show.

Adding the Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor ibrutinib to the two-drug combination pushed the 3-year PFS even higher, but the risk of severe adverse events may outweigh the benefits of the triple combination for some higher-risk patients.

“Time-limited targeted therapy with venetoclax plus obinutuzumab, with or without ibrutinib, is superior to chemoimmunotherapy with respect to progression-free survival,” said first author Barbara Eichhorst, MD, of the University of Cologne (Germany).

However, given higher rates of infection and other adverse events observed when adding ibrutinib, “I would say, based on this data, not to use the triple combination in clinical practice,” Dr. Eichhorst cautioned.

Dr. Eichhorst presented these late-breaking results at the European Hematology Association annual congress.

For patients considered unfit for chemoimmunotherapy, the fixed-duration therapy of venetoclax plus obinutuzumab has become standard treatment for CLL. For those deemed fit to withstand chemoimmunotherapy, this option remains the standard of care.

However, no studies have compared the targeted combination with chemoimmunotherapy for fit patients with CLL.

Dr. Eichhorst and colleagues conducted the GAIA/CLL13 trial to determine how the two- or three-drug targeted combinations stack up against standard chemoimmunotherapy for fit patients.

In the phase 3 study, 920 treatment-naive, fit patients with CLL in which there were no TP53 aberrations were randomly assigned to one of four treatment groups that each had 230 patients – standard chemoimmunotherapy or one of three time-limited venetoclax arms.

The regimen for the chemoimmunotherapy group included fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab for those aged 65 and younger, and bendamustine and rituximab for those over 65. The patients who received venetoclax were divided into groups that received either venetoclax plus rituximab, venetoclax plus obinutuzumab, or triple therapy of venetoclax, obinutuzumab, and ibrutinib.

The median age was 61, and follow-up was just over 3 years (38.8 months). Nearly 40% of patients were in advanced Binet stages, and more than half (56%) were of unmutated immunoglobulin heavy chain gene (IgVH) status, which is associated with worse outcomes in CLL.

Compared with chemotherapy, the two-drug combination demonstrated significantly better PFS (hazard ratio, 0.32; P < .000001), as did the triple therapy (HR, 0.42; P < .001), though the venetoclax-rituximab combination did not (HR, 0.79; P = .183).

The 3-year PFS rates were highest in the triple-therapy group (90.5%), followed by the venetoclax and obinutuzumab group (87.7%). The chemoimmunotherapy (75.5%) and venetoclax plus rituximab groups (80.8%) had the lowest 3-year PFS rates.

Overall, 3-year PFS rates for patients with unmutated IgVH were slightly lower, compared with those who had mutated IgVH.

The best PFS rate was among patients who received the 3-drug combination, although one interesting caveat emerged among the under-65 subset of patients in the mutated IgVH group: the chemotherapy arm achieved a slightly better PFS rate (95%) compared with the triple-therapy arm (93.6%).

Notably, overall survival was similar among all groups; about 96% of patients were alive at 3 years.

Several adverse events were more pronounced in the triple-therapy group. The highest rate of grade 3-4 infections was among those who received ibrutinib (22.1% vs. 20.4% for chemotherapy, 11.4% for venetoclax/rituximab, and 14.9% for venetoclax/obinutuzumab). The triple-therapy group also had the highest rate of hypertension (5.6% vs. 1.4% for chemotherapy, 2.1% for venetoclax/rituximab, and 1.8% for venetoclax/obinutuzumab).

Rates of febrile neutropenia and secondary primary malignancies, however, were highest in the chemoimmunotherapy group. More than 11% of patients in the chemoimmunotherapy group had febrile neutropenia, compared with 7.8% of those who received triple therapy, 4.2% in the venetoclax/rituximab group, and 3.1% of those who received venetoclax/obinutuzumab. Almost half of patients in the chemoimmunotherapy group had secondary primary malignancies versus fewer than 30% in the other arms.

EHA President-Elect António Almeida, MD, noted that the research sheds important light on evolving treatment options for CLL.

“The first is that the triple combination appears better than the double combinations, and I think that’s an important message because of longer treatment-free remission and progression-free remissions,” Dr. Almeida, of the Hospital da Luz, Lisbon, said in an interview.

The second important message: Given the time-limited administration of the venetoclax combinations, the data show that “we can stop ibrutinib and that is safe,” he added. “That’s quite important.”

Third, the findings can help guide treatment choices. “We’ve already had an indication that obinutuzumab is better than rituximab in the CLL setting, but this again solidifies that notion,” Dr. Almeida added.

Dr. Eichhorst has relationships with Janssen, Gilead, F. Hoffmann–La Roche, AbbVie, BeiGene, AstraZeneca, MSD, Adaptive Biotechnologies, and Hexal. Dr. Almeida disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Use of the targeted therapy combination of venetoclax plus obinutuzumab for fit patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) at 3 years, compared with standard chemoimmunotherapy, new phase 3 data show.

Adding the Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor ibrutinib to the two-drug combination pushed the 3-year PFS even higher, but the risk of severe adverse events may outweigh the benefits of the triple combination for some higher-risk patients.

“Time-limited targeted therapy with venetoclax plus obinutuzumab, with or without ibrutinib, is superior to chemoimmunotherapy with respect to progression-free survival,” said first author Barbara Eichhorst, MD, of the University of Cologne (Germany).

However, given higher rates of infection and other adverse events observed when adding ibrutinib, “I would say, based on this data, not to use the triple combination in clinical practice,” Dr. Eichhorst cautioned.

Dr. Eichhorst presented these late-breaking results at the European Hematology Association annual congress.

For patients considered unfit for chemoimmunotherapy, the fixed-duration therapy of venetoclax plus obinutuzumab has become standard treatment for CLL. For those deemed fit to withstand chemoimmunotherapy, this option remains the standard of care.

However, no studies have compared the targeted combination with chemoimmunotherapy for fit patients with CLL.

Dr. Eichhorst and colleagues conducted the GAIA/CLL13 trial to determine how the two- or three-drug targeted combinations stack up against standard chemoimmunotherapy for fit patients.

In the phase 3 study, 920 treatment-naive, fit patients with CLL in which there were no TP53 aberrations were randomly assigned to one of four treatment groups that each had 230 patients – standard chemoimmunotherapy or one of three time-limited venetoclax arms.

The regimen for the chemoimmunotherapy group included fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab for those aged 65 and younger, and bendamustine and rituximab for those over 65. The patients who received venetoclax were divided into groups that received either venetoclax plus rituximab, venetoclax plus obinutuzumab, or triple therapy of venetoclax, obinutuzumab, and ibrutinib.

The median age was 61, and follow-up was just over 3 years (38.8 months). Nearly 40% of patients were in advanced Binet stages, and more than half (56%) were of unmutated immunoglobulin heavy chain gene (IgVH) status, which is associated with worse outcomes in CLL.

