According to the best available evidence, patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) do not appear to face an increased risk of acquiring COVID-19 or becoming hospitalized because of the virus.

“This is an area that will continue to evolve, and further understanding will improve the health care advice that we provide to our patients,” Jacob P. Thyssen, MD, PhD, DmSci, said at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis virtual symposium. “The general recommendation for now is to continue systemic AD treatments during the pandemic, but the risk of acquiring COVID-19 is different for different drugs.”

According to Thyssen, professor of dermatology at the University of Copenhagen, early management guidance from the European Task Force on Atopic Dermatitis (ETFAD), the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI), and the International Eczema Council (IEC) state that patients with AD who are on biologics or immunosuppressants should continue treatment if they are not infected with COVID-19. For example, the EIC statement says that the IEC “does not recommend temporary interruption of systemic AD treatments affecting the immune system in patients without COVID-19 infection or in those who have COVID-19 but are asymptomatic or have only mild symptoms.”

Guidelines from the EAACI recommend that patients with AD who become infected with COVID-19 withhold biologic treatment for a minimum of 2 weeks until they have recovered and/or have a negative SARS-CoV-2 test.

“However, if you have more severe respiratory disease, the advice to dermatologists is to consult with an infectious medicine specialist or a pulmonologist,” Dr. Thyssen said. “That’s out of our specialty realm. But in terms of AD, there’s no reason to stop treatment as long as the patient has mild symptoms or is asymptomatic. AD patients treated with immunosuppressive agents may have a higher risk of COVID-19 complications. Treatment with traditional immunosuppressant medications does increase the risk of infections. But what about COVID-19?”

Traditional systemic immunosuppressive therapies in AD with azathioprine, cyclosporine, and methotrexate suppress the immune system for 1-3 months, Dr. Thyssen continued. “We do know that vaccination response is reduced when using these agents,” he said. “The half-life of dupilumab [Dupixent] is 12-21 days. It takes about 13 weeks before dupilumab is completely out of the system, but it’s such a targeted therapy that it doesn’t lead to any broad immunosuppression.”

Meanwhile, the half-life of JAK inhibitors such as baricitinib (Olumiant) is about 13 hours. “It’s a broader immune suppressant because there will be off-target effects if you have a high dose, but it’s much more specific than the traditional immunosuppressants,” he said. “We now have JAK1 and JAK2 inhibitors in AD, which do not interfere with vaccine responses to the same degree as traditional immunosuppressants.”

To evaluate the risk for COVID-19 in patients with AD, researchers from the Center for Dermatology Research at the University of Manchester, United Kingdom, performed a cross-sectional study of 13,162 dermatology patients seen in the U.K. between June 2018 and Feb. 2021. Of the 13,162 patients, 624 (4.7%) had AD. They found that 4.8% of patients without a history of COVID-19 infection had AD, compared with 3.4% with a history of COVID-19. The risk for COVID-19 in patients with AD was similar to that of controls (adjusted odds ratio, 0.67).

Authors of a separate cross-sectional study published in May evaluated the health insurance medical records of 269,299 patients who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 across University of California Medical Centers. Of these, 3.6% had a positive test for SARS-CoV-2. Of 5,387 patients with AD, the infection rate was 2.9%, which was lower than in those without AD (3.7%; P = .0063). Hospitalization and mortality were not increased in patients with AD.

Another study, a case-control of more than 4.6 million HMO patients in Israel, found that the intake of systemic corticosteroids, older age, comorbid cardiovascular diseases, metabolic syndrome, and COPD were independent predictors of COVID-19–associated hospitalization. Mortality as a result of COVID-19 was independently predicted by metabolic syndrome and COPD but not by any AD-related variables.

“So, for our AD patients out there, there is no need to fear that they develop a COVID-19 infection or have a severe course, but we do have a few medications that would slightly increase the risk,” Dr. Thyssen said.

In another analysis, researchers evaluated Symphony Health–derived data from the COVID-19 Research Database to evaluate the risk for COVID-19 infection in adults with AD. The AD cohort included 39,417 patients, and the cohort without AD included 397,293 patients. Among AD patients, 8,180 were prescribed prednisone, 2,793 were prescribed dupilumab, 714 were prescribed methotrexate, and 512 were prescribed cyclosporine. The risk for COVID-19 was slightly increased in the AD cohort compared with the non-AD cohort (adjusted incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.18; P < .0001).

“There can be various explanations for this,” Dr. Thyssen said. “I still think we should maintain that AD itself is not a risk factor for COVID-19, but some of the medications may slightly increase the risk.”

In other findings, the investigators observed that treatment with dupilumab versus no systemic medication decreased the risk for COVID-19 by 34% (adjusted IRR, 0.66; P < .0001), as did methotrexate by 18% (adjusted IRR 0.82; P = .32). However, compared with no systemic medication, the use of prednisone slightly increased the risk of COVID-19 (adjusted IRR, 1.13; P = .03), as did the use of cyclosporine (adjusted IRR, 1.20; P = .32) and azathioprine (adjusted IRR, 1.61; P = .16).

More recently, researchers evaluated the records of 1,237 patients with moderate-to-severe AD (aged 9-95 years) to assess the self-reported severity of COVID-19 symptoms among those who received dupilumab versus other treatments.

Of the 1,237 patients with AD, 632 were on dupilumab, 107 were on other systemic treatments, and 498 were on limited or no treatment. Patients treated with dupilumab were less likely to report moderate-to-severe COVID-19 symptoms compared with patients who were on other systemic treatments, or limited/no treatments.
 

Vaccines and AD

Dr. Thyssen pointed out that the risk-benefit ratio of currently approved COVID-19 vaccines is better than the risk for an infection with SARS-CoV-2. “AD is not a contraindication to vaccination,” he said. “COVID-19 vaccine does not cause AD worsening since the vaccination response is mainly Th1 skewed.” He added that systemic immunosuppressants and JAK inhibitors used to treat AD may attenuate the vaccination response, but no attenuation is expected with dupilumab. “The half-life of JAK inhibitors is so short that vaccination followed by 1 week of pause treatment is a good strategy for patients.”

Dr. Thyssen disclosed that he is a speaker, advisory board member, and/or investigator for Asian, Arena, Almirall, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, LEO Pharma, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi-Genzyme.

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

According to the best available evidence, patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) do not appear to face an increased risk of acquiring COVID-19 or becoming hospitalized because of the virus.

“This is an area that will continue to evolve, and further understanding will improve the health care advice that we provide to our patients,” Jacob P. Thyssen, MD, PhD, DmSci, said at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis virtual symposium. “The general recommendation for now is to continue systemic AD treatments during the pandemic, but the risk of acquiring COVID-19 is different for different drugs.”

According to Thyssen, professor of dermatology at the University of Copenhagen, early management guidance from the European Task Force on Atopic Dermatitis (ETFAD), the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI), and the International Eczema Council (IEC) state that patients with AD who are on biologics or immunosuppressants should continue treatment if they are not infected with COVID-19. For example, the EIC statement says that the IEC “does not recommend temporary interruption of systemic AD treatments affecting the immune system in patients without COVID-19 infection or in those who have COVID-19 but are asymptomatic or have only mild symptoms.”

Guidelines from the EAACI recommend that patients with AD who become infected with COVID-19 withhold biologic treatment for a minimum of 2 weeks until they have recovered and/or have a negative SARS-CoV-2 test.

“However, if you have more severe respiratory disease, the advice to dermatologists is to consult with an infectious medicine specialist or a pulmonologist,” Dr. Thyssen said. “That’s out of our specialty realm. But in terms of AD, there’s no reason to stop treatment as long as the patient has mild symptoms or is asymptomatic. AD patients treated with immunosuppressive agents may have a higher risk of COVID-19 complications. Treatment with traditional immunosuppressant medications does increase the risk of infections. But what about COVID-19?”

Traditional systemic immunosuppressive therapies in AD with azathioprine, cyclosporine, and methotrexate suppress the immune system for 1-3 months, Dr. Thyssen continued. “We do know that vaccination response is reduced when using these agents,” he said. “The half-life of dupilumab [Dupixent] is 12-21 days. It takes about 13 weeks before dupilumab is completely out of the system, but it’s such a targeted therapy that it doesn’t lead to any broad immunosuppression.”

Meanwhile, the half-life of JAK inhibitors such as baricitinib (Olumiant) is about 13 hours. “It’s a broader immune suppressant because there will be off-target effects if you have a high dose, but it’s much more specific than the traditional immunosuppressants,” he said. “We now have JAK1 and JAK2 inhibitors in AD, which do not interfere with vaccine responses to the same degree as traditional immunosuppressants.”

To evaluate the risk for COVID-19 in patients with AD, researchers from the Center for Dermatology Research at the University of Manchester, United Kingdom, performed a cross-sectional study of 13,162 dermatology patients seen in the U.K. between June 2018 and Feb. 2021. Of the 13,162 patients, 624 (4.7%) had AD. They found that 4.8% of patients without a history of COVID-19 infection had AD, compared with 3.4% with a history of COVID-19. The risk for COVID-19 in patients with AD was similar to that of controls (adjusted odds ratio, 0.67).

Authors of a separate cross-sectional study published in May evaluated the health insurance medical records of 269,299 patients who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 across University of California Medical Centers. Of these, 3.6% had a positive test for SARS-CoV-2. Of 5,387 patients with AD, the infection rate was 2.9%, which was lower than in those without AD (3.7%; P = .0063). Hospitalization and mortality were not increased in patients with AD.

Another study, a case-control of more than 4.6 million HMO patients in Israel, found that the intake of systemic corticosteroids, older age, comorbid cardiovascular diseases, metabolic syndrome, and COPD were independent predictors of COVID-19–associated hospitalization. Mortality as a result of COVID-19 was independently predicted by metabolic syndrome and COPD but not by any AD-related variables.

“So, for our AD patients out there, there is no need to fear that they develop a COVID-19 infection or have a severe course, but we do have a few medications that would slightly increase the risk,” Dr. Thyssen said.

In another analysis, researchers evaluated Symphony Health–derived data from the COVID-19 Research Database to evaluate the risk for COVID-19 infection in adults with AD. The AD cohort included 39,417 patients, and the cohort without AD included 397,293 patients. Among AD patients, 8,180 were prescribed prednisone, 2,793 were prescribed dupilumab, 714 were prescribed methotrexate, and 512 were prescribed cyclosporine. The risk for COVID-19 was slightly increased in the AD cohort compared with the non-AD cohort (adjusted incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.18; P < .0001).

“There can be various explanations for this,” Dr. Thyssen said. “I still think we should maintain that AD itself is not a risk factor for COVID-19, but some of the medications may slightly increase the risk.”

In other findings, the investigators observed that treatment with dupilumab versus no systemic medication decreased the risk for COVID-19 by 34% (adjusted IRR, 0.66; P < .0001), as did methotrexate by 18% (adjusted IRR 0.82; P = .32). However, compared with no systemic medication, the use of prednisone slightly increased the risk of COVID-19 (adjusted IRR, 1.13; P = .03), as did the use of cyclosporine (adjusted IRR, 1.20; P = .32) and azathioprine (adjusted IRR, 1.61; P = .16).

More recently, researchers evaluated the records of 1,237 patients with moderate-to-severe AD (aged 9-95 years) to assess the self-reported severity of COVID-19 symptoms among those who received dupilumab versus other treatments.

Of the 1,237 patients with AD, 632 were on dupilumab, 107 were on other systemic treatments, and 498 were on limited or no treatment. Patients treated with dupilumab were less likely to report moderate-to-severe COVID-19 symptoms compared with patients who were on other systemic treatments, or limited/no treatments.
 

