The erectile dysfunction medication Viagra could potentially be used as a treatment for Alzheimer’s disease, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Aging.

Patients who used the drug sildenafil, the generic name for Viagra, were 69% less likely to develop the disease than were nonusers.

“Sildenafil, which has been shown to significantly improve cognition and memory in preclinical models, presented as the best drug candidate,” Feixiong Cheng, PhD, the lead study author in the Cleveland Clinic’s Genomic Medicine Institute, said in a statement.

“Notably, we found that sildenafil use reduced the likelihood of Alzheimer’s in individuals with coronary artery disease, hypertension, and type 2 diabetes, all of which are comorbidities significantly associated with risk of the disease, as well as in those without,” he said.

Alzheimer’s, which is the most common form of age-related dementia, affects hundreds of millions of people worldwide. The disease is expected to affect nearly 14 million Americans by 2050. There is no approved treatment for it.

Dr. Cheng and colleagues at the Cleveland Clinic used a large gene-mapping network to analyze whether more than 1,600 Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs could work against Alzheimer’s. They gave higher scores to drugs that target both amyloid and tau proteins in the brain, which are two hallmarks of the disease. Sildenafil appeared at the top of the list.

Then the researchers used a database of health insurance claims for more than 7 million people in the U.S. to understand the relationship between sildenafil and Alzheimer’s disease outcomes. They compared sildenafil users to nonusers and found that those who used the drug were 69% less likely to have the neurodegenerative disease, even after 6 years of follow-up.

After that, the research team came up with a lab model that showed the sildenafil increased brain cell growth and targeted tau proteins. The lab model could indicate how the drug influences disease-related brain changes.

But Dr. Cheng cautioned against drawing strong conclusions. The study doesn’t demonstrate a causal relationship between sildenafil and Alzheimer’s disease. Researchers will need to conduct clinical trials with a placebo control to see how well the drug works.

Other researchers said the findings offer a new avenue for research but don’t yet provide solid answers.

“Being able to repurpose a drug already licensed for health conditions could help speed up the drug discovery process and bring about life-changing dementia treatments sooner,” Susan Kohlhaas, PhD, director of research at Alzheimer’s Research UK, told the Science Media Centre.

“Importantly, this research doesn’t prove that sildenafil is responsible for reducing dementia risk, or that it slows or stops the disease,” she continued. “If you want to discuss any treatments you are receiving, the first port of call is to speak to your doctor.”

And doctors won’t likely recommend it as a treatment just yet either.

“While these data are interesting scientifically, based on this study, I would not rush out to start taking sildenafil as a prevention for Alzheimer’s disease,” Tara Spires-Jones, PhD, deputy director of the Centre for Discovery Brain Sciences at the University of Edinburgh, told the Science Media Centre.

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

The erectile dysfunction medication Viagra could potentially be used as a treatment for Alzheimer’s disease, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Aging.

Patients who used the drug sildenafil, the generic name for Viagra, were 69% less likely to develop the disease than were nonusers.

“Sildenafil, which has been shown to significantly improve cognition and memory in preclinical models, presented as the best drug candidate,” Feixiong Cheng, PhD, the lead study author in the Cleveland Clinic’s Genomic Medicine Institute, said in a statement.

“Notably, we found that sildenafil use reduced the likelihood of Alzheimer’s in individuals with coronary artery disease, hypertension, and type 2 diabetes, all of which are comorbidities significantly associated with risk of the disease, as well as in those without,” he said.

Alzheimer’s, which is the most common form of age-related dementia, affects hundreds of millions of people worldwide. The disease is expected to affect nearly 14 million Americans by 2050. There is no approved treatment for it.

Dr. Cheng and colleagues at the Cleveland Clinic used a large gene-mapping network to analyze whether more than 1,600 Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs could work against Alzheimer’s. They gave higher scores to drugs that target both amyloid and tau proteins in the brain, which are two hallmarks of the disease. Sildenafil appeared at the top of the list.

Then the researchers used a database of health insurance claims for more than 7 million people in the U.S. to understand the relationship between sildenafil and Alzheimer’s disease outcomes. They compared sildenafil users to nonusers and found that those who used the drug were 69% less likely to have the neurodegenerative disease, even after 6 years of follow-up.

After that, the research team came up with a lab model that showed the sildenafil increased brain cell growth and targeted tau proteins. The lab model could indicate how the drug influences disease-related brain changes.

But Dr. Cheng cautioned against drawing strong conclusions. The study doesn’t demonstrate a causal relationship between sildenafil and Alzheimer’s disease. Researchers will need to conduct clinical trials with a placebo control to see how well the drug works.

Other researchers said the findings offer a new avenue for research but don’t yet provide solid answers.

“Being able to repurpose a drug already licensed for health conditions could help speed up the drug discovery process and bring about life-changing dementia treatments sooner,” Susan Kohlhaas, PhD, director of research at Alzheimer’s Research UK, told the Science Media Centre.

“Importantly, this research doesn’t prove that sildenafil is responsible for reducing dementia risk, or that it slows or stops the disease,” she continued. “If you want to discuss any treatments you are receiving, the first port of call is to speak to your doctor.”

And doctors won’t likely recommend it as a treatment just yet either.

“While these data are interesting scientifically, based on this study, I would not rush out to start taking sildenafil as a prevention for Alzheimer’s disease,” Tara Spires-Jones, PhD, deputy director of the Centre for Discovery Brain Sciences at the University of Edinburgh, told the Science Media Centre.