Compared with chemotherapy, the two-drug combination demonstrated significantly better PFS (hazard ratio, 0.32; P < .000001), as did the triple therapy (HR, 0.42; P < .001), though the venetoclax-rituximab combination did not (HR, 0.79; P = .183).

The 3-year PFS rates were highest in the triple-therapy group (90.5%), followed by the venetoclax and obinutuzumab group (87.7%). The chemoimmunotherapy (75.5%) and venetoclax plus rituximab groups (80.8%) had the lowest 3-year PFS rates.

Overall, 3-year PFS rates for patients with unmutated IgVH were slightly lower, compared with those who had mutated IgVH.

The best PFS rate was among patients who received the 3-drug combination, although one interesting caveat emerged among the under-65 subset of patients in the mutated IgVH group: the chemotherapy arm achieved a slightly better PFS rate (95%) compared with the triple-therapy arm (93.6%).

Notably, overall survival was similar among all groups; about 96% of patients were alive at 3 years.

Several adverse events were more pronounced in the triple-therapy group. The highest rate of grade 3-4 infections was among those who received ibrutinib (22.1% vs. 20.4% for chemotherapy, 11.4% for venetoclax/rituximab, and 14.9% for venetoclax/obinutuzumab). The triple-therapy group also had the highest rate of hypertension (5.6% vs. 1.4% for chemotherapy, 2.1% for venetoclax/rituximab, and 1.8% for venetoclax/obinutuzumab).

Rates of febrile neutropenia and secondary primary malignancies, however, were highest in the chemoimmunotherapy group. More than 11% of patients in the chemoimmunotherapy group had febrile neutropenia, compared with 7.8% of those who received triple therapy, 4.2% in the venetoclax/rituximab group, and 3.1% of those who received venetoclax/obinutuzumab. Almost half of patients in the chemoimmunotherapy group had secondary primary malignancies versus fewer than 30% in the other arms.

EHA President-Elect António Almeida, MD, noted that the research sheds important light on evolving treatment options for CLL.

“The first is that the triple combination appears better than the double combinations, and I think that’s an important message because of longer treatment-free remission and progression-free remissions,” Dr. Almeida, of the Hospital da Luz, Lisbon, said in an interview.

The second important message: Given the time-limited administration of the venetoclax combinations, the data show that “we can stop ibrutinib and that is safe,” he added. “That’s quite important.”

Third, the findings can help guide treatment choices. “We’ve already had an indication that obinutuzumab is better than rituximab in the CLL setting, but this again solidifies that notion,” Dr. Almeida added.

Dr. Eichhorst has relationships with Janssen, Gilead, F. Hoffmann–La Roche, AbbVie, BeiGene, AstraZeneca, MSD, Adaptive Biotechnologies, and Hexal. Dr. Almeida disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Use of the targeted therapy combination of venetoclax plus obinutuzumab for fit patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) at 3 years, compared with standard chemoimmunotherapy, new phase 3 data show.

Adding the Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor ibrutinib to the two-drug combination pushed the 3-year PFS even higher, but the risk of severe adverse events may outweigh the benefits of the triple combination for some higher-risk patients.

“Time-limited targeted therapy with venetoclax plus obinutuzumab, with or without ibrutinib, is superior to chemoimmunotherapy with respect to progression-free survival,” said first author Barbara Eichhorst, MD, of the University of Cologne (Germany).

However, given higher rates of infection and other adverse events observed when adding ibrutinib, “I would say, based on this data, not to use the triple combination in clinical practice,” Dr. Eichhorst cautioned.

Dr. Eichhorst presented these late-breaking results at the European Hematology Association annual congress.

For patients considered unfit for chemoimmunotherapy, the fixed-duration therapy of venetoclax plus obinutuzumab has become standard treatment for CLL. For those deemed fit to withstand chemoimmunotherapy, this option remains the standard of care.

However, no studies have compared the targeted combination with chemoimmunotherapy for fit patients with CLL.

Dr. Eichhorst and colleagues conducted the GAIA/CLL13 trial to determine how the two- or three-drug targeted combinations stack up against standard chemoimmunotherapy for fit patients.

In the phase 3 study, 920 treatment-naive, fit patients with CLL in which there were no TP53 aberrations were randomly assigned to one of four treatment groups that each had 230 patients – standard chemoimmunotherapy or one of three time-limited venetoclax arms.

The regimen for the chemoimmunotherapy group included fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab for those aged 65 and younger, and bendamustine and rituximab for those over 65. The patients who received venetoclax were divided into groups that received either venetoclax plus rituximab, venetoclax plus obinutuzumab, or triple therapy of venetoclax, obinutuzumab, and ibrutinib.

The median age was 61, and follow-up was just over 3 years (38.8 months). Nearly 40% of patients were in advanced Binet stages, and more than half (56%) were of unmutated immunoglobulin heavy chain gene (IgVH) status, which is associated with worse outcomes in CLL.

Compared with chemotherapy, the two-drug combination demonstrated significantly better PFS (hazard ratio, 0.32; P < .000001), as did the triple therapy (HR, 0.42; P < .001), though the venetoclax-rituximab combination did not (HR, 0.79; P = .183).

The 3-year PFS rates were highest in the triple-therapy group (90.5%), followed by the venetoclax and obinutuzumab group (87.7%). The chemoimmunotherapy (75.5%) and venetoclax plus rituximab groups (80.8%) had the lowest 3-year PFS rates.

Overall, 3-year PFS rates for patients with unmutated IgVH were slightly lower, compared with those who had mutated IgVH.

The best PFS rate was among patients who received the 3-drug combination, although one interesting caveat emerged among the under-65 subset of patients in the mutated IgVH group: the chemotherapy arm achieved a slightly better PFS rate (95%) compared with the triple-therapy arm (93.6%).

Notably, overall survival was similar among all groups; about 96% of patients were alive at 3 years.

Several adverse events were more pronounced in the triple-therapy group. The highest rate of grade 3-4 infections was among those who received ibrutinib (22.1% vs. 20.4% for chemotherapy, 11.4% for venetoclax/rituximab, and 14.9% for venetoclax/obinutuzumab). The triple-therapy group also had the highest rate of hypertension (5.6% vs. 1.4% for chemotherapy, 2.1% for venetoclax/rituximab, and 1.8% for venetoclax/obinutuzumab).

Rates of febrile neutropenia and secondary primary malignancies, however, were highest in the chemoimmunotherapy group. More than 11% of patients in the chemoimmunotherapy group had febrile neutropenia, compared with 7.8% of those who received triple therapy, 4.2% in the venetoclax/rituximab group, and 3.1% of those who received venetoclax/obinutuzumab. Almost half of patients in the chemoimmunotherapy group had secondary primary malignancies versus fewer than 30% in the other arms.