Vaccines and AD

Dr. Thyssen pointed out that the risk-benefit ratio of currently approved COVID-19 vaccines is better than the risk for an infection with SARS-CoV-2. “AD is not a contraindication to vaccination,” he said. “COVID-19 vaccine does not cause AD worsening since the vaccination response is mainly Th1 skewed.” He added that systemic immunosuppressants and JAK inhibitors used to treat AD may attenuate the vaccination response, but no attenuation is expected with dupilumab. “The half-life of JAK inhibitors is so short that vaccination followed by 1 week of pause treatment is a good strategy for patients.”

Dr. Thyssen disclosed that he is a speaker, advisory board member, and/or investigator for Asian, Arena, Almirall, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, LEO Pharma, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi-Genzyme.

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

According to the best available evidence, patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) do not appear to face an increased risk of acquiring COVID-19 or becoming hospitalized because of the virus.

“This is an area that will continue to evolve, and further understanding will improve the health care advice that we provide to our patients,” Jacob P. Thyssen, MD, PhD, DmSci, said at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis virtual symposium. “The general recommendation for now is to continue systemic AD treatments during the pandemic, but the risk of acquiring COVID-19 is different for different drugs.”

According to Thyssen, professor of dermatology at the University of Copenhagen, early management guidance from the European Task Force on Atopic Dermatitis (ETFAD), the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI), and the International Eczema Council (IEC) state that patients with AD who are on biologics or immunosuppressants should continue treatment if they are not infected with COVID-19. For example, the EIC statement says that the IEC “does not recommend temporary interruption of systemic AD treatments affecting the immune system in patients without COVID-19 infection or in those who have COVID-19 but are asymptomatic or have only mild symptoms.”

Guidelines from the EAACI recommend that patients with AD who become infected with COVID-19 withhold biologic treatment for a minimum of 2 weeks until they have recovered and/or have a negative SARS-CoV-2 test.

“However, if you have more severe respiratory disease, the advice to dermatologists is to consult with an infectious medicine specialist or a pulmonologist,” Dr. Thyssen said. “That’s out of our specialty realm. But in terms of AD, there’s no reason to stop treatment as long as the patient has mild symptoms or is asymptomatic. AD patients treated with immunosuppressive agents may have a higher risk of COVID-19 complications. Treatment with traditional immunosuppressant medications does increase the risk of infections. But what about COVID-19?”

Traditional systemic immunosuppressive therapies in AD with azathioprine, cyclosporine, and methotrexate suppress the immune system for 1-3 months, Dr. Thyssen continued. “We do know that vaccination response is reduced when using these agents,” he said. “The half-life of dupilumab [Dupixent] is 12-21 days. It takes about 13 weeks before dupilumab is completely out of the system, but it’s such a targeted therapy that it doesn’t lead to any broad immunosuppression.”

Meanwhile, the half-life of JAK inhibitors such as baricitinib (Olumiant) is about 13 hours. “It’s a broader immune suppressant because there will be off-target effects if you have a high dose, but it’s much more specific than the traditional immunosuppressants,” he said. “We now have JAK1 and JAK2 inhibitors in AD, which do not interfere with vaccine responses to the same degree as traditional immunosuppressants.”

To evaluate the risk for COVID-19 in patients with AD, researchers from the Center for Dermatology Research at the University of Manchester, United Kingdom, performed a cross-sectional study of 13,162 dermatology patients seen in the U.K. between June 2018 and Feb. 2021. Of the 13,162 patients, 624 (4.7%) had AD. They found that 4.8% of patients without a history of COVID-19 infection had AD, compared with 3.4% with a history of COVID-19. The risk for COVID-19 in patients with AD was similar to that of controls (adjusted odds ratio, 0.67).

Authors of a separate cross-sectional study published in May evaluated the health insurance medical records of 269,299 patients who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 across University of California Medical Centers. Of these, 3.6% had a positive test for SARS-CoV-2. Of 5,387 patients with AD, the infection rate was 2.9%, which was lower than in those without AD (3.7%; P = .0063). Hospitalization and mortality were not increased in patients with AD.

Another study, a case-control of more than 4.6 million HMO patients in Israel, found that the intake of systemic corticosteroids, older age, comorbid cardiovascular diseases, metabolic syndrome, and COPD were independent predictors of COVID-19–associated hospitalization. Mortality as a result of COVID-19 was independently predicted by metabolic syndrome and COPD but not by any AD-related variables.

“So, for our AD patients out there, there is no need to fear that they develop a COVID-19 infection or have a severe course, but we do have a few medications that would slightly increase the risk,” Dr. Thyssen said.

In another analysis, researchers evaluated Symphony Health–derived data from the COVID-19 Research Database to evaluate the risk for COVID-19 infection in adults with AD. The AD cohort included 39,417 patients, and the cohort without AD included 397,293 patients. Among AD patients, 8,180 were prescribed prednisone, 2,793 were prescribed dupilumab, 714 were prescribed methotrexate, and 512 were prescribed cyclosporine. The risk for COVID-19 was slightly increased in the AD cohort compared with the non-AD cohort (adjusted incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.18; P < .0001).

“There can be various explanations for this,” Dr. Thyssen said. “I still think we should maintain that AD itself is not a risk factor for COVID-19, but some of the medications may slightly increase the risk.”

In other findings, the investigators observed that treatment with dupilumab versus no systemic medication decreased the risk for COVID-19 by 34% (adjusted IRR, 0.66; P < .0001), as did methotrexate by 18% (adjusted IRR 0.82; P = .32). However, compared with no systemic medication, the use of prednisone slightly increased the risk of COVID-19 (adjusted IRR, 1.13; P = .03), as did the use of cyclosporine (adjusted IRR, 1.20; P = .32) and azathioprine (adjusted IRR, 1.61; P = .16).

More recently, researchers evaluated the records of 1,237 patients with moderate-to-severe AD (aged 9-95 years) to assess the self-reported severity of COVID-19 symptoms among those who received dupilumab versus other treatments.

Of the 1,237 patients with AD, 632 were on dupilumab, 107 were on other systemic treatments, and 498 were on limited or no treatment. Patients treated with dupilumab were less likely to report moderate-to-severe COVID-19 symptoms compared with patients who were on other systemic treatments, or limited/no treatments.
 

Vaccines and AD

Dr. Thyssen pointed out that the risk-benefit ratio of currently approved COVID-19 vaccines is better than the risk for an infection with SARS-CoV-2. “AD is not a contraindication to vaccination,” he said. “COVID-19 vaccine does not cause AD worsening since the vaccination response is mainly Th1 skewed.” He added that systemic immunosuppressants and JAK inhibitors used to treat AD may attenuate the vaccination response, but no attenuation is expected with dupilumab. “The half-life of JAK inhibitors is so short that vaccination followed by 1 week of pause treatment is a good strategy for patients.”

Dr. Thyssen disclosed that he is a speaker, advisory board member, and/or investigator for Asian, Arena, Almirall, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, LEO Pharma, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi-Genzyme.

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

Around the world, people with HIV show variations in COVID-19 vaccination rates similar to those seen in the general population, raising concerns because of their increased risk for morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 infection.

“To our knowledge, this analysis presents the first and largest investigation of vaccination rates among people with HIV,” reported the authors in research published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases.

The findings reflect data on nearly 7,000 people with HIV participating in the REPRIEVE clinical trial. As of July, COVID-19 vaccination rates ranged from a high of 71% in higher income regions to just 18% in sub-Saharan Africa and bottomed out at 0% in Haiti.

“This disparity in COVID-19 vaccination rates among people with HIV across income regions may increase morbidity from COVID-19 in the most vulnerable HIV populations,” the authors noted.

In general, people with HIV have been shown in recent research to have as much as 29% higher odds of morality from COVID-19 than the general population, and a 20% higher odds of hospitalization, hence their need for vaccination is especially pressing.

To understand the vaccination rates, the authors looked at data from the ongoing REPRIEVE trial, designed to investigate primary cardiovascular prevention worldwide among people with HIV. The trial includes data on COVID-19 vaccination status, providing a unique opportunity to capture those rates.

The study specifically included 6,952 people with HIV aged 40-75 years and on stable antiretroviral therapy (ART), without known cardiovascular disease, and a low to moderate atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk.

The diverse participants with HIV were from 12 countries, including 66% who were people of color, as well as 32% women. Countries represented include Brazil (n = 1,042), Botswana (n = 273), Canada (n = 123), Haiti (n = 136), India (n = 469), Peru (n = 142), South Africa (n = 527), Spain (n = 198), Thailand (n = 582), Uganda (n = 175), United States (n = 3,162), and Zimbabwe (n = 123).

With vaccination defined as having received at least one vaccine shot, the overall cumulative COVID-19 vaccination rate in the study was 55% through July 2021.

By region, the highest cumulative rates were in the high-income countries of the United States and Canada (71%), followed by Latin America and the Caribbean (59%) – all consistent with the general population in these areas

Lower cumulative vaccination rates were observed in South Asia (49%), Southeast/East Asia (41%), and sub-Saharan Africa (18%), also reflecting the regional vaccination rates.

The United States had the highest country-specific COVID-19 vaccination rate of 72%, followed by Peru (69%) and Brazil (63%). Countries with the lowest vaccination rates were South Africa (18%), Uganda (3%), and Haiti (0%).

Of note, South Africa and Botswana have the largest share of deaths from HIV/AIDS, and both had very low COVID-19 vaccination rates in general, compared with high-income countries.

Overall, factors linked to the likelihood of being vaccinated included residing in the high-income U.S./Canada Global Burden of Disease superregion, as well as being White, male, older, having a higher body mass index (BMI), a higher ASCVD risk score, and longer duration of ART.

Participants’ decisions regarding COVID-19 vaccination in the study were made individually and were not based on any study-related recommendations or requirements, the authors noted.

Vaccination rates were higher among men than women in most regions, with the exception of sub-Saharan Africa. Vaccination rates were higher among Whites than Blacks in the U.S./Canada high-income region, with a high proportion of participants from the United States.

“It was surprising to us – and unfortunate – that in the high-income superregion vaccination rates were higher among individuals who identified as White than those who identified as Black and among men,” senior author Steven K. Grinspoon, MD, said in an interview.

“Given data for higher morbidity from COVID-19 among people of color with HIV, this disparity is likely to have significant public health implications,” said Dr. Grinspoon, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and chief of the metabolism unit at Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston.

Newer data from the REPRIEVE study through October has shown continued steady increases in the cumulative vaccination rates in all regions, Dr. Grinspoon noted, with the largest increases in the Southeast/East Asia, South Asia, and sub-Saharan Africa, whereas a leveling off of rates was observed in the high-income regions.

Overall, “it is encouraging that rates among people with HIV are similar to and, in many regions, higher than the general population,” Dr. Grinspoon said.

However, with the data showing a higher risk for COVID-19 death in people with HIV, “it is critical that people with HIV, representing a vulnerable and immunocompromised population, be vaccinated for COVID-19,” Dr. Grinspoon said.

Commenting on the study, Monica Gandhi, MD, MPH, director of the Gladstone Center for AIDS Research at the University of California, San Francisco, agreed that “it is encouraging that these rates are as high as the general population, showing that there is not excess hesitancy among those living with HIV.”

Unlike other immunocompromised groups, people with HIV were not necessarily prioritized for vaccination, since antiretroviral therapy can reconstitute the immune system, “so I am not surprised the [vaccination] rates aren’t higher,” Dr. Gandhi, who was not involved with the study, said in an interview.

Nevertheless, “it is important that those with risk factors for more severe disease, such as higher BMI and higher cardiovascular disease, are prioritized for COVID-19 vaccination, [as] these are important groups in which to increase rates,” she said.