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

The erectile dysfunction medication Viagra could potentially be used as a treatment for Alzheimer’s disease, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Aging.

Patients who used the drug sildenafil, the generic name for Viagra, were 69% less likely to develop the disease than were nonusers.

“Sildenafil, which has been shown to significantly improve cognition and memory in preclinical models, presented as the best drug candidate,” Feixiong Cheng, PhD, the lead study author in the Cleveland Clinic’s Genomic Medicine Institute, said in a statement.

“Notably, we found that sildenafil use reduced the likelihood of Alzheimer’s in individuals with coronary artery disease, hypertension, and type 2 diabetes, all of which are comorbidities significantly associated with risk of the disease, as well as in those without,” he said.

Alzheimer’s, which is the most common form of age-related dementia, affects hundreds of millions of people worldwide. The disease is expected to affect nearly 14 million Americans by 2050. There is no approved treatment for it.

Dr. Cheng and colleagues at the Cleveland Clinic used a large gene-mapping network to analyze whether more than 1,600 Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs could work against Alzheimer’s. They gave higher scores to drugs that target both amyloid and tau proteins in the brain, which are two hallmarks of the disease. Sildenafil appeared at the top of the list.

Then the researchers used a database of health insurance claims for more than 7 million people in the U.S. to understand the relationship between sildenafil and Alzheimer’s disease outcomes. They compared sildenafil users to nonusers and found that those who used the drug were 69% less likely to have the neurodegenerative disease, even after 6 years of follow-up.

After that, the research team came up with a lab model that showed the sildenafil increased brain cell growth and targeted tau proteins. The lab model could indicate how the drug influences disease-related brain changes.

But Dr. Cheng cautioned against drawing strong conclusions. The study doesn’t demonstrate a causal relationship between sildenafil and Alzheimer’s disease. Researchers will need to conduct clinical trials with a placebo control to see how well the drug works.

Other researchers said the findings offer a new avenue for research but don’t yet provide solid answers.

“Being able to repurpose a drug already licensed for health conditions could help speed up the drug discovery process and bring about life-changing dementia treatments sooner,” Susan Kohlhaas, PhD, director of research at Alzheimer’s Research UK, told the Science Media Centre.

“Importantly, this research doesn’t prove that sildenafil is responsible for reducing dementia risk, or that it slows or stops the disease,” she continued. “If you want to discuss any treatments you are receiving, the first port of call is to speak to your doctor.”

And doctors won’t likely recommend it as a treatment just yet either.

“While these data are interesting scientifically, based on this study, I would not rush out to start taking sildenafil as a prevention for Alzheimer’s disease,” Tara Spires-Jones, PhD, deputy director of the Centre for Discovery Brain Sciences at the University of Edinburgh, told the Science Media Centre.

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

Retrospective data suggest that improvements over time in overall survival (OS) among COVID-19-infected patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) mirror those observed in COVID-19–infected patients in general, but the data also highlight areas for further investigation, according to the researchers.

MSKCC

Specifically, “the data highlight opportunities for further investigation into optimal management of COVID-19, immune response after infection, and effective vaccination strategy for patients with CLL,” Lindsey E. Roeker, MD, a hematologic oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, and colleagues wrote in a Nov. 4, 2021, letter to the editor of Blood.

The researchers noted that recently reported COVID-19 case fatality rates from two large series of patients with CLL ranged from 31% to 33%, but trends over time were unclear.

“To understand change in outcomes over time, we present this follow-up study, which builds upon a previously reported cohort with extended follow up and addition of more recently diagnosed cases,” they wrote, explaining that “early data from a small series suggest that patients with CLL may not consistently generate anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibodies after infection.”

“This finding, along with previous reports of inadequate response to vaccines in patients with CLL, highlight significant questions regarding COVID-19 vaccine efficacy in this population,” they added.
 

Trends in outcomes

The review of outcomes in 374 CLL patients from 45 centers who were diagnosed with COVID-19 between Feb. 17, 2020, and Feb. 1, 2021, showed an overall case fatality rate (CFR) of 28%. Among the 278 patients (75%) admitted to the hospital, the CFR was 36%; among those not admitted, the CFR was 4.3%.

Independent predictors of poor survival were ages over 75 years (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.6) and Cumulative Illness Rating Scale–Geriatric (CIRS) scores greater than 6 (aHR, 1.6).

Updated data for 254 patients diagnosed from Feb. 17 to April 30, 2020, and 120 diagnosed from May 1, 2020, to Feb. 1, 2021, showed that more patients in the early versus later cohort were admitted to the hospital (85% vs. 55%) and more required ICU admission (32% vs. 11%).

The overall case fatality rates in the early and later cohorts were 35% and 11%, respectively (P < .001), and among those requiring hospitalization, the rates were 40% and 20% (P = .003).

“The proportion of hospitalized patients requiring ICU-level care was lower in the later cohort (37% vs. 29%), whereas the CFR remained high for the subset of patients who required ICU-level care (52% vs. 50%; P = .89),” the investigators wrote, noting that “[a] difference in management of BTKi[Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor]-treated patients was observed in the early versus the later cohort.”

“In the early cohort, 76% of patients receiving BTKi had their drug therapy suspended or discontinued. In the later cohort, only 20% of BTKi-treated patients had their therapy suspended or discontinued,” they added.