EHA President-Elect António Almeida, MD, noted that the research sheds important light on evolving treatment options for CLL.

“The first is that the triple combination appears better than the double combinations, and I think that’s an important message because of longer treatment-free remission and progression-free remissions,” Dr. Almeida, of the Hospital da Luz, Lisbon, said in an interview.

The second important message: Given the time-limited administration of the venetoclax combinations, the data show that “we can stop ibrutinib and that is safe,” he added. “That’s quite important.”

Third, the findings can help guide treatment choices. “We’ve already had an indication that obinutuzumab is better than rituximab in the CLL setting, but this again solidifies that notion,” Dr. Almeida added.

Dr. Eichhorst has relationships with Janssen, Gilead, F. Hoffmann–La Roche, AbbVie, BeiGene, AstraZeneca, MSD, Adaptive Biotechnologies, and Hexal. Dr. Almeida disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A U.S. Food and Drug Administration advisory panel has rejected the atypical antipsychotic pimavanserin (Nuplazid, Acadia Pharmaceuticals) for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease psychosis (ADP).

In a 9-3 vote, the Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee (PDAC) found that the drug’s manufacturer failed to offer convincing evidence of its efficacy in patients with ADP.

The June 17 rejection was the second rejection in as many years for a new indication for pimavanserin, which was approved in 2016 for Parkinson’s disease psychosis (PDP).

In April 2021, the FDA denied Acadia’s supplemental new drug application to expand the drug’s indication to include the treatment of all dementia-related psychosis, regardless of the underlying cause of dementia, citing issues with two studies the company presented as evidence of efficacy.

Waldemarus/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Lack of efficacy

Pimavanserin is a selective serotonin inverse agonist and antagonist preferentially targeting 5-HT2A receptors, which are thought to play an important role in psychosis, schizophrenia, depression, and other neuropsychiatric disorders.

When it rejected Acadia’s original, broader application for pimavanserin for all dementia-related psychosis, the FDA found that the HARMONY phase 3 trial, previously covered by this news organization, was underpowered to assess efficacy in specific dementia patient subgroups and lacked statistical significance of efficacy in patients with AD. In addition, it noted that overall findings appeared to be driven by results in patients with Parkinson’s disease dementia, a condition already covered by the approved indication.

The FDA found that the second study, referred to in the June 17 hearing as Study 019, which was also previously reported by this news organization, was not “an adequate and well-controlled study.”

Specifically, the agency raised concerns about “protocol deviations,” such as the inclusion of patients who lacked clear documentation that psychotic symptoms developed after an AD diagnosis had been established and patients who received exclusionary medications at the time of randomization.

Discussions between Acadia and the FDA continued over the past year, with the company submitting new analyses and responses. An FDA briefing document published in advance of the committee meeting seemed to suggest the agency was satisfied with Acadia’s response.
 

Lack of diversity

The advisory committee disagreed, pointing to the same concerns raised last year. Members raised concerns about patient diversity in the HARMONY trial, which included an almost entirely White and mostly male study population.

In addition, although the findings at 26 weeks did demonstrate a marked improvement in psychosis symptoms overall, committee members noted that, again, those findings were largely driven by efficacy in patients with Parkinson’s disease dementia, for which the drug is already approved.

When discussing the phase 2 Study 019, the committee noted that while the study met the primary outcome of improvement in psychosis at 6 weeks, those positive responses were not found at any other timepoint in the 12-week study.  

“While it might have had a positive numerical effect in the study, the evidence is really not there to support it,” Dr. Follmann said.

Dr. Follmann and other committee members called for additional trials that focus on patients with Alzheimer’s disease, have a longer follow-up, and include more gender and racial diversity in the study population. They also called for more information about any off-label use of pimavanserin for ADP since it was approved for PDP in 2016.
 

An unmet need

Most individuals who testified during the public comment period pleaded with the committee to vote in favor of the new indication, sharing stories of family members and patients with ADP.

“I have been caring for and studying patients with Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias for more than 30 years, and I can tell you very simply that if left untreated, psychosis has significant and sometimes devastating consequences for our patients,” said Pierre Tariot, MD, director of the Banner Alzheimer’s Institute and a research professor of psychiatry at the University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, and an investigator on the HARMONY trial.

Those on the committee who voted against the application were quick to agree that lack of an approved treatment for ADP presents a hardship.

“I’m a neurologist who has cared for patients for more than 20 years,” said Madhav R. Thambisetty, MD, PhD, senior investigator for the National Institute on Aging and an adjunct professor of neurology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore. “I recognize the unmet need in the field, I just think that the unmet need should not be a justification to cut corners.”

The committee did not focus on drug safety or unmet need in its deliberations, although information on both were presented during the meeting.

Commenting on his “no” vote, PDAC member Walter S. Dunn, MD, PhD, assistant clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of California, Los Angeles, and director of Interventional Psychiatry Service at West Los Angeles Veterans Affairs Medical Center, said he hopes that the FDA will consider those issues more broadly as they complete their review.

“The questions before the committee have been narrow and precise, so I trust the agency will take a broader approach in their final decision about approval,” Dr. Dunn said.

Commenting on the decision, Howard Fillit, MD, cofounder and chief science officer, Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, called the news disappointing, “but while the unmet need for a treatment for ADP is clear, it is vital that approved treatments meet stringent safety and efficacy criteria so we can offer patients medications with clear benefits.”

The FDA will make its final decision by August 4.

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

A U.S. Food and Drug Administration advisory panel has rejected the atypical antipsychotic pimavanserin (Nuplazid, Acadia Pharmaceuticals) for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease psychosis (ADP).

In a 9-3 vote, the Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee (PDAC) found that the drug’s manufacturer failed to offer convincing evidence of its efficacy in patients with ADP.

The June 17 rejection was the second rejection in as many years for a new indication for pimavanserin, which was approved in 2016 for Parkinson’s disease psychosis (PDP).

In April 2021, the FDA denied Acadia’s supplemental new drug application to expand the drug’s indication to include the treatment of all dementia-related psychosis, regardless of the underlying cause of dementia, citing issues with two studies the company presented as evidence of efficacy.

Waldemarus/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Lack of efficacy

Pimavanserin is a selective serotonin inverse agonist and antagonist preferentially targeting 5-HT2A receptors, which are thought to play an important role in psychosis, schizophrenia, depression, and other neuropsychiatric disorders.

When it rejected Acadia’s original, broader application for pimavanserin for all dementia-related psychosis, the FDA found that the HARMONY phase 3 trial, previously covered by this news organization, was underpowered to assess efficacy in specific dementia patient subgroups and lacked statistical significance of efficacy in patients with AD. In addition, it noted that overall findings appeared to be driven by results in patients with Parkinson’s disease dementia, a condition already covered by the approved indication.