“The take-home message is that we have to increase our rates of vaccination in this critically important population,” Dr. Gandhi emphasized. “Global vaccine equity is paramount given that the burden of HIV infections remains in sub-Saharan Africa.”

The study received support from the National Institutes of Health and funding from Kowa Pharmaceuticals and Gilead Sciences. The authors and Dr. Gandhi disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Around the world, people with HIV show variations in COVID-19 vaccination rates similar to those seen in the general population, raising concerns because of their increased risk for morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 infection.

“To our knowledge, this analysis presents the first and largest investigation of vaccination rates among people with HIV,” reported the authors in research published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases.

The findings reflect data on nearly 7,000 people with HIV participating in the REPRIEVE clinical trial. As of July, COVID-19 vaccination rates ranged from a high of 71% in higher income regions to just 18% in sub-Saharan Africa and bottomed out at 0% in Haiti.

“This disparity in COVID-19 vaccination rates among people with HIV across income regions may increase morbidity from COVID-19 in the most vulnerable HIV populations,” the authors noted.

In general, people with HIV have been shown in recent research to have as much as 29% higher odds of morality from COVID-19 than the general population, and a 20% higher odds of hospitalization, hence their need for vaccination is especially pressing.

To understand the vaccination rates, the authors looked at data from the ongoing REPRIEVE trial, designed to investigate primary cardiovascular prevention worldwide among people with HIV. The trial includes data on COVID-19 vaccination status, providing a unique opportunity to capture those rates.

The study specifically included 6,952 people with HIV aged 40-75 years and on stable antiretroviral therapy (ART), without known cardiovascular disease, and a low to moderate atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk.

The diverse participants with HIV were from 12 countries, including 66% who were people of color, as well as 32% women. Countries represented include Brazil (n = 1,042), Botswana (n = 273), Canada (n = 123), Haiti (n = 136), India (n = 469), Peru (n = 142), South Africa (n = 527), Spain (n = 198), Thailand (n = 582), Uganda (n = 175), United States (n = 3,162), and Zimbabwe (n = 123).

With vaccination defined as having received at least one vaccine shot, the overall cumulative COVID-19 vaccination rate in the study was 55% through July 2021.

By region, the highest cumulative rates were in the high-income countries of the United States and Canada (71%), followed by Latin America and the Caribbean (59%) – all consistent with the general population in these areas

Lower cumulative vaccination rates were observed in South Asia (49%), Southeast/East Asia (41%), and sub-Saharan Africa (18%), also reflecting the regional vaccination rates.

The United States had the highest country-specific COVID-19 vaccination rate of 72%, followed by Peru (69%) and Brazil (63%). Countries with the lowest vaccination rates were South Africa (18%), Uganda (3%), and Haiti (0%).

Of note, South Africa and Botswana have the largest share of deaths from HIV/AIDS, and both had very low COVID-19 vaccination rates in general, compared with high-income countries.

Overall, factors linked to the likelihood of being vaccinated included residing in the high-income U.S./Canada Global Burden of Disease superregion, as well as being White, male, older, having a higher body mass index (BMI), a higher ASCVD risk score, and longer duration of ART.

Participants’ decisions regarding COVID-19 vaccination in the study were made individually and were not based on any study-related recommendations or requirements, the authors noted.

Vaccination rates were higher among men than women in most regions, with the exception of sub-Saharan Africa. Vaccination rates were higher among Whites than Blacks in the U.S./Canada high-income region, with a high proportion of participants from the United States.

“It was surprising to us – and unfortunate – that in the high-income superregion vaccination rates were higher among individuals who identified as White than those who identified as Black and among men,” senior author Steven K. Grinspoon, MD, said in an interview.

“Given data for higher morbidity from COVID-19 among people of color with HIV, this disparity is likely to have significant public health implications,” said Dr. Grinspoon, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and chief of the metabolism unit at Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston.

Newer data from the REPRIEVE study through October has shown continued steady increases in the cumulative vaccination rates in all regions, Dr. Grinspoon noted, with the largest increases in the Southeast/East Asia, South Asia, and sub-Saharan Africa, whereas a leveling off of rates was observed in the high-income regions.

Overall, “it is encouraging that rates among people with HIV are similar to and, in many regions, higher than the general population,” Dr. Grinspoon said.

However, with the data showing a higher risk for COVID-19 death in people with HIV, “it is critical that people with HIV, representing a vulnerable and immunocompromised population, be vaccinated for COVID-19,” Dr. Grinspoon said.

Commenting on the study, Monica Gandhi, MD, MPH, director of the Gladstone Center for AIDS Research at the University of California, San Francisco, agreed that “it is encouraging that these rates are as high as the general population, showing that there is not excess hesitancy among those living with HIV.”

Unlike other immunocompromised groups, people with HIV were not necessarily prioritized for vaccination, since antiretroviral therapy can reconstitute the immune system, “so I am not surprised the [vaccination] rates aren’t higher,” Dr. Gandhi, who was not involved with the study, said in an interview.

Nevertheless, “it is important that those with risk factors for more severe disease, such as higher BMI and higher cardiovascular disease, are prioritized for COVID-19 vaccination, [as] these are important groups in which to increase rates,” she said.

“The take-home message is that we have to increase our rates of vaccination in this critically important population,” Dr. Gandhi emphasized. “Global vaccine equity is paramount given that the burden of HIV infections remains in sub-Saharan Africa.”

The study received support from the National Institutes of Health and funding from Kowa Pharmaceuticals and Gilead Sciences. The authors and Dr. Gandhi disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Around the world, people with HIV show variations in COVID-19 vaccination rates similar to those seen in the general population, raising concerns because of their increased risk for morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 infection.

“To our knowledge, this analysis presents the first and largest investigation of vaccination rates among people with HIV,” reported the authors in research published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases.

The findings reflect data on nearly 7,000 people with HIV participating in the REPRIEVE clinical trial. As of July, COVID-19 vaccination rates ranged from a high of 71% in higher income regions to just 18% in sub-Saharan Africa and bottomed out at 0% in Haiti.

“This disparity in COVID-19 vaccination rates among people with HIV across income regions may increase morbidity from COVID-19 in the most vulnerable HIV populations,” the authors noted.

In general, people with HIV have been shown in recent research to have as much as 29% higher odds of morality from COVID-19 than the general population, and a 20% higher odds of hospitalization, hence their need for vaccination is especially pressing.

To understand the vaccination rates, the authors looked at data from the ongoing REPRIEVE trial, designed to investigate primary cardiovascular prevention worldwide among people with HIV. The trial includes data on COVID-19 vaccination status, providing a unique opportunity to capture those rates.

The study specifically included 6,952 people with HIV aged 40-75 years and on stable antiretroviral therapy (ART), without known cardiovascular disease, and a low to moderate atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk.

The diverse participants with HIV were from 12 countries, including 66% who were people of color, as well as 32% women. Countries represented include Brazil (n = 1,042), Botswana (n = 273), Canada (n = 123), Haiti (n = 136), India (n = 469), Peru (n = 142), South Africa (n = 527), Spain (n = 198), Thailand (n = 582), Uganda (n = 175), United States (n = 3,162), and Zimbabwe (n = 123).

With vaccination defined as having received at least one vaccine shot, the overall cumulative COVID-19 vaccination rate in the study was 55% through July 2021.

By region, the highest cumulative rates were in the high-income countries of the United States and Canada (71%), followed by Latin America and the Caribbean (59%) – all consistent with the general population in these areas

Lower cumulative vaccination rates were observed in South Asia (49%), Southeast/East Asia (41%), and sub-Saharan Africa (18%), also reflecting the regional vaccination rates.

The United States had the highest country-specific COVID-19 vaccination rate of 72%, followed by Peru (69%) and Brazil (63%). Countries with the lowest vaccination rates were South Africa (18%), Uganda (3%), and Haiti (0%).

Of note, South Africa and Botswana have the largest share of deaths from HIV/AIDS, and both had very low COVID-19 vaccination rates in general, compared with high-income countries.

Overall, factors linked to the likelihood of being vaccinated included residing in the high-income U.S./Canada Global Burden of Disease superregion, as well as being White, male, older, having a higher body mass index (BMI), a higher ASCVD risk score, and longer duration of ART.

Participants’ decisions regarding COVID-19 vaccination in the study were made individually and were not based on any study-related recommendations or requirements, the authors noted.

Vaccination rates were higher among men than women in most regions, with the exception of sub-Saharan Africa. Vaccination rates were higher among Whites than Blacks in the U.S./Canada high-income region, with a high proportion of participants from the United States.

“It was surprising to us – and unfortunate – that in the high-income superregion vaccination rates were higher among individuals who identified as White than those who identified as Black and among men,” senior author Steven K. Grinspoon, MD, said in an interview.

“Given data for higher morbidity from COVID-19 among people of color with HIV, this disparity is likely to have significant public health implications,” said Dr. Grinspoon, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and chief of the metabolism unit at Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston.

Newer data from the REPRIEVE study through October has shown continued steady increases in the cumulative vaccination rates in all regions, Dr. Grinspoon noted, with the largest increases in the Southeast/East Asia, South Asia, and sub-Saharan Africa, whereas a leveling off of rates was observed in the high-income regions.

Overall, “it is encouraging that rates among people with HIV are similar to and, in many regions, higher than the general population,” Dr. Grinspoon said.

However, with the data showing a higher risk for COVID-19 death in people with HIV, “it is critical that people with HIV, representing a vulnerable and immunocompromised population, be vaccinated for COVID-19,” Dr. Grinspoon said.

Commenting on the study, Monica Gandhi, MD, MPH, director of the Gladstone Center for AIDS Research at the University of California, San Francisco, agreed that “it is encouraging that these rates are as high as the general population, showing that there is not excess hesitancy among those living with HIV.”

Unlike other immunocompromised groups, people with HIV were not necessarily prioritized for vaccination, since antiretroviral therapy can reconstitute the immune system, “so I am not surprised the [vaccination] rates aren’t higher,” Dr. Gandhi, who was not involved with the study, said in an interview.

Nevertheless, “it is important that those with risk factors for more severe disease, such as higher BMI and higher cardiovascular disease, are prioritized for COVID-19 vaccination, [as] these are important groups in which to increase rates,” she said.

“The take-home message is that we have to increase our rates of vaccination in this critically important population,” Dr. Gandhi emphasized. “Global vaccine equity is paramount given that the burden of HIV infections remains in sub-Saharan Africa.”

The study received support from the National Institutes of Health and funding from Kowa Pharmaceuticals and Gilead Sciences. The authors and Dr. Gandhi disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oocyte and embryo cryopreservation are standard fertility preservation techniques, and gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) administration during chemotherapy is another strategy to preserve ovarian function. The phase 3 POEMS/S0230 study demonstrated higher pregnancy rates (5-year cumulative incidence 23.1% vs 12.2%, P = 0.03) among premenopausal patients with HR-negative early breast cancer who received GnRHa (goserelin) during chemotherapy vs chemotherapy alone. Furthermore, there was a trend towards improvement in survival outcomes with GnRHa + chemotherapy. Hypothetical concerns have existed regarding the safety of this approach, particularly in HR+ breast cancer. The PROMISE-GIM6 trial randomized 281 patients to receive chemotherapy alone or with GnRHa triptorelin (Lambertini et al) and found no difference in disease-free survival (DFS) or overall survival (OS) between GnRHa vs control groups (12-year DFS 65.7% vs 69.2%, HR 1.16; 12-year OS 81.2% vs 81.3%, HR 1.17). In patients with HR+ disease (80.4%), HR for DFS and OS was 1.02 and 1.12, respectively. The 12-year cumulative incidence of pregnancy was also higher in the GnRHa vs control group (6.5% vs 3.2%). These studies suggest no detrimental effect of GnRHa use during chemotherapy on long-term outcomes, including patients with HR+ disease, and support its role in ovarian protection.