Univariate analyses showed significant associations between use of remdesivir and OS (HR, 0.48) and use of convalescent plasma and OS (HR, 0.50) in patients who were admitted, whereas admitted patients who received corticosteroids or hydroxychloroquine had an increased risk of death (HRs, 1.73 and 1.53, respectively).

“Corticosteroids were associated with increased risk of death when the data were adjusted for admission status (HR, 1.8) and the need for mechanical ventilation (HR, 2.0), although they were not significantly associated with survival when the data were adjusted for use of supplemental oxygen (HR, 1.4),” they wrote, also noting that admitted patients treated with corticosteroids in the later cohort did not experience an OS benefit (HR, 2.6).

The findings mirror population-based studies with decreasing CFR (35% in those diagnosed before May 1, 2020, versus 11% in those diagnosed after that date), they said, adding that “these trends suggest that patients in the later cohort experienced a less severe clinical course and that the observed difference in CFR over time may not just be due to more frequent testing and identification of less symptomatic patients.”

Of note, the outcomes observed for steroid-treated patients in the current cohort contrast with those from the RECOVERY trial as published in July 2020, which “may be an artifact of their use in patients with more severe disease,” they suggested.

They added that these data “are hypothesis generating and suggest that COVID-19 directed interventions, particularly immunomodulatory agents, require prospective study, specifically in immunocompromised populations.”

The investigators also noted that, consistent with a prior single-center study, 60% of patients with CLL developed positive anti–SARS-CoV-2 serology results after polymerase chain reaction diagnosis of COVID-19, adding further evidence of nonuniform antibody production after COVID-19 in patients with CLL.

Study is ongoing to gain understanding of the immune response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with CLL, they said.
 

Changing the odds

In a related commentary also published in Blood, Yair Herishanu, MD, and Chava Perry, MD, PhD, of Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center called the reduction in mortality over time as reported by Dr. Roeker and colleagues “encouraging and intriguing.”

“One explanation is that the later cohort included a larger proportion of patients with mild symptoms who were diagnosed because of increased awareness of COVID-19 and more extensive screening to detect SARS-CoV-2 over time. That is supported by the lower hospitalization rates and lower rates of hospitalized patients requiring ICU care in the later cohort,” they wrote. “Another possibility is better patient management owing to increasing experience, expanding therapeutic options, and improved capacity of health systems to manage an influx of patients.”

The lower mortality in hospitalized patients over time may reflect better management of patients over time, but it also highlights the significance of “early introduction of various anti–COVID-19 therapies to prevent clinical deterioration to ICU-level care,” they added.

Also intriguing, according to Dr. Herishanu and Dr. Perry, was the finding of increased secondary infections and death rates among corticosteroid-treatment patients.

In the RECOVERY trial, the use of dexamethasone improved survival in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who received respiratory support. Perhaps the impaired immune reactions in patients with CLL moderate the hyperinflammatory reactions to COVID-19, thus turning corticosteroids beneficial effects to somewhat redundant in this frail population,” they wrote.

Further, the finding that only 60% of patients with CLL seroconvert after the acute phase of SARS-CoV-2 infection suggests CLL patients may be at risk for reinfection, which “justifies vaccinating all patients with CLL who have recovered from COVID-19.”

“Likewise, patients with CLL may develop persistent COVID-19 infection,” they added, explaining that “prolonged shedding of infectious SARS-CoV-2 virus and within-host genomic evolution may eventually lead to emergence of new virus variants.”

Given the high risk of severe COVID-19 disease and impaired antibody-mediated immune response to the virus and its vaccine, a booster dose may be warranted in patients with CLL who fail to achieve seropositivity after 2 vaccine doses, they said.

The available data to date “call for early application of antiviral drugs, [monoclonal antibodies], and convalescent plasma as well as improved vaccination strategy, to improve the odds for patients with CLL confronting COVID-19,” they concluded, adding that large-scale prospective studies on the clinical disease course, outcomes, efficacy of treatments, and vaccination timing and schedule in patients with CLL and COVID-19 are still warranted.

The research was supported by a National Cancer Institute Cancer Center support grant. Dr. Roeker, Dr. Herishanu, and Dr. Perry reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

Retrospective data suggest that improvements over time in overall survival (OS) among COVID-19-infected patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) mirror those observed in COVID-19–infected patients in general, but the data also highlight areas for further investigation, according to the researchers.

MSKCC

Specifically, “the data highlight opportunities for further investigation into optimal management of COVID-19, immune response after infection, and effective vaccination strategy for patients with CLL,” Lindsey E. Roeker, MD, a hematologic oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, and colleagues wrote in a Nov. 4, 2021, letter to the editor of Blood.

The researchers noted that recently reported COVID-19 case fatality rates from two large series of patients with CLL ranged from 31% to 33%, but trends over time were unclear.

“To understand change in outcomes over time, we present this follow-up study, which builds upon a previously reported cohort with extended follow up and addition of more recently diagnosed cases,” they wrote, explaining that “early data from a small series suggest that patients with CLL may not consistently generate anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibodies after infection.”

“This finding, along with previous reports of inadequate response to vaccines in patients with CLL, highlight significant questions regarding COVID-19 vaccine efficacy in this population,” they added.
 