The FDA found that the second study, referred to in the June 17 hearing as Study 019, which was also previously reported by this news organization, was not “an adequate and well-controlled study.”

Specifically, the agency raised concerns about “protocol deviations,” such as the inclusion of patients who lacked clear documentation that psychotic symptoms developed after an AD diagnosis had been established and patients who received exclusionary medications at the time of randomization.

Discussions between Acadia and the FDA continued over the past year, with the company submitting new analyses and responses. An FDA briefing document published in advance of the committee meeting seemed to suggest the agency was satisfied with Acadia’s response.
 

Lack of diversity

The advisory committee disagreed, pointing to the same concerns raised last year. Members raised concerns about patient diversity in the HARMONY trial, which included an almost entirely White and mostly male study population.

In addition, although the findings at 26 weeks did demonstrate a marked improvement in psychosis symptoms overall, committee members noted that, again, those findings were largely driven by efficacy in patients with Parkinson’s disease dementia, for which the drug is already approved.

When discussing the phase 2 Study 019, the committee noted that while the study met the primary outcome of improvement in psychosis at 6 weeks, those positive responses were not found at any other timepoint in the 12-week study.  

“While it might have had a positive numerical effect in the study, the evidence is really not there to support it,” Dr. Follmann said.

Dr. Follmann and other committee members called for additional trials that focus on patients with Alzheimer’s disease, have a longer follow-up, and include more gender and racial diversity in the study population. They also called for more information about any off-label use of pimavanserin for ADP since it was approved for PDP in 2016.
 

An unmet need

Most individuals who testified during the public comment period pleaded with the committee to vote in favor of the new indication, sharing stories of family members and patients with ADP.

“I have been caring for and studying patients with Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias for more than 30 years, and I can tell you very simply that if left untreated, psychosis has significant and sometimes devastating consequences for our patients,” said Pierre Tariot, MD, director of the Banner Alzheimer’s Institute and a research professor of psychiatry at the University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, and an investigator on the HARMONY trial.

Those on the committee who voted against the application were quick to agree that lack of an approved treatment for ADP presents a hardship.

“I’m a neurologist who has cared for patients for more than 20 years,” said Madhav R. Thambisetty, MD, PhD, senior investigator for the National Institute on Aging and an adjunct professor of neurology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore. “I recognize the unmet need in the field, I just think that the unmet need should not be a justification to cut corners.”

The committee did not focus on drug safety or unmet need in its deliberations, although information on both were presented during the meeting.

Commenting on his “no” vote, PDAC member Walter S. Dunn, MD, PhD, assistant clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of California, Los Angeles, and director of Interventional Psychiatry Service at West Los Angeles Veterans Affairs Medical Center, said he hopes that the FDA will consider those issues more broadly as they complete their review.

“The questions before the committee have been narrow and precise, so I trust the agency will take a broader approach in their final decision about approval,” Dr. Dunn said.

Commenting on the decision, Howard Fillit, MD, cofounder and chief science officer, Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, called the news disappointing, “but while the unmet need for a treatment for ADP is clear, it is vital that approved treatments meet stringent safety and efficacy criteria so we can offer patients medications with clear benefits.”

The FDA will make its final decision by August 4.

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

A U.S. Food and Drug Administration advisory panel has rejected the atypical antipsychotic pimavanserin (Nuplazid, Acadia Pharmaceuticals) for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease psychosis (ADP).

In a 9-3 vote, the Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee (PDAC) found that the drug’s manufacturer failed to offer convincing evidence of its efficacy in patients with ADP.

The June 17 rejection was the second rejection in as many years for a new indication for pimavanserin, which was approved in 2016 for Parkinson’s disease psychosis (PDP).

In April 2021, the FDA denied Acadia’s supplemental new drug application to expand the drug’s indication to include the treatment of all dementia-related psychosis, regardless of the underlying cause of dementia, citing issues with two studies the company presented as evidence of efficacy.

Waldemarus/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Lack of efficacy

Pimavanserin is a selective serotonin inverse agonist and antagonist preferentially targeting 5-HT2A receptors, which are thought to play an important role in psychosis, schizophrenia, depression, and other neuropsychiatric disorders.

When it rejected Acadia’s original, broader application for pimavanserin for all dementia-related psychosis, the FDA found that the HARMONY phase 3 trial, previously covered by this news organization, was underpowered to assess efficacy in specific dementia patient subgroups and lacked statistical significance of efficacy in patients with AD. In addition, it noted that overall findings appeared to be driven by results in patients with Parkinson’s disease dementia, a condition already covered by the approved indication.

The FDA found that the second study, referred to in the June 17 hearing as Study 019, which was also previously reported by this news organization, was not “an adequate and well-controlled study.”

Specifically, the agency raised concerns about “protocol deviations,” such as the inclusion of patients who lacked clear documentation that psychotic symptoms developed after an AD diagnosis had been established and patients who received exclusionary medications at the time of randomization.

Discussions between Acadia and the FDA continued over the past year, with the company submitting new analyses and responses. An FDA briefing document published in advance of the committee meeting seemed to suggest the agency was satisfied with Acadia’s response.
 

Lack of diversity

The advisory committee disagreed, pointing to the same concerns raised last year. Members raised concerns about patient diversity in the HARMONY trial, which included an almost entirely White and mostly male study population.

In addition, although the findings at 26 weeks did demonstrate a marked improvement in psychosis symptoms overall, committee members noted that, again, those findings were largely driven by efficacy in patients with Parkinson’s disease dementia, for which the drug is already approved.

When discussing the phase 2 Study 019, the committee noted that while the study met the primary outcome of improvement in psychosis at 6 weeks, those positive responses were not found at any other timepoint in the 12-week study.  

“While it might have had a positive numerical effect in the study, the evidence is really not there to support it,” Dr. Follmann said.

Dr. Follmann and other committee members called for additional trials that focus on patients with Alzheimer’s disease, have a longer follow-up, and include more gender and racial diversity in the study population. They also called for more information about any off-label use of pimavanserin for ADP since it was approved for PDP in 2016.
 

An unmet need

Most individuals who testified during the public comment period pleaded with the committee to vote in favor of the new indication, sharing stories of family members and patients with ADP.

“I have been caring for and studying patients with Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias for more than 30 years, and I can tell you very simply that if left untreated, psychosis has significant and sometimes devastating consequences for our patients,” said Pierre Tariot, MD, director of the Banner Alzheimer’s Institute and a research professor of psychiatry at the University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, and an investigator on the HARMONY trial.

Those on the committee who voted against the application were quick to agree that lack of an approved treatment for ADP presents a hardship.

“I’m a neurologist who has cared for patients for more than 20 years,” said Madhav R. Thambisetty, MD, PhD, senior investigator for the National Institute on Aging and an adjunct professor of neurology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore. “I recognize the unmet need in the field, I just think that the unmet need should not be a justification to cut corners.”