COVID-19 has had various implications on breast cancer care, reflecting institutional policies, resources and patient preferences and potential concerns during the pandemic. A retrospective chart review of patients diagnosed at Mayo Clinic Rochester with a new breast cancer during vs pre-COVID-19, examined trends in diagnosis and treatment approaches during these times (Tonneson et al). Among 573 patients, there was no significant difference in clinical prognostic stage, although a slightly higher percentage of patients who presented with stage II-IV disease during COVID-19 vs pre-COVID-19 (29% vs 26%, P = 0.42). The use of neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (NET) significantly increased during COVID-19, and notably in patients with HR+/HER2- breast cancer (10% pre-COVID-19 vs 23% during COVID-19 (P = 0.001)) with a significant increase in stage I patients (7% vs 22%, P < 0.001). Various societies provided language to support neoadjuvant therapy as a bridge to surgical intervention during COVID-19 in the appropriate clinical scenarios. Extended follow-up of studies examining approaches utilized during the pandemic are desired to further define long-term impact on outcomes.

A pooled analysis of the PALOMA trials demonstrated progression-free survival benefit with palbociclib + endocrine therapy vs endocrine therapy alone in patients ≥65 years, and although myelosuppression was more common in patients ≥75 years, the combination remained well-tolerated. Ismail et al described real-world experience of palbociclib in older patients with advanced HR+ breast cancer. Among 598 patients, palbociclib dose reductions occurred in 33%, and those requiring a dose reduction were older vs those without dose reduction (median age 67 vs 63 years, P = 0.004). Despite higher frequency of dose reductions in older patients, this did not appear to compromise outcomes; time to next treatment was significantly longer (16.9 vs 11.6 months, P = 0.013) than younger patients but OS was similar (20.7 vs 26.7 months, P = 0.051). Although older patients may be at higher risk of toxicities due to co-morbidities or performance status limitations, palbociclib remains a valuable therapeutic option combined with endocrine therapy for advanced HR+/HER2- breast cancer.

References:

Francis PA, Pagani O, Fleming GF, et al; SOFT and TEXT Investigators and the International Breast Cancer Study Group. Tailoring adjuvant endocrine therapy for premenopausal breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(2):122-137.

Moore HCF, Unger JM, Phillips K-A, et al. Final analysis of the prevention of early menopause study (POEMS)/SWOG Intergroup S0230. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2019;111(2):210–213.

Dietz JR, Moran MS, Isakoff SJ, et al. Recommendations for prioritization, treatment, and triage of breast cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. The COVID-19 pandemic breast cancer consortium. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2020;181(3):487–97.

Rugo HS, Turner NC, Finn RS, et al. Palbociclib plus endocrine therapy in older women with HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer: a pooled analysis of randomised PALOMA clinical studies. Eur J Cancer. 2018;101:123e33.

Oocyte and embryo cryopreservation are standard fertility preservation techniques, and gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) administration during chemotherapy is another strategy to preserve ovarian function. The phase 3 POEMS/S0230 study demonstrated higher pregnancy rates (5-year cumulative incidence 23.1% vs 12.2%, P = 0.03) among premenopausal patients with HR-negative early breast cancer who received GnRHa (goserelin) during chemotherapy vs chemotherapy alone. Furthermore, there was a trend towards improvement in survival outcomes with GnRHa + chemotherapy. Hypothetical concerns have existed regarding the safety of this approach, particularly in HR+ breast cancer. The PROMISE-GIM6 trial randomized 281 patients to receive chemotherapy alone or with GnRHa triptorelin (Lambertini et al) and found no difference in disease-free survival (DFS) or overall survival (OS) between GnRHa vs control groups (12-year DFS 65.7% vs 69.2%, HR 1.16; 12-year OS 81.2% vs 81.3%, HR 1.17). In patients with HR+ disease (80.4%), HR for DFS and OS was 1.02 and 1.12, respectively. The 12-year cumulative incidence of pregnancy was also higher in the GnRHa vs control group (6.5% vs 3.2%). These studies suggest no detrimental effect of GnRHa use during chemotherapy on long-term outcomes, including patients with HR+ disease, and support its role in ovarian protection.

COVID-19 has had various implications on breast cancer care, reflecting institutional policies, resources and patient preferences and potential concerns during the pandemic. A retrospective chart review of patients diagnosed at Mayo Clinic Rochester with a new breast cancer during vs pre-COVID-19, examined trends in diagnosis and treatment approaches during these times (Tonneson et al). Among 573 patients, there was no significant difference in clinical prognostic stage, although a slightly higher percentage of patients who presented with stage II-IV disease during COVID-19 vs pre-COVID-19 (29% vs 26%, P = 0.42). The use of neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (NET) significantly increased during COVID-19, and notably in patients with HR+/HER2- breast cancer (10% pre-COVID-19 vs 23% during COVID-19 (P = 0.001)) with a significant increase in stage I patients (7% vs 22%, P < 0.001). Various societies provided language to support neoadjuvant therapy as a bridge to surgical intervention during COVID-19 in the appropriate clinical scenarios. Extended follow-up of studies examining approaches utilized during the pandemic are desired to further define long-term impact on outcomes.

A pooled analysis of the PALOMA trials demonstrated progression-free survival benefit with palbociclib + endocrine therapy vs endocrine therapy alone in patients ≥65 years, and although myelosuppression was more common in patients ≥75 years, the combination remained well-tolerated. Ismail et al described real-world experience of palbociclib in older patients with advanced HR+ breast cancer. Among 598 patients, palbociclib dose reductions occurred in 33%, and those requiring a dose reduction were older vs those without dose reduction (median age 67 vs 63 years, P = 0.004). Despite higher frequency of dose reductions in older patients, this did not appear to compromise outcomes; time to next treatment was significantly longer (16.9 vs 11.6 months, P = 0.013) than younger patients but OS was similar (20.7 vs 26.7 months, P = 0.051). Although older patients may be at higher risk of toxicities due to co-morbidities or performance status limitations, palbociclib remains a valuable therapeutic option combined with endocrine therapy for advanced HR+/HER2- breast cancer.

References:

Francis PA, Pagani O, Fleming GF, et al; SOFT and TEXT Investigators and the International Breast Cancer Study Group. Tailoring adjuvant endocrine therapy for premenopausal breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(2):122-137.

Moore HCF, Unger JM, Phillips K-A, et al. Final analysis of the prevention of early menopause study (POEMS)/SWOG Intergroup S0230. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2019;111(2):210–213.

Dietz JR, Moran MS, Isakoff SJ, et al. Recommendations for prioritization, treatment, and triage of breast cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. The COVID-19 pandemic breast cancer consortium. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2020;181(3):487–97.

Rugo HS, Turner NC, Finn RS, et al. Palbociclib plus endocrine therapy in older women with HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer: a pooled analysis of randomised PALOMA clinical studies. Eur J Cancer. 2018;101:123e33.

Oocyte and embryo cryopreservation are standard fertility preservation techniques, and gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) administration during chemotherapy is another strategy to preserve ovarian function. The phase 3 POEMS/S0230 study demonstrated higher pregnancy rates (5-year cumulative incidence 23.1% vs 12.2%, P = 0.03) among premenopausal patients with HR-negative early breast cancer who received GnRHa (goserelin) during chemotherapy vs chemotherapy alone. Furthermore, there was a trend towards improvement in survival outcomes with GnRHa + chemotherapy. Hypothetical concerns have existed regarding the safety of this approach, particularly in HR+ breast cancer. The PROMISE-GIM6 trial randomized 281 patients to receive chemotherapy alone or with GnRHa triptorelin (Lambertini et al) and found no difference in disease-free survival (DFS) or overall survival (OS) between GnRHa vs control groups (12-year DFS 65.7% vs 69.2%, HR 1.16; 12-year OS 81.2% vs 81.3%, HR 1.17). In patients with HR+ disease (80.4%), HR for DFS and OS was 1.02 and 1.12, respectively. The 12-year cumulative incidence of pregnancy was also higher in the GnRHa vs control group (6.5% vs 3.2%). These studies suggest no detrimental effect of GnRHa use during chemotherapy on long-term outcomes, including patients with HR+ disease, and support its role in ovarian protection.

COVID-19 has had various implications on breast cancer care, reflecting institutional policies, resources and patient preferences and potential concerns during the pandemic. A retrospective chart review of patients diagnosed at Mayo Clinic Rochester with a new breast cancer during vs pre-COVID-19, examined trends in diagnosis and treatment approaches during these times (Tonneson et al). Among 573 patients, there was no significant difference in clinical prognostic stage, although a slightly higher percentage of patients who presented with stage II-IV disease during COVID-19 vs pre-COVID-19 (29% vs 26%, P = 0.42). The use of neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (NET) significantly increased during COVID-19, and notably in patients with HR+/HER2- breast cancer (10% pre-COVID-19 vs 23% during COVID-19 (P = 0.001)) with a significant increase in stage I patients (7% vs 22%, P < 0.001). Various societies provided language to support neoadjuvant therapy as a bridge to surgical intervention during COVID-19 in the appropriate clinical scenarios. Extended follow-up of studies examining approaches utilized during the pandemic are desired to further define long-term impact on outcomes.

A pooled analysis of the PALOMA trials demonstrated progression-free survival benefit with palbociclib + endocrine therapy vs endocrine therapy alone in patients ≥65 years, and although myelosuppression was more common in patients ≥75 years, the combination remained well-tolerated. Ismail et al described real-world experience of palbociclib in older patients with advanced HR+ breast cancer. Among 598 patients, palbociclib dose reductions occurred in 33%, and those requiring a dose reduction were older vs those without dose reduction (median age 67 vs 63 years, P = 0.004). Despite higher frequency of dose reductions in older patients, this did not appear to compromise outcomes; time to next treatment was significantly longer (16.9 vs 11.6 months, P = 0.013) than younger patients but OS was similar (20.7 vs 26.7 months, P = 0.051). Although older patients may be at higher risk of toxicities due to co-morbidities or performance status limitations, palbociclib remains a valuable therapeutic option combined with endocrine therapy for advanced HR+/HER2- breast cancer.

References:

Francis PA, Pagani O, Fleming GF, et al; SOFT and TEXT Investigators and the International Breast Cancer Study Group. Tailoring adjuvant endocrine therapy for premenopausal breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(2):122-137.

Moore HCF, Unger JM, Phillips K-A, et al. Final analysis of the prevention of early menopause study (POEMS)/SWOG Intergroup S0230. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2019;111(2):210–213.

Dietz JR, Moran MS, Isakoff SJ, et al. Recommendations for prioritization, treatment, and triage of breast cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. The COVID-19 pandemic breast cancer consortium. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2020;181(3):487–97.

Rugo HS, Turner NC, Finn RS, et al. Palbociclib plus endocrine therapy in older women with HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer: a pooled analysis of randomised PALOMA clinical studies. Eur J Cancer. 2018;101:123e33.

As a psychiatrist dedicated to working with people who are experiencing homelessness, I was very impressed with the new book edited by Col. (Ret.) Elspeth Cameron Ritchie, MD, MPH, and Maria D. Llorente, MD, about treating and providing services to this vulnerable population.