Trends in outcomes

The review of outcomes in 374 CLL patients from 45 centers who were diagnosed with COVID-19 between Feb. 17, 2020, and Feb. 1, 2021, showed an overall case fatality rate (CFR) of 28%. Among the 278 patients (75%) admitted to the hospital, the CFR was 36%; among those not admitted, the CFR was 4.3%.

Independent predictors of poor survival were ages over 75 years (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.6) and Cumulative Illness Rating Scale–Geriatric (CIRS) scores greater than 6 (aHR, 1.6).

Updated data for 254 patients diagnosed from Feb. 17 to April 30, 2020, and 120 diagnosed from May 1, 2020, to Feb. 1, 2021, showed that more patients in the early versus later cohort were admitted to the hospital (85% vs. 55%) and more required ICU admission (32% vs. 11%).

The overall case fatality rates in the early and later cohorts were 35% and 11%, respectively (P < .001), and among those requiring hospitalization, the rates were 40% and 20% (P = .003).

“The proportion of hospitalized patients requiring ICU-level care was lower in the later cohort (37% vs. 29%), whereas the CFR remained high for the subset of patients who required ICU-level care (52% vs. 50%; P = .89),” the investigators wrote, noting that “[a] difference in management of BTKi[Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor]-treated patients was observed in the early versus the later cohort.”

“In the early cohort, 76% of patients receiving BTKi had their drug therapy suspended or discontinued. In the later cohort, only 20% of BTKi-treated patients had their therapy suspended or discontinued,” they added.

Univariate analyses showed significant associations between use of remdesivir and OS (HR, 0.48) and use of convalescent plasma and OS (HR, 0.50) in patients who were admitted, whereas admitted patients who received corticosteroids or hydroxychloroquine had an increased risk of death (HRs, 1.73 and 1.53, respectively).

“Corticosteroids were associated with increased risk of death when the data were adjusted for admission status (HR, 1.8) and the need for mechanical ventilation (HR, 2.0), although they were not significantly associated with survival when the data were adjusted for use of supplemental oxygen (HR, 1.4),” they wrote, also noting that admitted patients treated with corticosteroids in the later cohort did not experience an OS benefit (HR, 2.6).

The findings mirror population-based studies with decreasing CFR (35% in those diagnosed before May 1, 2020, versus 11% in those diagnosed after that date), they said, adding that “these trends suggest that patients in the later cohort experienced a less severe clinical course and that the observed difference in CFR over time may not just be due to more frequent testing and identification of less symptomatic patients.”

Of note, the outcomes observed for steroid-treated patients in the current cohort contrast with those from the RECOVERY trial as published in July 2020, which “may be an artifact of their use in patients with more severe disease,” they suggested.

They added that these data “are hypothesis generating and suggest that COVID-19 directed interventions, particularly immunomodulatory agents, require prospective study, specifically in immunocompromised populations.”

The investigators also noted that, consistent with a prior single-center study, 60% of patients with CLL developed positive anti–SARS-CoV-2 serology results after polymerase chain reaction diagnosis of COVID-19, adding further evidence of nonuniform antibody production after COVID-19 in patients with CLL.

Study is ongoing to gain understanding of the immune response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with CLL, they said.
 

Changing the odds

In a related commentary also published in Blood, Yair Herishanu, MD, and Chava Perry, MD, PhD, of Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center called the reduction in mortality over time as reported by Dr. Roeker and colleagues “encouraging and intriguing.”

“One explanation is that the later cohort included a larger proportion of patients with mild symptoms who were diagnosed because of increased awareness of COVID-19 and more extensive screening to detect SARS-CoV-2 over time. That is supported by the lower hospitalization rates and lower rates of hospitalized patients requiring ICU care in the later cohort,” they wrote. “Another possibility is better patient management owing to increasing experience, expanding therapeutic options, and improved capacity of health systems to manage an influx of patients.”

The lower mortality in hospitalized patients over time may reflect better management of patients over time, but it also highlights the significance of “early introduction of various anti–COVID-19 therapies to prevent clinical deterioration to ICU-level care,” they added.

Also intriguing, according to Dr. Herishanu and Dr. Perry, was the finding of increased secondary infections and death rates among corticosteroid-treatment patients.

In the RECOVERY trial, the use of dexamethasone improved survival in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who received respiratory support. Perhaps the impaired immune reactions in patients with CLL moderate the hyperinflammatory reactions to COVID-19, thus turning corticosteroids beneficial effects to somewhat redundant in this frail population,” they wrote.

Further, the finding that only 60% of patients with CLL seroconvert after the acute phase of SARS-CoV-2 infection suggests CLL patients may be at risk for reinfection, which “justifies vaccinating all patients with CLL who have recovered from COVID-19.”

“Likewise, patients with CLL may develop persistent COVID-19 infection,” they added, explaining that “prolonged shedding of infectious SARS-CoV-2 virus and within-host genomic evolution may eventually lead to emergence of new virus variants.”

Given the high risk of severe COVID-19 disease and impaired antibody-mediated immune response to the virus and its vaccine, a booster dose may be warranted in patients with CLL who fail to achieve seropositivity after 2 vaccine doses, they said.

The available data to date “call for early application of antiviral drugs, [monoclonal antibodies], and convalescent plasma as well as improved vaccination strategy, to improve the odds for patients with CLL confronting COVID-19,” they concluded, adding that large-scale prospective studies on the clinical disease course, outcomes, efficacy of treatments, and vaccination timing and schedule in patients with CLL and COVID-19 are still warranted.