The committee did not focus on drug safety or unmet need in its deliberations, although information on both were presented during the meeting.

Commenting on his “no” vote, PDAC member Walter S. Dunn, MD, PhD, assistant clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of California, Los Angeles, and director of Interventional Psychiatry Service at West Los Angeles Veterans Affairs Medical Center, said he hopes that the FDA will consider those issues more broadly as they complete their review.

“The questions before the committee have been narrow and precise, so I trust the agency will take a broader approach in their final decision about approval,” Dr. Dunn said.

Commenting on the decision, Howard Fillit, MD, cofounder and chief science officer, Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, called the news disappointing, “but while the unmet need for a treatment for ADP is clear, it is vital that approved treatments meet stringent safety and efficacy criteria so we can offer patients medications with clear benefits.”

The FDA will make its final decision by August 4.

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

During the coronavirus pandemic, several substance use behaviors decreased among youths, namely drinking, smoking, vaping, and cannabis use, according to a recent study published in the journal Current Psychiatry Reports.

That likely happened because they had to spend more time at home and less time with their friends, the study authors wrote, adding that youth substance use should be monitored in the post-pandemic years.

“One of the driving factors for youth substance use is access to substances,” Hannah Layman, one of the co-authors and a social and behavioral sciences doctoral student at West Virginia University, said in a statement.

“With stay-at-home orders, virtual schooling, and social distancing, children have been spending more time with family and are more socially isolated from peers than before,” she said. “Although social isolation from peers may have a negative impact on their mental health, it may just be one of the desirable outcomes of the pandemic when considering substance use in children.”

Ms. Layman and colleagues analyzed 49 studies that followed substance use of alcohol, cannabis, tobacco, e-cigarettes/vaping, and other drugs among children, teens, and youths under age 24. The studies spanned across several countries, including 22 in North America and 19 in Europe.

The research team found that most studies across all categories reported reductions in prevalence, except for the category of “other drugs and unspecific drugs,” which included three studies that showed an increase in use and three studies that showed a decrease in use.

Teens and preteens tend to have easier access to alcohol, tobacco, cannabis products, and vaping products and see them as less serious than “hard drugs,” the authors said.

Future research should analyze the long-term effects of the pandemic on youth substance use, the study authors wrote, paying attention to differences by gender and those who face the highest risks for substance use. Previous studies have shown an increase in substance use among youths, particularly among those in low-income neighborhoods or in difficult family circumstances.

“Substance use can affect a young person’s body in many ways, such as the development of mental health issues (depression, anxiety, conduct problems, personality disorders, and suicidal thoughts), injuries due to accidents, decreased bone mineral density, preventing proper brain growth and function, delayed puberty, liver damage, and so much more,” Ms. Layman said.

Increased parent or caregiver supervision can help prevent substance use problems, she noted. Early intervention, open support in conversations, and ongoing education about the dangers of substance use can help as well.

“Our findings also identified the importance of improving youth mental health and the value of telemedicine to address young people’s needs during the pandemic,” she said.

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

During the coronavirus pandemic, several substance use behaviors decreased among youths, namely drinking, smoking, vaping, and cannabis use, according to a recent study published in the journal Current Psychiatry Reports.

That likely happened because they had to spend more time at home and less time with their friends, the study authors wrote, adding that youth substance use should be monitored in the post-pandemic years.

“One of the driving factors for youth substance use is access to substances,” Hannah Layman, one of the co-authors and a social and behavioral sciences doctoral student at West Virginia University, said in a statement.

“With stay-at-home orders, virtual schooling, and social distancing, children have been spending more time with family and are more socially isolated from peers than before,” she said. “Although social isolation from peers may have a negative impact on their mental health, it may just be one of the desirable outcomes of the pandemic when considering substance use in children.”

Ms. Layman and colleagues analyzed 49 studies that followed substance use of alcohol, cannabis, tobacco, e-cigarettes/vaping, and other drugs among children, teens, and youths under age 24. The studies spanned across several countries, including 22 in North America and 19 in Europe.

The research team found that most studies across all categories reported reductions in prevalence, except for the category of “other drugs and unspecific drugs,” which included three studies that showed an increase in use and three studies that showed a decrease in use.

Teens and preteens tend to have easier access to alcohol, tobacco, cannabis products, and vaping products and see them as less serious than “hard drugs,” the authors said.

Future research should analyze the long-term effects of the pandemic on youth substance use, the study authors wrote, paying attention to differences by gender and those who face the highest risks for substance use. Previous studies have shown an increase in substance use among youths, particularly among those in low-income neighborhoods or in difficult family circumstances.

“Substance use can affect a young person’s body in many ways, such as the development of mental health issues (depression, anxiety, conduct problems, personality disorders, and suicidal thoughts), injuries due to accidents, decreased bone mineral density, preventing proper brain growth and function, delayed puberty, liver damage, and so much more,” Ms. Layman said.

Increased parent or caregiver supervision can help prevent substance use problems, she noted. Early intervention, open support in conversations, and ongoing education about the dangers of substance use can help as well.

“Our findings also identified the importance of improving youth mental health and the value of telemedicine to address young people’s needs during the pandemic,” she said.

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

During the coronavirus pandemic, several substance use behaviors decreased among youths, namely drinking, smoking, vaping, and cannabis use, according to a recent study published in the journal Current Psychiatry Reports.

That likely happened because they had to spend more time at home and less time with their friends, the study authors wrote, adding that youth substance use should be monitored in the post-pandemic years.

“One of the driving factors for youth substance use is access to substances,” Hannah Layman, one of the co-authors and a social and behavioral sciences doctoral student at West Virginia University, said in a statement.

“With stay-at-home orders, virtual schooling, and social distancing, children have been spending more time with family and are more socially isolated from peers than before,” she said. “Although social isolation from peers may have a negative impact on their mental health, it may just be one of the desirable outcomes of the pandemic when considering substance use in children.”

Ms. Layman and colleagues analyzed 49 studies that followed substance use of alcohol, cannabis, tobacco, e-cigarettes/vaping, and other drugs among children, teens, and youths under age 24. The studies spanned across several countries, including 22 in North America and 19 in Europe.

The research team found that most studies across all categories reported reductions in prevalence, except for the category of “other drugs and unspecific drugs,” which included three studies that showed an increase in use and three studies that showed a decrease in use.

Teens and preteens tend to have easier access to alcohol, tobacco, cannabis products, and vaping products and see them as less serious than “hard drugs,” the authors said.

Future research should analyze the long-term effects of the pandemic on youth substance use, the study authors wrote, paying attention to differences by gender and those who face the highest risks for substance use. Previous studies have shown an increase in substance use among youths, particularly among those in low-income neighborhoods or in difficult family circumstances.