Courtesy Springer Publishing

The book, “Clinical Management of the Homeless Patient: Social, Psychiatric, and Medical Issues” (Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2021), offers an in-depth review and analysis of the biopsychosocial complexities that affect how medical and behavioral health conditions present in those who are unhoused. Notably, the book recommends with great sensitivity best practices to address these conditions with care, understanding, and love.

This text, invaluable in particular for those of us clinicians who work with people experiencing homelessness (PEH), provides a historical context of homelessness in the United States, an evaluation of the current state, and indispensable guidance for medical and behavioral health practitioners, case managers, housing navigators, and policy makers alike. It also serves as an inspiring source for those who are considering work in the public sector while reminding those of us in the field why we continue to do this challenging and rewarding work.

Tips can provide hope to clinicians

The volume is divided into four clear sections that are easy to navigate depending on your area of expertise and interest. Each chapter consolidates an extensive literature review into an intriguing and thought-provoking analysis. Part I, “The Big Picture – Social and Medical Issues,” focuses on conditions that disproportionately affect those who are unhoused. The authors offer a glimpse into the unique challenges of managing routine health conditions. They also detail the practical knowledge that’s needed to best care for our most vulnerable neighbors; for example, promoting a shared decision-making model; simplifying treatment plans; prescribing, when possible, medications that are dosed daily – instead of multiple times per day; allowing for walk-in appointments; and addressing cultural, linguistic, and educational barriers.

Most chapters highlight informative case examples that bring the text to life. It can be heartbreaking to recognize and witness the inhumane conditions in which PEH live, and these practical tips and suggestions for future policies based on best practices can help prevent burnout and provide hope for those who care for this community.

Part II, “Psychiatric Issues and Treatments,” presents a brief yet comprehensive history on homelessness, beginning with the deep shame that PEH experienced in Colonial times as the result of cultural and religious influences. Sadly, that negative judgment continues to this day.

The authors also explain how deinstitutionalization and transinstitutionalization have shaped the current state of homelessness, including why many PEH receive their care in emergency departments while incarcerated. This section highlights the barriers of care that are created not just by the patient, but also by the clinicians and systems of care – and what’s needed practically to overcome those challenges.

I appreciate the chapter on substance use disorders. It reminds us that the most commonly used substance among PEH is tobacco, which has serious health effects and for which we have treatment; nevertheless, tobacco use is often overlooked because of the intense focus on opioid use disorder. This section also provides examples of the trauma-informed language to use when addressing difficult and sometimes stigmatizing topics, such as survival sex and trauma history.

The evidence-based discussion continues in Part III with a focus on topics that everyone working with PEH should understand, including food insecurity, the criminal justice system, and sex trafficking. Part IV highlights best practices that should be replicated in every community, including Housing First approaches, medical respite care, and multiple Veterans Administration programs.

Throughout the text, major themes reverberate across the chapters, beginning with empathy. All who work with PEH must understand the conditions and challenges PEH face every day that affect their physical and mental health. The authors offer a stark and pointed reminder that being unhoused amounts to a full-time job just to meet basic needs. In addition, the devastating role of trauma and structural racism in creating and promoting the conditions that lead someone to be unhoused cannot be underestimated.

Fortunately, the primary aim of the book is to highlight solutions, and it’s here that the book shines. While some interventions are well-known, such as the importance of working in multidisciplinary teams, building trust and rapport with our patients, and urging clinicians and institutions to examine their own judgments and biases that might interfere with humane treatment, other suggestions will lead some readers into new territory. The authors, for example, maintain that we need more data and evidence-based research that include PEH. They also make a case for more preventive care and enhanced professional education for all health care workers that centers on trauma-informed care, social determinants of health, and the unique needs of especially vulnerable communities, such as the unhoused LBGTQ+ community and policies that promote best practices, such as Housing First. The book is a stirring read. It offers both inspiration and practical guidance for all who are currently working with or interested in caring for people experiencing homelessness.

Dr. Bird is a psychiatrist with Alameda County Health Care for the Homeless and the TRUST Clinic in Oakland, Calif. She also is a cofounder of StreetHealth, a backpack street medicine team that provides psychiatric and substance use disorder treatment to people experiencing homelessness in downtown Oakland.

Dr. Bird has no disclosures.

As a psychiatrist dedicated to working with people who are experiencing homelessness, I was very impressed with the new book edited by Col. (Ret.) Elspeth Cameron Ritchie, MD, MPH, and Maria D. Llorente, MD, about treating and providing services to this vulnerable population.

Courtesy Springer Publishing

The book, “Clinical Management of the Homeless Patient: Social, Psychiatric, and Medical Issues” (Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2021), offers an in-depth review and analysis of the biopsychosocial complexities that affect how medical and behavioral health conditions present in those who are unhoused. Notably, the book recommends with great sensitivity best practices to address these conditions with care, understanding, and love.

This text, invaluable in particular for those of us clinicians who work with people experiencing homelessness (PEH), provides a historical context of homelessness in the United States, an evaluation of the current state, and indispensable guidance for medical and behavioral health practitioners, case managers, housing navigators, and policy makers alike. It also serves as an inspiring source for those who are considering work in the public sector while reminding those of us in the field why we continue to do this challenging and rewarding work.

Tips can provide hope to clinicians

The volume is divided into four clear sections that are easy to navigate depending on your area of expertise and interest. Each chapter consolidates an extensive literature review into an intriguing and thought-provoking analysis. Part I, “The Big Picture – Social and Medical Issues,” focuses on conditions that disproportionately affect those who are unhoused. The authors offer a glimpse into the unique challenges of managing routine health conditions. They also detail the practical knowledge that’s needed to best care for our most vulnerable neighbors; for example, promoting a shared decision-making model; simplifying treatment plans; prescribing, when possible, medications that are dosed daily – instead of multiple times per day; allowing for walk-in appointments; and addressing cultural, linguistic, and educational barriers.

Most chapters highlight informative case examples that bring the text to life. It can be heartbreaking to recognize and witness the inhumane conditions in which PEH live, and these practical tips and suggestions for future policies based on best practices can help prevent burnout and provide hope for those who care for this community.

Part II, “Psychiatric Issues and Treatments,” presents a brief yet comprehensive history on homelessness, beginning with the deep shame that PEH experienced in Colonial times as the result of cultural and religious influences. Sadly, that negative judgment continues to this day.

The authors also explain how deinstitutionalization and transinstitutionalization have shaped the current state of homelessness, including why many PEH receive their care in emergency departments while incarcerated. This section highlights the barriers of care that are created not just by the patient, but also by the clinicians and systems of care – and what’s needed practically to overcome those challenges.

I appreciate the chapter on substance use disorders. It reminds us that the most commonly used substance among PEH is tobacco, which has serious health effects and for which we have treatment; nevertheless, tobacco use is often overlooked because of the intense focus on opioid use disorder. This section also provides examples of the trauma-informed language to use when addressing difficult and sometimes stigmatizing topics, such as survival sex and trauma history.

The evidence-based discussion continues in Part III with a focus on topics that everyone working with PEH should understand, including food insecurity, the criminal justice system, and sex trafficking. Part IV highlights best practices that should be replicated in every community, including Housing First approaches, medical respite care, and multiple Veterans Administration programs.

Throughout the text, major themes reverberate across the chapters, beginning with empathy. All who work with PEH must understand the conditions and challenges PEH face every day that affect their physical and mental health. The authors offer a stark and pointed reminder that being unhoused amounts to a full-time job just to meet basic needs. In addition, the devastating role of trauma and structural racism in creating and promoting the conditions that lead someone to be unhoused cannot be underestimated.

Fortunately, the primary aim of the book is to highlight solutions, and it’s here that the book shines. While some interventions are well-known, such as the importance of working in multidisciplinary teams, building trust and rapport with our patients, and urging clinicians and institutions to examine their own judgments and biases that might interfere with humane treatment, other suggestions will lead some readers into new territory. The authors, for example, maintain that we need more data and evidence-based research that include PEH. They also make a case for more preventive care and enhanced professional education for all health care workers that centers on trauma-informed care, social determinants of health, and the unique needs of especially vulnerable communities, such as the unhoused LBGTQ+ community and policies that promote best practices, such as Housing First. The book is a stirring read. It offers both inspiration and practical guidance for all who are currently working with or interested in caring for people experiencing homelessness.

Dr. Bird is a psychiatrist with Alameda County Health Care for the Homeless and the TRUST Clinic in Oakland, Calif. She also is a cofounder of StreetHealth, a backpack street medicine team that provides psychiatric and substance use disorder treatment to people experiencing homelessness in downtown Oakland.

Dr. Bird has no disclosures.

As a psychiatrist dedicated to working with people who are experiencing homelessness, I was very impressed with the new book edited by Col. (Ret.) Elspeth Cameron Ritchie, MD, MPH, and Maria D. Llorente, MD, about treating and providing services to this vulnerable population.

Courtesy Springer Publishing

The book, “Clinical Management of the Homeless Patient: Social, Psychiatric, and Medical Issues” (Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2021), offers an in-depth review and analysis of the biopsychosocial complexities that affect how medical and behavioral health conditions present in those who are unhoused. Notably, the book recommends with great sensitivity best practices to address these conditions with care, understanding, and love.

This text, invaluable in particular for those of us clinicians who work with people experiencing homelessness (PEH), provides a historical context of homelessness in the United States, an evaluation of the current state, and indispensable guidance for medical and behavioral health practitioners, case managers, housing navigators, and policy makers alike. It also serves as an inspiring source for those who are considering work in the public sector while reminding those of us in the field why we continue to do this challenging and rewarding work.

Tips can provide hope to clinicians

The volume is divided into four clear sections that are easy to navigate depending on your area of expertise and interest. Each chapter consolidates an extensive literature review into an intriguing and thought-provoking analysis. Part I, “The Big Picture – Social and Medical Issues,” focuses on conditions that disproportionately affect those who are unhoused. The authors offer a glimpse into the unique challenges of managing routine health conditions. They also detail the practical knowledge that’s needed to best care for our most vulnerable neighbors; for example, promoting a shared decision-making model; simplifying treatment plans; prescribing, when possible, medications that are dosed daily – instead of multiple times per day; allowing for walk-in appointments; and addressing cultural, linguistic, and educational barriers.

Most chapters highlight informative case examples that bring the text to life. It can be heartbreaking to recognize and witness the inhumane conditions in which PEH live, and these practical tips and suggestions for future policies based on best practices can help prevent burnout and provide hope for those who care for this community.

Part II, “Psychiatric Issues and Treatments,” presents a brief yet comprehensive history on homelessness, beginning with the deep shame that PEH experienced in Colonial times as the result of cultural and religious influences. Sadly, that negative judgment continues to this day.

The authors also explain how deinstitutionalization and transinstitutionalization have shaped the current state of homelessness, including why many PEH receive their care in emergency departments while incarcerated. This section highlights the barriers of care that are created not just by the patient, but also by the clinicians and systems of care – and what’s needed practically to overcome those challenges.

I appreciate the chapter on substance use disorders. It reminds us that the most commonly used substance among PEH is tobacco, which has serious health effects and for which we have treatment; nevertheless, tobacco use is often overlooked because of the intense focus on opioid use disorder. This section also provides examples of the trauma-informed language to use when addressing difficult and sometimes stigmatizing topics, such as survival sex and trauma history.

The evidence-based discussion continues in Part III with a focus on topics that everyone working with PEH should understand, including food insecurity, the criminal justice system, and sex trafficking. Part IV highlights best practices that should be replicated in every community, including Housing First approaches, medical respite care, and multiple Veterans Administration programs.