The research was supported by a National Cancer Institute Cancer Center support grant. Dr. Roeker, Dr. Herishanu, and Dr. Perry reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

Retrospective data suggest that improvements over time in overall survival (OS) among COVID-19-infected patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) mirror those observed in COVID-19–infected patients in general, but the data also highlight areas for further investigation, according to the researchers.

MSKCC

Specifically, “the data highlight opportunities for further investigation into optimal management of COVID-19, immune response after infection, and effective vaccination strategy for patients with CLL,” Lindsey E. Roeker, MD, a hematologic oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, and colleagues wrote in a Nov. 4, 2021, letter to the editor of Blood.

The researchers noted that recently reported COVID-19 case fatality rates from two large series of patients with CLL ranged from 31% to 33%, but trends over time were unclear.

“To understand change in outcomes over time, we present this follow-up study, which builds upon a previously reported cohort with extended follow up and addition of more recently diagnosed cases,” they wrote, explaining that “early data from a small series suggest that patients with CLL may not consistently generate anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibodies after infection.”

“This finding, along with previous reports of inadequate response to vaccines in patients with CLL, highlight significant questions regarding COVID-19 vaccine efficacy in this population,” they added.
 

Trends in outcomes

The review of outcomes in 374 CLL patients from 45 centers who were diagnosed with COVID-19 between Feb. 17, 2020, and Feb. 1, 2021, showed an overall case fatality rate (CFR) of 28%. Among the 278 patients (75%) admitted to the hospital, the CFR was 36%; among those not admitted, the CFR was 4.3%.

Independent predictors of poor survival were ages over 75 years (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.6) and Cumulative Illness Rating Scale–Geriatric (CIRS) scores greater than 6 (aHR, 1.6).

Updated data for 254 patients diagnosed from Feb. 17 to April 30, 2020, and 120 diagnosed from May 1, 2020, to Feb. 1, 2021, showed that more patients in the early versus later cohort were admitted to the hospital (85% vs. 55%) and more required ICU admission (32% vs. 11%).

The overall case fatality rates in the early and later cohorts were 35% and 11%, respectively (P < .001), and among those requiring hospitalization, the rates were 40% and 20% (P = .003).

“The proportion of hospitalized patients requiring ICU-level care was lower in the later cohort (37% vs. 29%), whereas the CFR remained high for the subset of patients who required ICU-level care (52% vs. 50%; P = .89),” the investigators wrote, noting that “[a] difference in management of BTKi[Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor]-treated patients was observed in the early versus the later cohort.”

“In the early cohort, 76% of patients receiving BTKi had their drug therapy suspended or discontinued. In the later cohort, only 20% of BTKi-treated patients had their therapy suspended or discontinued,” they added.

Univariate analyses showed significant associations between use of remdesivir and OS (HR, 0.48) and use of convalescent plasma and OS (HR, 0.50) in patients who were admitted, whereas admitted patients who received corticosteroids or hydroxychloroquine had an increased risk of death (HRs, 1.73 and 1.53, respectively).

“Corticosteroids were associated with increased risk of death when the data were adjusted for admission status (HR, 1.8) and the need for mechanical ventilation (HR, 2.0), although they were not significantly associated with survival when the data were adjusted for use of supplemental oxygen (HR, 1.4),” they wrote, also noting that admitted patients treated with corticosteroids in the later cohort did not experience an OS benefit (HR, 2.6).

The findings mirror population-based studies with decreasing CFR (35% in those diagnosed before May 1, 2020, versus 11% in those diagnosed after that date), they said, adding that “these trends suggest that patients in the later cohort experienced a less severe clinical course and that the observed difference in CFR over time may not just be due to more frequent testing and identification of less symptomatic patients.”

Of note, the outcomes observed for steroid-treated patients in the current cohort contrast with those from the RECOVERY trial as published in July 2020, which “may be an artifact of their use in patients with more severe disease,” they suggested.

They added that these data “are hypothesis generating and suggest that COVID-19 directed interventions, particularly immunomodulatory agents, require prospective study, specifically in immunocompromised populations.”

The investigators also noted that, consistent with a prior single-center study, 60% of patients with CLL developed positive anti–SARS-CoV-2 serology results after polymerase chain reaction diagnosis of COVID-19, adding further evidence of nonuniform antibody production after COVID-19 in patients with CLL.

Study is ongoing to gain understanding of the immune response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with CLL, they said.
 

Changing the odds

In a related commentary also published in Blood, Yair Herishanu, MD, and Chava Perry, MD, PhD, of Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center called the reduction in mortality over time as reported by Dr. Roeker and colleagues “encouraging and intriguing.”

“One explanation is that the later cohort included a larger proportion of patients with mild symptoms who were diagnosed because of increased awareness of COVID-19 and more extensive screening to detect SARS-CoV-2 over time. That is supported by the lower hospitalization rates and lower rates of hospitalized patients requiring ICU care in the later cohort,” they wrote. “Another possibility is better patient management owing to increasing experience, expanding therapeutic options, and improved capacity of health systems to manage an influx of patients.”

The lower mortality in hospitalized patients over time may reflect better management of patients over time, but it also highlights the significance of “early introduction of various anti–COVID-19 therapies to prevent clinical deterioration to ICU-level care,” they added.

Also intriguing, according to Dr. Herishanu and Dr. Perry, was the finding of increased secondary infections and death rates among corticosteroid-treatment patients.