“Substance use can affect a young person’s body in many ways, such as the development of mental health issues (depression, anxiety, conduct problems, personality disorders, and suicidal thoughts), injuries due to accidents, decreased bone mineral density, preventing proper brain growth and function, delayed puberty, liver damage, and so much more,” Ms. Layman said.

Increased parent or caregiver supervision can help prevent substance use problems, she noted. Early intervention, open support in conversations, and ongoing education about the dangers of substance use can help as well.

“Our findings also identified the importance of improving youth mental health and the value of telemedicine to address young people’s needs during the pandemic,” she said.

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

The following highlights are a brief overview of guideline updates, drug approvals, and diagnostics relevant to geriatric medicine from June 2021 to April 2022, some of which were discussed at the American Geriatrics Society conference in May. I selected these topics as they were among the most discussed by my colleagues in geriatric medicine and inquired about by my primary care patients in geriatric medicine clinic. I hope that these updates provide primary care clinicians who care for older adults with more context and background information regarding new Alzheimer’s disease therapy to better answer patient inquiries, and to feel empowered to deprescribe aspirin and reframe the diagnostic criteria of chronic kidney disease (CKD).

Aspirin for primary prevention

It was welcome news in the geriatrics community when the United States Preventive Services Task Force updated their guidelines in April 2022 to recommend against the initiation of aspirin for primary prevention in adults aged 60 or older. This recommendation was based on studies that found that net benefits of CVD prevention in older adults are outweighed by risk of bleeding.¹

The risk of bleeding increases with age and can occur in individuals without common risk factors for bleeding, such as prior gastrointestinal bleeding, peptic ulcer disease, concurrent NSAID use, or corticosteroid use.

While it may be easier to not initiate aspirin for primary prevention, deprescribing aspirin for patients who have been on aspirin long term for primary prevention presents more of a challenge. Modeling data from the USPTSF suggest stopping aspirin at age 75 for those taking aspirin for primary prevention.²

Behavioral change, particularly for patients who have been on aspirin for decades, can be difficult. A 2021 study by Green et al. found that language that resonates the most with older adults when deprescribing emphasized the side effects rather than statements such as “this will not help you” or “do not need anymore.”3
 

Aducanumab for mild cognitive impairment and mild Alzheimer’s dementia

One of the most discussed topics this past year is the Food and Drug Administration approval of aducanumab (brand name Aduhelm) in June 2021. Aducanumab is the first approved disease-modifying therapy for Alzheimer’s disease and the first drug approved for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease since 2003. Aducanumab is an antiamyloid monoclonal antibody that was developed to reduce amyloid plaque in the brain, one of the features of Alzheimer’s disease pathology.

Uptake of aducanumab by dementia providers has been limited for several reasons. Firstly, the clinical significance of the drug remains in question. ENGAGE and EMERGE were the two main randomized clinical trials that studied the effect of aducanumab on amyloid burden and clinical stages of dementia over 18 months. While both studies demonstrated that aducanumab reduced amyloid burden based on neuroimaging and in cerebrospinal fluid, the ENGAGE trial found no difference in the stage of dementia. The EMERGE trial did note a small, statistically significant difference in stage of dementia, however the participants of the EMERGE trial had a faster rate of progression of dementia than the placebo participants in the ENGAGE trial, which could have contributed to the difference detected.⁴

Additionally, exclusion criteria for both trials call into question the generalizability of this study. Participants over age 85, with CKD, prior stroke, or transient ischemic attacks, or on anticoagulation were excluded. One of the drivers for the exclusion criteria is the increased risk of macro and microhemorrhages.

Thirty-five percent of research participants were incidentally noted to have brain edema, an abnormality called amyloid-related imaging abnormality or ARIA-E, that necessitated serial monitoring with brain MRIs. It is also important to highlight that inclusion of African American, Hispanic, and Latinx participants in these studies was less than 5%, despite a higher incidence of Alzheimer’s disease in these populations.⁵

Lastly, economic implications for the U.S. health care system with increased uptake of aducanumab could be enormous. Originally quoted at $56,000 yearly, Biogen, the maker of aducanumab, recently reduced annual costs to $28,200 per patient.

In April 2022, CMS released a statement that antiamyloid monoclonal antibodies and related services, including PET scans, would be covered under Medicare for those with mild cognitive impairment and mild Alzheimer’s dementia with confirmed presence of amyloid. A study by Mafi et al. estimated that aducanumab could cost Medicare between $7 billion and $37.4 billion annually based on lower and upper bound estimates of eligible Medicare beneficiaries.⁶
 

Overdiagnosis of CKD in older adults

The current diagnostic criteria of CKD, which is based on an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of less than 60, has been up for debate, as glomerular filtration rate (GFR) physiologically decreases with age. Fixed thresholds can lead to underdiagnosis of CKD in younger adults and overdiagnosis of CKD in older adults. Age-adapted thresholds for the diagnosis of CKD have been proposed, with the suggestion of an eGFR threshold of 45mL/min/1.73 m² for adults aged 65 and older.⁷

The clinical implication of using an age-adapted eGFR threshold definition was investigated in a 2021 cohort study by Liu et al.⁸ In this study, outcomes of adults diagnosed with CKD using a fixed threshold versus age-adapted threshold were compared with a healthy cohort.

A fixed threshold led to a 60% higher incidence of CKD diagnosis. However, incidence of renal failure and all-cause mortality in older adults with an eGFR between 45-59 /min/1.73 m2 with normal or mild albuminuria was of similar magnitude to the healthy cohort at 5 years of follow-up.

These findings support the use of age-adapted thresholds for the diagnosis of CKD in older adults, as an earlier diagnosis of mild CKD does not equate to clinical benefits, but could lead to harms of unnecessary interventions and patient anxiety.
 

Dr. Mengru “Ruru” Wang is a geriatrician and internist at the University of Washington, Seattle. She practices full-spectrum medicine, seeing patients in primary care, nursing homes, and acute care. Dr. Wang has no disclosures related to this piece.

References

1. Selak Vet al. Predicting bleeding risk to guide aspirin use for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: A cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2019;170(6):357-68. doi: 10.7326/M18-2808.

2. US Preventive Services Task Force. Aspirin Use to Prevent Cardiovascular Disease: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 2022;327(16):1577-84. doi: 10.1001/jama.2022.4983.

3. Green AR et al. Assessment of patient-preferred language to achieve goal-aligned deprescribing in older adults. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(4):e212633. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.2633.

4. Oh ES. Use of anti-amyloid therapy for Alzheimer’s disease in clinical practice. An update on Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis and therapeutics. Presentation at American Geriatrics Society Meeting, 2022. Orlando.

5. Amjad H. Issues of Access and Marginalization. An update on Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis and therapeutics. Presentation at: American Geriatrics Society Meeting, 2022. Orlando.

6. Mafi JN et al. Estimated annual spending on aducanumab in the U.S. Medicare program. JAMA Health Forum. 2022;3(1):e214495. doi: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2021.4495.