Throughout the text, major themes reverberate across the chapters, beginning with empathy. All who work with PEH must understand the conditions and challenges PEH face every day that affect their physical and mental health. The authors offer a stark and pointed reminder that being unhoused amounts to a full-time job just to meet basic needs. In addition, the devastating role of trauma and structural racism in creating and promoting the conditions that lead someone to be unhoused cannot be underestimated.

Fortunately, the primary aim of the book is to highlight solutions, and it’s here that the book shines. While some interventions are well-known, such as the importance of working in multidisciplinary teams, building trust and rapport with our patients, and urging clinicians and institutions to examine their own judgments and biases that might interfere with humane treatment, other suggestions will lead some readers into new territory. The authors, for example, maintain that we need more data and evidence-based research that include PEH. They also make a case for more preventive care and enhanced professional education for all health care workers that centers on trauma-informed care, social determinants of health, and the unique needs of especially vulnerable communities, such as the unhoused LBGTQ+ community and policies that promote best practices, such as Housing First. The book is a stirring read. It offers both inspiration and practical guidance for all who are currently working with or interested in caring for people experiencing homelessness.

Dr. Bird is a psychiatrist with Alameda County Health Care for the Homeless and the TRUST Clinic in Oakland, Calif. She also is a cofounder of StreetHealth, a backpack street medicine team that provides psychiatric and substance use disorder treatment to people experiencing homelessness in downtown Oakland.

Dr. Bird has no disclosures.

People with cancer are often desperate to know what caused their disease. Was it something they did? Something they could have prevented?

vitanovski/Thinkstock.com

In a recent analysis, experts estimated that about 40% of cancers can be explained by known, often modifiable risk factors. Smoking and obesity represent the primary drivers, though a host of other factors – germline mutations, alcohol, infections, or environmental pollutants like asbestos – contribute to cancer risk as well.

But what about the remaining 60% of cancers?

The study suggests that, although many of these cases likely have an underlying lifestyle or environmental component, experts still do not fully understand their origin story. And a small but significant number may simply be caused by chance.

Here’s what experts suspect those missing causes might be, and why they can be so difficult to confirm.
 

Possibility 1: Known risk factors contribute more than we realize

For certain factors, a straight line can be drawn to cancer.

Take smoking, for instance. Decades of research have helped scientists clearly delineate tobacco’s carcinogenic effects. Researchers have pinpointed a unique set of mutations in the tumors of smokers that can be seen when cells grown in a dish are exposed to the carcinogens present in tobacco.

In addition, experts have been able to collect robust data from epidemiologic studies on smoking prevalence as well as associated cancer risks and deaths, in large part because an individual’s lifetime tobacco exposure is fairly easy to measure.

“The evidence for smoking is incredibly consistent,” Paul Brennan, PhD, a cancer epidemiologist at the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer, said in an interview.

For other known risk factors, such as obesity and air pollution, many more questions than answers remain.

Because of the limitations in how such factors are measured, we are likely downplaying their effects, said Richard Martin, PhD, a professor of clinical epidemiology at the University of Bristol (England).

Take obesity. Excess body weight is associated with an increased risk of at least 13 cancers. Although risk estimates vary by study and cancer type, according to a global snapshot from 2012, being overweight or obese accounted for about 4% of all cancers worldwide – 1% in low-income countries and as high as 8% in high-income countries.

However, Dr. Brennan believes “we have underestimated the effect of obesity [on cancer].”

A key reason, he said, is most studies use body mass index to determine whether someone is overweight or obese, but BMI is a poor measure of body fat. BMI does not differentiate between fat and muscle, which means two people with the same height and weight can have the same BMI, even if one is an athlete who eats lean meats and vegetables while the other lives a sedentary life and consumes large quantities of processed foods and alcohol.

On top of that, studies often only calculate a person’s BMI once, and a single measurement can’t tell you how a person’s weight has fluctuated in recent years or across different stages of their life. However, recent analyses suggest that obesity status over time may be more relevant to cancer risk than one-off measures.

In addition, many studies now suggest that alterations to our gut microbes and high blood insulin level – often seen in people who are overweight or obese – may increase the risk of cancer and speed the growth of tumors.

When these additional factors are considered, the impact of excess body fat may ultimately play a much more significant role in cancer risk. In fact, according to Dr. Brennan, “if we estimate [the effects of obesity] properly, it might at some point become the main cause of cancer.”
 

Possibility 2: Environmental or lifestyle factors remain under the radar

Researchers have linked many substances we consume or are exposed to in our daily lives – air pollution, toxins from industrial waste, and highly processed foods – to cancer. But the extent or contribution of potential carcinogens in our surroundings, particularly those found almost everywhere at low levels, is still largely unknown.

One simple reason is the effects of many of these substances remain difficult to assess. For instance, it is much harder to study the impact of pollutants found in food or water, in which a given population will share similar exposure levels versus tobacco, where it is possible to compare a person who smokes a pack of cigarettes a day with a person who does not smoke.

“If you’ve got exposures that are ubiquitous, it can be difficult to discern their [individual] roles,” Dr. Martin said. “There are many causes that we [likely] don’t really know because everyone has been exposed.”

On the flip side, some carcinogenic substances that people encounter for limited periods might be missed if studies are not performed at the time of exposure.

“What’s in the body at age 40 may not reflect what you were exposed at age 5-10 on the playground or soccer field,” said Graham Colditz, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist and public health expert at Washington University, St. Louis. “The technology keeps changing so we can get better measures of what you’ve got exposure to today, but how that relates to 5, 10, 15 years ago is probably very variable.”

In addition, researchers have found that many carcinogens do not cause specific mutations in a cell’s DNA; rather, studies suggest that most carcinogens lead to cancer-promoting changes in cells, such as inflammation.

“We need to think of how potential carcinogens are causing cancer,” Dr. Brennan said. Instead of provoking mutations, potential carcinogens may use a “whole other kind of pathway.” When, for instance, inflammation becomes chronic, it may spur a cascade of events that ultimately leads to cancer.

Finally, not much is known about what causes cancers in low- and middle-income countries. Most of the research to date has been in high-income countries, such the United States, Australia, and parts of Europe.

“There’s a real lack of robust epidemiological studies in other parts of the world, Latin America, Africa, parts of Asia,” Marc Gunter, PhD, a molecular epidemiologist at the IARC, told this news organization.
 

Possibility 3: Some cancers occur by chance

When it comes to cancer risk, an element of chance may be at play. Cancer can occur in individuals who have very little exposure to known carcinogens or have no family history of cancer.

“We all know there are people who get cancer who eat very healthy diets, are never overweight, and never smoke,” Dr. Gunter said. “Then there are people on the other end of the extreme who don’t get cancer.”

But what fraction of cancers are attributable to chance?

A controversial 2017 study published in Science suggested that, based on the rate of cell turnover in healthy tissues in the lung, pancreas, and other parts of the body, only about one-third of cancers could be linked to environmental or genetic factors. The rest, the authors claimed, occurred because of random mutations that accumulated in a person’s DNA – in other words, bad luck.

That study brought on a flood of criticism from scientists who pointed to serious flaws in the work that led the researchers to significantly overestimate the share of chance-related cancers.

The actual proportion of cancers that occur by chance is much lower, according to Dr. Brennan. “If you look at international comparisons [of cancer rates] and take a conservative estimate, you see that maybe 10% or 15% of cancers are really chance.”

Whether some cancers are caused by bad luck or undiscovered risk factors remains an open question.

But the bottom line is many unknown causes of cancer are likely environmental or lifestyle related, which means that, in theory, they can be altered, even prevented.

“There is always going to be some element of chance, but you can modify your chance, depending on your lifestyle and maybe other factors, which we don’t fully understand yet,” Dr. Gunter said.

The good news is that, when it comes to prevention, there are many ways to modify our behaviors – such as consuming fewer processed meats, going for a daily walk, or getting vaccinated against cancer-causing viruses – to improve our chances of living cancer free. And as scientists better understand more about what causes cancer, possibilities for prevention will only grow.

“There is a constant, slow growth [in knowledge] that is lowering the overall risk of cancer,” Dr. Brennan said. “We’re never going to eliminate cancer, but we will be able to control it as a disease.”

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

People with cancer are often desperate to know what caused their disease. Was it something they did? Something they could have prevented?

vitanovski/Thinkstock.com

In a recent analysis, experts estimated that about 40% of cancers can be explained by known, often modifiable risk factors. Smoking and obesity represent the primary drivers, though a host of other factors – germline mutations, alcohol, infections, or environmental pollutants like asbestos – contribute to cancer risk as well.

But what about the remaining 60% of cancers?

The study suggests that, although many of these cases likely have an underlying lifestyle or environmental component, experts still do not fully understand their origin story. And a small but significant number may simply be caused by chance.

Here’s what experts suspect those missing causes might be, and why they can be so difficult to confirm.
 

Possibility 1: Known risk factors contribute more than we realize

For certain factors, a straight line can be drawn to cancer.

Take smoking, for instance. Decades of research have helped scientists clearly delineate tobacco’s carcinogenic effects. Researchers have pinpointed a unique set of mutations in the tumors of smokers that can be seen when cells grown in a dish are exposed to the carcinogens present in tobacco.

In addition, experts have been able to collect robust data from epidemiologic studies on smoking prevalence as well as associated cancer risks and deaths, in large part because an individual’s lifetime tobacco exposure is fairly easy to measure.

“The evidence for smoking is incredibly consistent,” Paul Brennan, PhD, a cancer epidemiologist at the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer, said in an interview.

For other known risk factors, such as obesity and air pollution, many more questions than answers remain.

Because of the limitations in how such factors are measured, we are likely downplaying their effects, said Richard Martin, PhD, a professor of clinical epidemiology at the University of Bristol (England).

Take obesity. Excess body weight is associated with an increased risk of at least 13 cancers. Although risk estimates vary by study and cancer type, according to a global snapshot from 2012, being overweight or obese accounted for about 4% of all cancers worldwide – 1% in low-income countries and as high as 8% in high-income countries.

However, Dr. Brennan believes “we have underestimated the effect of obesity [on cancer].”

A key reason, he said, is most studies use body mass index to determine whether someone is overweight or obese, but BMI is a poor measure of body fat. BMI does not differentiate between fat and muscle, which means two people with the same height and weight can have the same BMI, even if one is an athlete who eats lean meats and vegetables while the other lives a sedentary life and consumes large quantities of processed foods and alcohol.

On top of that, studies often only calculate a person’s BMI once, and a single measurement can’t tell you how a person’s weight has fluctuated in recent years or across different stages of their life. However, recent analyses suggest that obesity status over time may be more relevant to cancer risk than one-off measures.

In addition, many studies now suggest that alterations to our gut microbes and high blood insulin level – often seen in people who are overweight or obese – may increase the risk of cancer and speed the growth of tumors.

When these additional factors are considered, the impact of excess body fat may ultimately play a much more significant role in cancer risk. In fact, according to Dr. Brennan, “if we estimate [the effects of obesity] properly, it might at some point become the main cause of cancer.”
 

Possibility 2: Environmental or lifestyle factors remain under the radar

Researchers have linked many substances we consume or are exposed to in our daily lives – air pollution, toxins from industrial waste, and highly processed foods – to cancer. But the extent or contribution of potential carcinogens in our surroundings, particularly those found almost everywhere at low levels, is still largely unknown.

One simple reason is the effects of many of these substances remain difficult to assess. For instance, it is much harder to study the impact of pollutants found in food or water, in which a given population will share similar exposure levels versus tobacco, where it is possible to compare a person who smokes a pack of cigarettes a day with a person who does not smoke.

“If you’ve got exposures that are ubiquitous, it can be difficult to discern their [individual] roles,” Dr. Martin said. “There are many causes that we [likely] don’t really know because everyone has been exposed.”