In the RECOVERY trial, the use of dexamethasone improved survival in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who received respiratory support. Perhaps the impaired immune reactions in patients with CLL moderate the hyperinflammatory reactions to COVID-19, thus turning corticosteroids beneficial effects to somewhat redundant in this frail population,” they wrote.

Further, the finding that only 60% of patients with CLL seroconvert after the acute phase of SARS-CoV-2 infection suggests CLL patients may be at risk for reinfection, which “justifies vaccinating all patients with CLL who have recovered from COVID-19.”

“Likewise, patients with CLL may develop persistent COVID-19 infection,” they added, explaining that “prolonged shedding of infectious SARS-CoV-2 virus and within-host genomic evolution may eventually lead to emergence of new virus variants.”

Given the high risk of severe COVID-19 disease and impaired antibody-mediated immune response to the virus and its vaccine, a booster dose may be warranted in patients with CLL who fail to achieve seropositivity after 2 vaccine doses, they said.

The available data to date “call for early application of antiviral drugs, [monoclonal antibodies], and convalescent plasma as well as improved vaccination strategy, to improve the odds for patients with CLL confronting COVID-19,” they concluded, adding that large-scale prospective studies on the clinical disease course, outcomes, efficacy of treatments, and vaccination timing and schedule in patients with CLL and COVID-19 are still warranted.

The research was supported by a National Cancer Institute Cancer Center support grant. Dr. Roeker, Dr. Herishanu, and Dr. Perry reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

Motivated, calm, and high-functioning. On the surface, you are the epitome of success. You arrive at work early. You are driven, meet all deadlines and, in fact, excel at tasks. Not only are you successful in your work, but also you appear well put-together – not a single hair out of place. You have a busy social life, always smiling, laughing, or generally in an uplifting mood. On the surface, you have everything together. 

Inside, you’re drowning. You’re in constant survival mode – always overthinking, ruminating, and fearful. Your need for self-preservation is in overdrive. You use your anxiety and fear as motivation. You are a people pleaser, need constant reassurance, and are unable to enjoy the present moment. You have an inability to say no regardless of your overloaded schedule. You are mentally and physically fatigued and overworked beyond the brink of exhaustion. You need to take time off but can’t bring yourself to do so. Others wouldn’t see you in this light because you always appear to be doing well.

The portraits I’ve painted here sound like two different people, but in fact are representative of one. High-functioning anxiety, while not a formal health diagnosis, is a term that broadly encapsulates individuals who experience anxiety but also function well in their day-to-day lives. On the surface, individuals with high-functioning anxiety appear to be “perfect” but in actuality are under constant stress and anxiety in fear of disappointing others. They are perceived as overachievers, but this perception fails to recognize and acknowledge the mental health toll required to achieve at such a high level.

I came across this concept when a friend sent me a post on social media. It was a completely new but oddly familiar concept when I first read about high-functioning anxiety. In fact, I related to this concept almost immediately based on interactions with friends and colleagues, and their recollection of stressors over the years in high-stress, high-functioning environments. 

In addition to personal interactions, I’ve seen anxiety and mental health at large become more “normalized” on various platforms (e.g., Instagram, TikTok) over the years. Interestingly, normalizing these concepts could be beneficial. For example, they increase awareness, encourage conversations (e.g., creating communities), and minimize the barriers toward understanding and respecting individuals who experience high-functioning anxiety. However, social media also has the potential to be harmful (e.g., “humorizing” the concept or turning it into memes, diminishing the experience).

However, the question that nagged at my mind even further was: What reasons are there, if any, for why high-functioning anxiety is not recognized as a formal diagnosis? Is this concept too new? Difficult to diagnose? Anecdotal evidence seems to suggest that high-functioning anxiety is debilitating and impairs one’s quality of life. There appears to be a need to formally recognize this subtype of anxiety and invest more time and research. Increasing the sphere of knowledge may bring more good than harm, as a way to let others know that it’s okay.

Ms. Lui is an MSc candidate at the University of Toronto and is with the mood disorders psychopharmacology unit, Toronto Western Hospital, University Health Network, also in Toronto. She reported receiving income from Braxia Scientific.

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

Motivated, calm, and high-functioning. On the surface, you are the epitome of success. You arrive at work early. You are driven, meet all deadlines and, in fact, excel at tasks. Not only are you successful in your work, but also you appear well put-together – not a single hair out of place. You have a busy social life, always smiling, laughing, or generally in an uplifting mood. On the surface, you have everything together. 

Inside, you’re drowning. You’re in constant survival mode – always overthinking, ruminating, and fearful. Your need for self-preservation is in overdrive. You use your anxiety and fear as motivation. You are a people pleaser, need constant reassurance, and are unable to enjoy the present moment. You have an inability to say no regardless of your overloaded schedule. You are mentally and physically fatigued and overworked beyond the brink of exhaustion. You need to take time off but can’t bring yourself to do so. Others wouldn’t see you in this light because you always appear to be doing well.

The portraits I’ve painted here sound like two different people, but in fact are representative of one. High-functioning anxiety, while not a formal health diagnosis, is a term that broadly encapsulates individuals who experience anxiety but also function well in their day-to-day lives. On the surface, individuals with high-functioning anxiety appear to be “perfect” but in actuality are under constant stress and anxiety in fear of disappointing others. They are perceived as overachievers, but this perception fails to recognize and acknowledge the mental health toll required to achieve at such a high level.