7. Delanaye P et al. CKD: A call for an age-adapted definition. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2019;30(10):1785-1805. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2019030238.

8. Liu Pet al. Accounting for age in the definition of chronic kidney disease. JAMA Intern Med. 2021;181(10):1359-66. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.4813.

The following highlights are a brief overview of guideline updates, drug approvals, and diagnostics relevant to geriatric medicine from June 2021 to April 2022, some of which were discussed at the American Geriatrics Society conference in May. I selected these topics as they were among the most discussed by my colleagues in geriatric medicine and inquired about by my primary care patients in geriatric medicine clinic. I hope that these updates provide primary care clinicians who care for older adults with more context and background information regarding new Alzheimer’s disease therapy to better answer patient inquiries, and to feel empowered to deprescribe aspirin and reframe the diagnostic criteria of chronic kidney disease (CKD).

Aspirin for primary prevention

It was welcome news in the geriatrics community when the United States Preventive Services Task Force updated their guidelines in April 2022 to recommend against the initiation of aspirin for primary prevention in adults aged 60 or older. This recommendation was based on studies that found that net benefits of CVD prevention in older adults are outweighed by risk of bleeding.¹

The risk of bleeding increases with age and can occur in individuals without common risk factors for bleeding, such as prior gastrointestinal bleeding, peptic ulcer disease, concurrent NSAID use, or corticosteroid use.

While it may be easier to not initiate aspirin for primary prevention, deprescribing aspirin for patients who have been on aspirin long term for primary prevention presents more of a challenge. Modeling data from the USPTSF suggest stopping aspirin at age 75 for those taking aspirin for primary prevention.²

Behavioral change, particularly for patients who have been on aspirin for decades, can be difficult. A 2021 study by Green et al. found that language that resonates the most with older adults when deprescribing emphasized the side effects rather than statements such as “this will not help you” or “do not need anymore.”3
 

Aducanumab for mild cognitive impairment and mild Alzheimer’s dementia

One of the most discussed topics this past year is the Food and Drug Administration approval of aducanumab (brand name Aduhelm) in June 2021. Aducanumab is the first approved disease-modifying therapy for Alzheimer’s disease and the first drug approved for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease since 2003. Aducanumab is an antiamyloid monoclonal antibody that was developed to reduce amyloid plaque in the brain, one of the features of Alzheimer’s disease pathology.

Uptake of aducanumab by dementia providers has been limited for several reasons. Firstly, the clinical significance of the drug remains in question. ENGAGE and EMERGE were the two main randomized clinical trials that studied the effect of aducanumab on amyloid burden and clinical stages of dementia over 18 months. While both studies demonstrated that aducanumab reduced amyloid burden based on neuroimaging and in cerebrospinal fluid, the ENGAGE trial found no difference in the stage of dementia. The EMERGE trial did note a small, statistically significant difference in stage of dementia, however the participants of the EMERGE trial had a faster rate of progression of dementia than the placebo participants in the ENGAGE trial, which could have contributed to the difference detected.⁴

Additionally, exclusion criteria for both trials call into question the generalizability of this study. Participants over age 85, with CKD, prior stroke, or transient ischemic attacks, or on anticoagulation were excluded. One of the drivers for the exclusion criteria is the increased risk of macro and microhemorrhages.

Thirty-five percent of research participants were incidentally noted to have brain edema, an abnormality called amyloid-related imaging abnormality or ARIA-E, that necessitated serial monitoring with brain MRIs. It is also important to highlight that inclusion of African American, Hispanic, and Latinx participants in these studies was less than 5%, despite a higher incidence of Alzheimer’s disease in these populations.⁵

Lastly, economic implications for the U.S. health care system with increased uptake of aducanumab could be enormous. Originally quoted at $56,000 yearly, Biogen, the maker of aducanumab, recently reduced annual costs to $28,200 per patient.

In April 2022, CMS released a statement that antiamyloid monoclonal antibodies and related services, including PET scans, would be covered under Medicare for those with mild cognitive impairment and mild Alzheimer’s dementia with confirmed presence of amyloid. A study by Mafi et al. estimated that aducanumab could cost Medicare between $7 billion and $37.4 billion annually based on lower and upper bound estimates of eligible Medicare beneficiaries.⁶
 

Overdiagnosis of CKD in older adults

The current diagnostic criteria of CKD, which is based on an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of less than 60, has been up for debate, as glomerular filtration rate (GFR) physiologically decreases with age. Fixed thresholds can lead to underdiagnosis of CKD in younger adults and overdiagnosis of CKD in older adults. Age-adapted thresholds for the diagnosis of CKD have been proposed, with the suggestion of an eGFR threshold of 45mL/min/1.73 m² for adults aged 65 and older.⁷

The clinical implication of using an age-adapted eGFR threshold definition was investigated in a 2021 cohort study by Liu et al.⁸ In this study, outcomes of adults diagnosed with CKD using a fixed threshold versus age-adapted threshold were compared with a healthy cohort.

A fixed threshold led to a 60% higher incidence of CKD diagnosis. However, incidence of renal failure and all-cause mortality in older adults with an eGFR between 45-59 /min/1.73 m2 with normal or mild albuminuria was of similar magnitude to the healthy cohort at 5 years of follow-up.

These findings support the use of age-adapted thresholds for the diagnosis of CKD in older adults, as an earlier diagnosis of mild CKD does not equate to clinical benefits, but could lead to harms of unnecessary interventions and patient anxiety.
 

Dr. Mengru “Ruru” Wang is a geriatrician and internist at the University of Washington, Seattle. She practices full-spectrum medicine, seeing patients in primary care, nursing homes, and acute care. Dr. Wang has no disclosures related to this piece.

References

1. Selak Vet al. Predicting bleeding risk to guide aspirin use for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: A cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2019;170(6):357-68. doi: 10.7326/M18-2808.

2. US Preventive Services Task Force. Aspirin Use to Prevent Cardiovascular Disease: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 2022;327(16):1577-84. doi: 10.1001/jama.2022.4983.

3. Green AR et al. Assessment of patient-preferred language to achieve goal-aligned deprescribing in older adults. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(4):e212633. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.2633.

4. Oh ES. Use of anti-amyloid therapy for Alzheimer’s disease in clinical practice. An update on Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis and therapeutics. Presentation at American Geriatrics Society Meeting, 2022. Orlando.

5. Amjad H. Issues of Access and Marginalization. An update on Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis and therapeutics. Presentation at: American Geriatrics Society Meeting, 2022. Orlando.

6. Mafi JN et al. Estimated annual spending on aducanumab in the U.S. Medicare program. JAMA Health Forum. 2022;3(1):e214495. doi: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2021.4495.

7. Delanaye P et al. CKD: A call for an age-adapted definition. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2019;30(10):1785-1805. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2019030238.