On the flip side, some carcinogenic substances that people encounter for limited periods might be missed if studies are not performed at the time of exposure.

“What’s in the body at age 40 may not reflect what you were exposed at age 5-10 on the playground or soccer field,” said Graham Colditz, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist and public health expert at Washington University, St. Louis. “The technology keeps changing so we can get better measures of what you’ve got exposure to today, but how that relates to 5, 10, 15 years ago is probably very variable.”

In addition, researchers have found that many carcinogens do not cause specific mutations in a cell’s DNA; rather, studies suggest that most carcinogens lead to cancer-promoting changes in cells, such as inflammation.

“We need to think of how potential carcinogens are causing cancer,” Dr. Brennan said. Instead of provoking mutations, potential carcinogens may use a “whole other kind of pathway.” When, for instance, inflammation becomes chronic, it may spur a cascade of events that ultimately leads to cancer.

Finally, not much is known about what causes cancers in low- and middle-income countries. Most of the research to date has been in high-income countries, such the United States, Australia, and parts of Europe.

“There’s a real lack of robust epidemiological studies in other parts of the world, Latin America, Africa, parts of Asia,” Marc Gunter, PhD, a molecular epidemiologist at the IARC, told this news organization.
 

Possibility 3: Some cancers occur by chance

When it comes to cancer risk, an element of chance may be at play. Cancer can occur in individuals who have very little exposure to known carcinogens or have no family history of cancer.

“We all know there are people who get cancer who eat very healthy diets, are never overweight, and never smoke,” Dr. Gunter said. “Then there are people on the other end of the extreme who don’t get cancer.”

But what fraction of cancers are attributable to chance?

A controversial 2017 study published in Science suggested that, based on the rate of cell turnover in healthy tissues in the lung, pancreas, and other parts of the body, only about one-third of cancers could be linked to environmental or genetic factors. The rest, the authors claimed, occurred because of random mutations that accumulated in a person’s DNA – in other words, bad luck.

That study brought on a flood of criticism from scientists who pointed to serious flaws in the work that led the researchers to significantly overestimate the share of chance-related cancers.

The actual proportion of cancers that occur by chance is much lower, according to Dr. Brennan. “If you look at international comparisons [of cancer rates] and take a conservative estimate, you see that maybe 10% or 15% of cancers are really chance.”

Whether some cancers are caused by bad luck or undiscovered risk factors remains an open question.

But the bottom line is many unknown causes of cancer are likely environmental or lifestyle related, which means that, in theory, they can be altered, even prevented.

“There is always going to be some element of chance, but you can modify your chance, depending on your lifestyle and maybe other factors, which we don’t fully understand yet,” Dr. Gunter said.

The good news is that, when it comes to prevention, there are many ways to modify our behaviors – such as consuming fewer processed meats, going for a daily walk, or getting vaccinated against cancer-causing viruses – to improve our chances of living cancer free. And as scientists better understand more about what causes cancer, possibilities for prevention will only grow.

“There is a constant, slow growth [in knowledge] that is lowering the overall risk of cancer,” Dr. Brennan said. “We’re never going to eliminate cancer, but we will be able to control it as a disease.”

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

People with cancer are often desperate to know what caused their disease. Was it something they did? Something they could have prevented?

vitanovski/Thinkstock.com

In a recent analysis, experts estimated that about 40% of cancers can be explained by known, often modifiable risk factors. Smoking and obesity represent the primary drivers, though a host of other factors – germline mutations, alcohol, infections, or environmental pollutants like asbestos – contribute to cancer risk as well.

But what about the remaining 60% of cancers?

The study suggests that, although many of these cases likely have an underlying lifestyle or environmental component, experts still do not fully understand their origin story. And a small but significant number may simply be caused by chance.

Here’s what experts suspect those missing causes might be, and why they can be so difficult to confirm.
 

Possibility 1: Known risk factors contribute more than we realize

For certain factors, a straight line can be drawn to cancer.

Take smoking, for instance. Decades of research have helped scientists clearly delineate tobacco’s carcinogenic effects. Researchers have pinpointed a unique set of mutations in the tumors of smokers that can be seen when cells grown in a dish are exposed to the carcinogens present in tobacco.

In addition, experts have been able to collect robust data from epidemiologic studies on smoking prevalence as well as associated cancer risks and deaths, in large part because an individual’s lifetime tobacco exposure is fairly easy to measure.

“The evidence for smoking is incredibly consistent,” Paul Brennan, PhD, a cancer epidemiologist at the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer, said in an interview.

For other known risk factors, such as obesity and air pollution, many more questions than answers remain.

Because of the limitations in how such factors are measured, we are likely downplaying their effects, said Richard Martin, PhD, a professor of clinical epidemiology at the University of Bristol (England).

Take obesity. Excess body weight is associated with an increased risk of at least 13 cancers. Although risk estimates vary by study and cancer type, according to a global snapshot from 2012, being overweight or obese accounted for about 4% of all cancers worldwide – 1% in low-income countries and as high as 8% in high-income countries.

However, Dr. Brennan believes “we have underestimated the effect of obesity [on cancer].”

A key reason, he said, is most studies use body mass index to determine whether someone is overweight or obese, but BMI is a poor measure of body fat. BMI does not differentiate between fat and muscle, which means two people with the same height and weight can have the same BMI, even if one is an athlete who eats lean meats and vegetables while the other lives a sedentary life and consumes large quantities of processed foods and alcohol.

On top of that, studies often only calculate a person’s BMI once, and a single measurement can’t tell you how a person’s weight has fluctuated in recent years or across different stages of their life. However, recent analyses suggest that obesity status over time may be more relevant to cancer risk than one-off measures.

In addition, many studies now suggest that alterations to our gut microbes and high blood insulin level – often seen in people who are overweight or obese – may increase the risk of cancer and speed the growth of tumors.

When these additional factors are considered, the impact of excess body fat may ultimately play a much more significant role in cancer risk. In fact, according to Dr. Brennan, “if we estimate [the effects of obesity] properly, it might at some point become the main cause of cancer.”
 

Possibility 2: Environmental or lifestyle factors remain under the radar

Researchers have linked many substances we consume or are exposed to in our daily lives – air pollution, toxins from industrial waste, and highly processed foods – to cancer. But the extent or contribution of potential carcinogens in our surroundings, particularly those found almost everywhere at low levels, is still largely unknown.

One simple reason is the effects of many of these substances remain difficult to assess. For instance, it is much harder to study the impact of pollutants found in food or water, in which a given population will share similar exposure levels versus tobacco, where it is possible to compare a person who smokes a pack of cigarettes a day with a person who does not smoke.

“If you’ve got exposures that are ubiquitous, it can be difficult to discern their [individual] roles,” Dr. Martin said. “There are many causes that we [likely] don’t really know because everyone has been exposed.”

On the flip side, some carcinogenic substances that people encounter for limited periods might be missed if studies are not performed at the time of exposure.

“What’s in the body at age 40 may not reflect what you were exposed at age 5-10 on the playground or soccer field,” said Graham Colditz, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist and public health expert at Washington University, St. Louis. “The technology keeps changing so we can get better measures of what you’ve got exposure to today, but how that relates to 5, 10, 15 years ago is probably very variable.”

In addition, researchers have found that many carcinogens do not cause specific mutations in a cell’s DNA; rather, studies suggest that most carcinogens lead to cancer-promoting changes in cells, such as inflammation.

“We need to think of how potential carcinogens are causing cancer,” Dr. Brennan said. Instead of provoking mutations, potential carcinogens may use a “whole other kind of pathway.” When, for instance, inflammation becomes chronic, it may spur a cascade of events that ultimately leads to cancer.

Finally, not much is known about what causes cancers in low- and middle-income countries. Most of the research to date has been in high-income countries, such the United States, Australia, and parts of Europe.

“There’s a real lack of robust epidemiological studies in other parts of the world, Latin America, Africa, parts of Asia,” Marc Gunter, PhD, a molecular epidemiologist at the IARC, told this news organization.
 

Possibility 3: Some cancers occur by chance

When it comes to cancer risk, an element of chance may be at play. Cancer can occur in individuals who have very little exposure to known carcinogens or have no family history of cancer.

“We all know there are people who get cancer who eat very healthy diets, are never overweight, and never smoke,” Dr. Gunter said. “Then there are people on the other end of the extreme who don’t get cancer.”

But what fraction of cancers are attributable to chance?

A controversial 2017 study published in Science suggested that, based on the rate of cell turnover in healthy tissues in the lung, pancreas, and other parts of the body, only about one-third of cancers could be linked to environmental or genetic factors. The rest, the authors claimed, occurred because of random mutations that accumulated in a person’s DNA – in other words, bad luck.

That study brought on a flood of criticism from scientists who pointed to serious flaws in the work that led the researchers to significantly overestimate the share of chance-related cancers.

The actual proportion of cancers that occur by chance is much lower, according to Dr. Brennan. “If you look at international comparisons [of cancer rates] and take a conservative estimate, you see that maybe 10% or 15% of cancers are really chance.”

Whether some cancers are caused by bad luck or undiscovered risk factors remains an open question.

But the bottom line is many unknown causes of cancer are likely environmental or lifestyle related, which means that, in theory, they can be altered, even prevented.

“There is always going to be some element of chance, but you can modify your chance, depending on your lifestyle and maybe other factors, which we don’t fully understand yet,” Dr. Gunter said.

The good news is that, when it comes to prevention, there are many ways to modify our behaviors – such as consuming fewer processed meats, going for a daily walk, or getting vaccinated against cancer-causing viruses – to improve our chances of living cancer free. And as scientists better understand more about what causes cancer, possibilities for prevention will only grow.

“There is a constant, slow growth [in knowledge] that is lowering the overall risk of cancer,” Dr. Brennan said. “We’re never going to eliminate cancer, but we will be able to control it as a disease.”

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

Topline results from a phase 3 trial of P2B001, a fixed-dose combination of extended release (ER) formulations of pramipexole and rasagiline, showed it was superior to its individual components as a first-line treatment for early Parkinson’s disease.

Study participants also reported less daytime sleepiness with P2B001, according to a statement from the drug’s manufacturer.

The trial data “support our view that P2B001 can provide clinical benefits comparable to higher doses of commercially available dopamine agonists, while mitigating the side effects typically associated with this class of medicine such as somnolence, orthostatic hypotension, and hallucinations,” Sheila Oren, MD, chief executive officer of Pharma Two B, said in a statement.

“This is important for PD patients of all ages and is critical for the elderly, who typically do not tolerate side effects of dopamine agonists,” Dr. Oren added.
 

Promising results

The 12-week, international, randomized, double-blind trial was designed to study the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of P2B001 compared to its individual components and to a calibration arm of pramipexole ER in 544 patients with early PD.

Participants received P2B001, a once-daily ER combination product composed of pramipexole 0.6 mg and rasagiline 0.75 mg; pramipexole ER capsule 0.6 mg once daily; rasagiline ER capsule 0.75 mg once daily; or the currently marketed product pramipexole ER capsules titrated to an optimal dose for each individual patient (1.5-4.5 mg).

The adjusted mean change from baseline in total Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) score was –2.66 points for P2B001 versus pramipexole (P = .0018) and –3.30 points for P2B001 versus rasagiline (P = .0001). There was no significant difference in UPDRS scores between P2B001 and pramipexole ER.

The adjusted mean change from baseline in the Epworth Sleepiness Scale score for P2B001 versus pramipexole ER was –2.66 points (P < .0001).

Treatment-related adverse events were mostly mild or moderate and were similar among groups.