I came across this concept when a friend sent me a post on social media. It was a completely new but oddly familiar concept when I first read about high-functioning anxiety. In fact, I related to this concept almost immediately based on interactions with friends and colleagues, and their recollection of stressors over the years in high-stress, high-functioning environments. 

In addition to personal interactions, I’ve seen anxiety and mental health at large become more “normalized” on various platforms (e.g., Instagram, TikTok) over the years. Interestingly, normalizing these concepts could be beneficial. For example, they increase awareness, encourage conversations (e.g., creating communities), and minimize the barriers toward understanding and respecting individuals who experience high-functioning anxiety. However, social media also has the potential to be harmful (e.g., “humorizing” the concept or turning it into memes, diminishing the experience).

However, the question that nagged at my mind even further was: What reasons are there, if any, for why high-functioning anxiety is not recognized as a formal diagnosis? Is this concept too new? Difficult to diagnose? Anecdotal evidence seems to suggest that high-functioning anxiety is debilitating and impairs one’s quality of life. There appears to be a need to formally recognize this subtype of anxiety and invest more time and research. Increasing the sphere of knowledge may bring more good than harm, as a way to let others know that it’s okay.

Ms. Lui is an MSc candidate at the University of Toronto and is with the mood disorders psychopharmacology unit, Toronto Western Hospital, University Health Network, also in Toronto. She reported receiving income from Braxia Scientific.

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

Motivated, calm, and high-functioning. On the surface, you are the epitome of success. You arrive at work early. You are driven, meet all deadlines and, in fact, excel at tasks. Not only are you successful in your work, but also you appear well put-together – not a single hair out of place. You have a busy social life, always smiling, laughing, or generally in an uplifting mood. On the surface, you have everything together. 

Inside, you’re drowning. You’re in constant survival mode – always overthinking, ruminating, and fearful. Your need for self-preservation is in overdrive. You use your anxiety and fear as motivation. You are a people pleaser, need constant reassurance, and are unable to enjoy the present moment. You have an inability to say no regardless of your overloaded schedule. You are mentally and physically fatigued and overworked beyond the brink of exhaustion. You need to take time off but can’t bring yourself to do so. Others wouldn’t see you in this light because you always appear to be doing well.

The portraits I’ve painted here sound like two different people, but in fact are representative of one. High-functioning anxiety, while not a formal health diagnosis, is a term that broadly encapsulates individuals who experience anxiety but also function well in their day-to-day lives. On the surface, individuals with high-functioning anxiety appear to be “perfect” but in actuality are under constant stress and anxiety in fear of disappointing others. They are perceived as overachievers, but this perception fails to recognize and acknowledge the mental health toll required to achieve at such a high level.

I came across this concept when a friend sent me a post on social media. It was a completely new but oddly familiar concept when I first read about high-functioning anxiety. In fact, I related to this concept almost immediately based on interactions with friends and colleagues, and their recollection of stressors over the years in high-stress, high-functioning environments. 

In addition to personal interactions, I’ve seen anxiety and mental health at large become more “normalized” on various platforms (e.g., Instagram, TikTok) over the years. Interestingly, normalizing these concepts could be beneficial. For example, they increase awareness, encourage conversations (e.g., creating communities), and minimize the barriers toward understanding and respecting individuals who experience high-functioning anxiety. However, social media also has the potential to be harmful (e.g., “humorizing” the concept or turning it into memes, diminishing the experience).

However, the question that nagged at my mind even further was: What reasons are there, if any, for why high-functioning anxiety is not recognized as a formal diagnosis? Is this concept too new? Difficult to diagnose? Anecdotal evidence seems to suggest that high-functioning anxiety is debilitating and impairs one’s quality of life. There appears to be a need to formally recognize this subtype of anxiety and invest more time and research. Increasing the sphere of knowledge may bring more good than harm, as a way to let others know that it’s okay.

Ms. Lui is an MSc candidate at the University of Toronto and is with the mood disorders psychopharmacology unit, Toronto Western Hospital, University Health Network, also in Toronto. She reported receiving income from Braxia Scientific.

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

Background: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common complication that occurs in seriously ill patients admitted to the ICU, and many of these patients eventually require RRT. When complicated by major metabolic disorders, it is usually clear when therapy should be initiated. However, when these complications are absent, the most appropriate time to initiate RRT is unclear. There are potential advantages to performing early RRT in patients with severe AKI, such as restoring acid-base balance, preventing fluid accumulation, and preventing major electrolyte disturbances.

Dr. Kim is a hospitalist in the Division of Hospital Medicine, Mount Sinai Health System, New York.

Background: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common complication that occurs in seriously ill patients admitted to the ICU, and many of these patients eventually require RRT. When complicated by major metabolic disorders, it is usually clear when therapy should be initiated. However, when these complications are absent, the most appropriate time to initiate RRT is unclear. There are potential advantages to performing early RRT in patients with severe AKI, such as restoring acid-base balance, preventing fluid accumulation, and preventing major electrolyte disturbances.

Dr. Kim is a hospitalist in the Division of Hospital Medicine, Mount Sinai Health System, New York.