8. Liu Pet al. Accounting for age in the definition of chronic kidney disease. JAMA Intern Med. 2021;181(10):1359-66. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.4813.

The following highlights are a brief overview of guideline updates, drug approvals, and diagnostics relevant to geriatric medicine from June 2021 to April 2022, some of which were discussed at the American Geriatrics Society conference in May. I selected these topics as they were among the most discussed by my colleagues in geriatric medicine and inquired about by my primary care patients in geriatric medicine clinic. I hope that these updates provide primary care clinicians who care for older adults with more context and background information regarding new Alzheimer’s disease therapy to better answer patient inquiries, and to feel empowered to deprescribe aspirin and reframe the diagnostic criteria of chronic kidney disease (CKD).

Aspirin for primary prevention

It was welcome news in the geriatrics community when the United States Preventive Services Task Force updated their guidelines in April 2022 to recommend against the initiation of aspirin for primary prevention in adults aged 60 or older. This recommendation was based on studies that found that net benefits of CVD prevention in older adults are outweighed by risk of bleeding.¹

The risk of bleeding increases with age and can occur in individuals without common risk factors for bleeding, such as prior gastrointestinal bleeding, peptic ulcer disease, concurrent NSAID use, or corticosteroid use.

While it may be easier to not initiate aspirin for primary prevention, deprescribing aspirin for patients who have been on aspirin long term for primary prevention presents more of a challenge. Modeling data from the USPTSF suggest stopping aspirin at age 75 for those taking aspirin for primary prevention.²

Behavioral change, particularly for patients who have been on aspirin for decades, can be difficult. A 2021 study by Green et al. found that language that resonates the most with older adults when deprescribing emphasized the side effects rather than statements such as “this will not help you” or “do not need anymore.”3
 

Aducanumab for mild cognitive impairment and mild Alzheimer’s dementia

One of the most discussed topics this past year is the Food and Drug Administration approval of aducanumab (brand name Aduhelm) in June 2021. Aducanumab is the first approved disease-modifying therapy for Alzheimer’s disease and the first drug approved for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease since 2003. Aducanumab is an antiamyloid monoclonal antibody that was developed to reduce amyloid plaque in the brain, one of the features of Alzheimer’s disease pathology.

Uptake of aducanumab by dementia providers has been limited for several reasons. Firstly, the clinical significance of the drug remains in question. ENGAGE and EMERGE were the two main randomized clinical trials that studied the effect of aducanumab on amyloid burden and clinical stages of dementia over 18 months. While both studies demonstrated that aducanumab reduced amyloid burden based on neuroimaging and in cerebrospinal fluid, the ENGAGE trial found no difference in the stage of dementia. The EMERGE trial did note a small, statistically significant difference in stage of dementia, however the participants of the EMERGE trial had a faster rate of progression of dementia than the placebo participants in the ENGAGE trial, which could have contributed to the difference detected.⁴

Additionally, exclusion criteria for both trials call into question the generalizability of this study. Participants over age 85, with CKD, prior stroke, or transient ischemic attacks, or on anticoagulation were excluded. One of the drivers for the exclusion criteria is the increased risk of macro and microhemorrhages.

Thirty-five percent of research participants were incidentally noted to have brain edema, an abnormality called amyloid-related imaging abnormality or ARIA-E, that necessitated serial monitoring with brain MRIs. It is also important to highlight that inclusion of African American, Hispanic, and Latinx participants in these studies was less than 5%, despite a higher incidence of Alzheimer’s disease in these populations.⁵

Lastly, economic implications for the U.S. health care system with increased uptake of aducanumab could be enormous. Originally quoted at $56,000 yearly, Biogen, the maker of aducanumab, recently reduced annual costs to $28,200 per patient.

In April 2022, CMS released a statement that antiamyloid monoclonal antibodies and related services, including PET scans, would be covered under Medicare for those with mild cognitive impairment and mild Alzheimer’s dementia with confirmed presence of amyloid. A study by Mafi et al. estimated that aducanumab could cost Medicare between $7 billion and $37.4 billion annually based on lower and upper bound estimates of eligible Medicare beneficiaries.⁶
 

Overdiagnosis of CKD in older adults

The current diagnostic criteria of CKD, which is based on an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of less than 60, has been up for debate, as glomerular filtration rate (GFR) physiologically decreases with age. Fixed thresholds can lead to underdiagnosis of CKD in younger adults and overdiagnosis of CKD in older adults. Age-adapted thresholds for the diagnosis of CKD have been proposed, with the suggestion of an eGFR threshold of 45mL/min/1.73 m² for adults aged 65 and older.⁷

The clinical implication of using an age-adapted eGFR threshold definition was investigated in a 2021 cohort study by Liu et al.⁸ In this study, outcomes of adults diagnosed with CKD using a fixed threshold versus age-adapted threshold were compared with a healthy cohort.

A fixed threshold led to a 60% higher incidence of CKD diagnosis. However, incidence of renal failure and all-cause mortality in older adults with an eGFR between 45-59 /min/1.73 m2 with normal or mild albuminuria was of similar magnitude to the healthy cohort at 5 years of follow-up.

These findings support the use of age-adapted thresholds for the diagnosis of CKD in older adults, as an earlier diagnosis of mild CKD does not equate to clinical benefits, but could lead to harms of unnecessary interventions and patient anxiety.
 

Dr. Mengru “Ruru” Wang is a geriatrician and internist at the University of Washington, Seattle. She practices full-spectrum medicine, seeing patients in primary care, nursing homes, and acute care. Dr. Wang has no disclosures related to this piece.

References

1. Selak Vet al. Predicting bleeding risk to guide aspirin use for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: A cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2019;170(6):357-68. doi: 10.7326/M18-2808.

2. US Preventive Services Task Force. Aspirin Use to Prevent Cardiovascular Disease: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 2022;327(16):1577-84. doi: 10.1001/jama.2022.4983.

3. Green AR et al. Assessment of patient-preferred language to achieve goal-aligned deprescribing in older adults. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(4):e212633. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.2633.

4. Oh ES. Use of anti-amyloid therapy for Alzheimer’s disease in clinical practice. An update on Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis and therapeutics. Presentation at American Geriatrics Society Meeting, 2022. Orlando.

5. Amjad H. Issues of Access and Marginalization. An update on Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis and therapeutics. Presentation at: American Geriatrics Society Meeting, 2022. Orlando.

6. Mafi JN et al. Estimated annual spending on aducanumab in the U.S. Medicare program. JAMA Health Forum. 2022;3(1):e214495. doi: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2021.4495.

7. Delanaye P et al. CKD: A call for an age-adapted definition. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2019;30(10):1785-1805. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2019030238.

8. Liu Pet al. Accounting for age in the definition of chronic kidney disease. JAMA Intern Med. 2021;181(10):1359-66. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.4813.