“The initiation of treatment of patients with Parkinson’s disease represents an area of unmet need due to the side effects associated with current treatments,” Warren Olanow, MD, professor emeritus of neurology and neuroscience at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, said in a statement from the manufacturer.

“Based on the data from this well-designed, rigorous, active-controlled study, P2B001 has the potential to become a leading treatment option for PD, particularly as first line therapy for early-stage patients of all ages,” Dr. Olanow added.

The company plans to file a new drug application in 2022.

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

Topline results from a phase 3 trial of P2B001, a fixed-dose combination of extended release (ER) formulations of pramipexole and rasagiline, showed it was superior to its individual components as a first-line treatment for early Parkinson’s disease.

Study participants also reported less daytime sleepiness with P2B001, according to a statement from the drug’s manufacturer.

The trial data “support our view that P2B001 can provide clinical benefits comparable to higher doses of commercially available dopamine agonists, while mitigating the side effects typically associated with this class of medicine such as somnolence, orthostatic hypotension, and hallucinations,” Sheila Oren, MD, chief executive officer of Pharma Two B, said in a statement.

“This is important for PD patients of all ages and is critical for the elderly, who typically do not tolerate side effects of dopamine agonists,” Dr. Oren added.
 

Promising results

The 12-week, international, randomized, double-blind trial was designed to study the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of P2B001 compared to its individual components and to a calibration arm of pramipexole ER in 544 patients with early PD.

Participants received P2B001, a once-daily ER combination product composed of pramipexole 0.6 mg and rasagiline 0.75 mg; pramipexole ER capsule 0.6 mg once daily; rasagiline ER capsule 0.75 mg once daily; or the currently marketed product pramipexole ER capsules titrated to an optimal dose for each individual patient (1.5-4.5 mg).

The adjusted mean change from baseline in total Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) score was –2.66 points for P2B001 versus pramipexole (P = .0018) and –3.30 points for P2B001 versus rasagiline (P = .0001). There was no significant difference in UPDRS scores between P2B001 and pramipexole ER.

The adjusted mean change from baseline in the Epworth Sleepiness Scale score for P2B001 versus pramipexole ER was –2.66 points (P < .0001).

Treatment-related adverse events were mostly mild or moderate and were similar among groups.

“The initiation of treatment of patients with Parkinson’s disease represents an area of unmet need due to the side effects associated with current treatments,” Warren Olanow, MD, professor emeritus of neurology and neuroscience at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, said in a statement from the manufacturer.

“Based on the data from this well-designed, rigorous, active-controlled study, P2B001 has the potential to become a leading treatment option for PD, particularly as first line therapy for early-stage patients of all ages,” Dr. Olanow added.

The company plans to file a new drug application in 2022.

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

Topline results from a phase 3 trial of P2B001, a fixed-dose combination of extended release (ER) formulations of pramipexole and rasagiline, showed it was superior to its individual components as a first-line treatment for early Parkinson’s disease.

Study participants also reported less daytime sleepiness with P2B001, according to a statement from the drug’s manufacturer.

The trial data “support our view that P2B001 can provide clinical benefits comparable to higher doses of commercially available dopamine agonists, while mitigating the side effects typically associated with this class of medicine such as somnolence, orthostatic hypotension, and hallucinations,” Sheila Oren, MD, chief executive officer of Pharma Two B, said in a statement.

“This is important for PD patients of all ages and is critical for the elderly, who typically do not tolerate side effects of dopamine agonists,” Dr. Oren added.
 

Promising results

The 12-week, international, randomized, double-blind trial was designed to study the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of P2B001 compared to its individual components and to a calibration arm of pramipexole ER in 544 patients with early PD.

Participants received P2B001, a once-daily ER combination product composed of pramipexole 0.6 mg and rasagiline 0.75 mg; pramipexole ER capsule 0.6 mg once daily; rasagiline ER capsule 0.75 mg once daily; or the currently marketed product pramipexole ER capsules titrated to an optimal dose for each individual patient (1.5-4.5 mg).

The adjusted mean change from baseline in total Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) score was –2.66 points for P2B001 versus pramipexole (P = .0018) and –3.30 points for P2B001 versus rasagiline (P = .0001). There was no significant difference in UPDRS scores between P2B001 and pramipexole ER.

The adjusted mean change from baseline in the Epworth Sleepiness Scale score for P2B001 versus pramipexole ER was –2.66 points (P < .0001).

Treatment-related adverse events were mostly mild or moderate and were similar among groups.

“The initiation of treatment of patients with Parkinson’s disease represents an area of unmet need due to the side effects associated with current treatments,” Warren Olanow, MD, professor emeritus of neurology and neuroscience at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, said in a statement from the manufacturer.

“Based on the data from this well-designed, rigorous, active-controlled study, P2B001 has the potential to become a leading treatment option for PD, particularly as first line therapy for early-stage patients of all ages,” Dr. Olanow added.

The company plans to file a new drug application in 2022.

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

A Chicago-based medical oncologist has been charged with insider trading by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, according to a Dec. 20 press release issued by the U.S. Department of Justice.

Daniel V.T. Catenacci, MD, PhD, a gastrointestinal medical oncologist and associate professor of medicine at the University of Chicago, is alleged to have used confidential information to purchase shares of California-based biotechnology company Five Prime Therapeutics before it publicly announced positive results from a clinical trial of bemarituzumab, an experimental cancer drug.

Dr. Catenacci served as the lead investigator of the clinical trial that evaluated bemarituzumab. The drug, which earned breakthrough therapy designation from the Food and Drug Administration earlier this year, is designed to target fibroblast growth factor receptor 2b (FGFR2b), overexpressed in about 30% of patients with HER2-negative gastric cancer and other solid tumors.

Bemarituzumab is being positioned as a potential frontline therapy for advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer. A recent phase 2 trial found that adding bemarituzumab to chemotherapy in this patient population improved survival over chemotherapy alone.

According to the criminal information, filed on Dec. 17 in U.S. District Court in Chicago, the charges state that, in November 2020, Dr. Catenacci “used material, non-public information about the trial results to make more than $134,000 in illegal profits from the purchase and sale of securities in the company.”

More specifically, the SEC’s complaint alleges that Dr. Catenacci received confidential information about the company and its positive clinical trial results through his position as principal investigator. Dr. Catenacci then purchased almost 8,800 shares of Five Prime Therapeutics before the company announced the positive results. Dr. Catenacci subsequently sold those shares shortly after the trial results were announced. In the interim, the shares tripled or quadrupled in value.

He has been charged with one count of securities fraud, punishable by up to 20 years in federal prison. Arraignment in federal court in Chicago has yet to be scheduled.

In addition, the federal complaint alleges that Dr. Catenacci violated the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws. According to a press release, “Catenacci has agreed to be permanently enjoined from violations of these provisions, and to pay a civil penalty in an amount to be determined by the court later.”

Erin E. Schneider, regional director of the SEC’s San Francisco Regional Office, stated in the press release that clinical drug trials typically involve sensitive and valuable information about the viability of an experimental drug.

“As alleged in our complaint, Catenacci was required to safeguard the material nonpublic information he learned about Five Prime’s clinical trial, and not trade on it,” said Mr. Schneider.

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

A Chicago-based medical oncologist has been charged with insider trading by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, according to a Dec. 20 press release issued by the U.S. Department of Justice.

Daniel V.T. Catenacci, MD, PhD, a gastrointestinal medical oncologist and associate professor of medicine at the University of Chicago, is alleged to have used confidential information to purchase shares of California-based biotechnology company Five Prime Therapeutics before it publicly announced positive results from a clinical trial of bemarituzumab, an experimental cancer drug.

Dr. Catenacci served as the lead investigator of the clinical trial that evaluated bemarituzumab. The drug, which earned breakthrough therapy designation from the Food and Drug Administration earlier this year, is designed to target fibroblast growth factor receptor 2b (FGFR2b), overexpressed in about 30% of patients with HER2-negative gastric cancer and other solid tumors.

Bemarituzumab is being positioned as a potential frontline therapy for advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer. A recent phase 2 trial found that adding bemarituzumab to chemotherapy in this patient population improved survival over chemotherapy alone.

According to the criminal information, filed on Dec. 17 in U.S. District Court in Chicago, the charges state that, in November 2020, Dr. Catenacci “used material, non-public information about the trial results to make more than $134,000 in illegal profits from the purchase and sale of securities in the company.”

More specifically, the SEC’s complaint alleges that Dr. Catenacci received confidential information about the company and its positive clinical trial results through his position as principal investigator. Dr. Catenacci then purchased almost 8,800 shares of Five Prime Therapeutics before the company announced the positive results. Dr. Catenacci subsequently sold those shares shortly after the trial results were announced. In the interim, the shares tripled or quadrupled in value.

He has been charged with one count of securities fraud, punishable by up to 20 years in federal prison. Arraignment in federal court in Chicago has yet to be scheduled.

In addition, the federal complaint alleges that Dr. Catenacci violated the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws. According to a press release, “Catenacci has agreed to be permanently enjoined from violations of these provisions, and to pay a civil penalty in an amount to be determined by the court later.”

Erin E. Schneider, regional director of the SEC’s San Francisco Regional Office, stated in the press release that clinical drug trials typically involve sensitive and valuable information about the viability of an experimental drug.

“As alleged in our complaint, Catenacci was required to safeguard the material nonpublic information he learned about Five Prime’s clinical trial, and not trade on it,” said Mr. Schneider.

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

A Chicago-based medical oncologist has been charged with insider trading by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, according to a Dec. 20 press release issued by the U.S. Department of Justice.

Daniel V.T. Catenacci, MD, PhD, a gastrointestinal medical oncologist and associate professor of medicine at the University of Chicago, is alleged to have used confidential information to purchase shares of California-based biotechnology company Five Prime Therapeutics before it publicly announced positive results from a clinical trial of bemarituzumab, an experimental cancer drug.

Dr. Catenacci served as the lead investigator of the clinical trial that evaluated bemarituzumab. The drug, which earned breakthrough therapy designation from the Food and Drug Administration earlier this year, is designed to target fibroblast growth factor receptor 2b (FGFR2b), overexpressed in about 30% of patients with HER2-negative gastric cancer and other solid tumors.

Bemarituzumab is being positioned as a potential frontline therapy for advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer. A recent phase 2 trial found that adding bemarituzumab to chemotherapy in this patient population improved survival over chemotherapy alone.

According to the criminal information, filed on Dec. 17 in U.S. District Court in Chicago, the charges state that, in November 2020, Dr. Catenacci “used material, non-public information about the trial results to make more than $134,000 in illegal profits from the purchase and sale of securities in the company.”

More specifically, the SEC’s complaint alleges that Dr. Catenacci received confidential information about the company and its positive clinical trial results through his position as principal investigator. Dr. Catenacci then purchased almost 8,800 shares of Five Prime Therapeutics before the company announced the positive results. Dr. Catenacci subsequently sold those shares shortly after the trial results were announced. In the interim, the shares tripled or quadrupled in value.

He has been charged with one count of securities fraud, punishable by up to 20 years in federal prison. Arraignment in federal court in Chicago has yet to be scheduled.

In addition, the federal complaint alleges that Dr. Catenacci violated the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws. According to a press release, “Catenacci has agreed to be permanently enjoined from violations of these provisions, and to pay a civil penalty in an amount to be determined by the court later.”

Erin E. Schneider, regional director of the SEC’s San Francisco Regional Office, stated in the press release that clinical drug trials typically involve sensitive and valuable information about the viability of an experimental drug.

“As alleged in our complaint, Catenacci was required to safeguard the material nonpublic information he learned about Five Prime’s clinical trial, and not trade on it,” said Mr. Schneider.

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