Background: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common complication that occurs in seriously ill patients admitted to the ICU, and many of these patients eventually require RRT. When complicated by major metabolic disorders, it is usually clear when therapy should be initiated. However, when these complications are absent, the most appropriate time to initiate RRT is unclear. There are potential advantages to performing early RRT in patients with severe AKI, such as restoring acid-base balance, preventing fluid accumulation, and preventing major electrolyte disturbances.

Dr. Kim is a hospitalist in the Division of Hospital Medicine, Mount Sinai Health System, New York.

Higher resting heart rate (RHR) is associated with increased risk for dementia and accelerated cognitive decline in older adults, independent of the presence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors, new research shows.

“RHR is easy to measure and might be used to identify older people potentially at high risk of dementia and cognitive decline for early interventions,” Yume Imahori, MD, PhD, with the Aging Research Center, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, said in an interview.

“Health care professionals should be aware of potential cognitive consequences associated with elevated RHR in older people and may advise older people with high RHR to have a follow-up assessment of cognitive function,” Dr. Imahori said.

The study was published online Dec. 3, 2021, in Alzheimer’s & Dementia.
 

Heart-brain connection

The findings are based on 2,147 adults (62% women) aged 60 years and older (mean age, 70.6 years) from the population-based Swedish National Aging and Care in Kungsholmen (SNAC-K) study. All were free of dementia at baseline and were followed regularly from 2001-2004 to 2013-2016.

The average RHR at baseline was 65.7 bpm. Individuals in higher RHR groups were older, less educated, and were more likely to be smokers and sedentary and to have hypertension. There were no differences among RHR groups in the prevalence of CVD at baseline.

During a median follow-up of 11.4 years, 289 participants were diagnosed with dementia.

In the fully adjusted model, participants with RHR of 80 bpm or higher had a 55% increased risk of developing dementia, compared with peers with lower RHR of 60 to 69 bpm (hazard ratio, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.06-2.27).

“This association was not due to underlying cardiovascular diseases such as atrial fibrillation and heart failure, which is important because elevated RHR is often related to heart disease,” Dr. Imahori said in an interview.

Regarding cognitive function, Mini-Mental State Examination scores declined over time during the follow-up period in all RHR groups, but participants with RHR 70-79 and 80+ bpm had a greater decline, compared with those with lower RHR of 60-69 bpm.

Dr. Imahori said these findings are in line with data from the U.S. Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study linking elevated RHR of 80+ bpm in midlife to dementia and cognitive decline in late life.
 

Public health implications

Reached for comment, Claire Sexton, DPhil, Alzheimer’s Association director of scientific programs and outreach, said this study adds to the “growing body of research showing the health of the heart and brain are closely connected. However, this study only shows a correlation between resting heart rate and cognition, not causation. More research is needed.

“Evidence shows that other risk factors for cardiovascular disease and stroke – obesity, high blood pressure, and diabetes – negatively impact your cognitive health,” Dr. Sexton said in an interview.

“The Alzheimer’s Association believes the conversation about heart health management is something everyone should be having with their doctor,” she said.

“There are things you can do today to lower your risk for cardiovascular disease, including regular exercise and maintaining a healthy diet. Improving your heart health is an important step to maintaining your brain health as you age,” Dr. Sexton added.

SNAC-K is supported by the Swedish Ministry of Health and Social Affairs and the participating county councils and municipalities and in part by additional grants from the Swedish Research Council and the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare. Dr. Imahori and Dr. Sexton disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Higher resting heart rate (RHR) is associated with increased risk for dementia and accelerated cognitive decline in older adults, independent of the presence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors, new research shows.

“RHR is easy to measure and might be used to identify older people potentially at high risk of dementia and cognitive decline for early interventions,” Yume Imahori, MD, PhD, with the Aging Research Center, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, said in an interview.

“Health care professionals should be aware of potential cognitive consequences associated with elevated RHR in older people and may advise older people with high RHR to have a follow-up assessment of cognitive function,” Dr. Imahori said.

The study was published online Dec. 3, 2021, in Alzheimer’s & Dementia.
 

Heart-brain connection

The findings are based on 2,147 adults (62% women) aged 60 years and older (mean age, 70.6 years) from the population-based Swedish National Aging and Care in Kungsholmen (SNAC-K) study. All were free of dementia at baseline and were followed regularly from 2001-2004 to 2013-2016.

The average RHR at baseline was 65.7 bpm. Individuals in higher RHR groups were older, less educated, and were more likely to be smokers and sedentary and to have hypertension. There were no differences among RHR groups in the prevalence of CVD at baseline.

During a median follow-up of 11.4 years, 289 participants were diagnosed with dementia.

In the fully adjusted model, participants with RHR of 80 bpm or higher had a 55% increased risk of developing dementia, compared with peers with lower RHR of 60 to 69 bpm (hazard ratio, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.06-2.27).

“This association was not due to underlying cardiovascular diseases such as atrial fibrillation and heart failure, which is important because elevated RHR is often related to heart disease,” Dr. Imahori said in an interview.

Regarding cognitive function, Mini-Mental State Examination scores declined over time during the follow-up period in all RHR groups, but participants with RHR 70-79 and 80+ bpm had a greater decline, compared with those with lower RHR of 60-69 bpm.

Dr. Imahori said these findings are in line with data from the U.S. Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study linking elevated RHR of 80+ bpm in midlife to dementia and cognitive decline in late life.
 

Public health implications

Reached for comment, Claire Sexton, DPhil, Alzheimer’s Association director of scientific programs and outreach, said this study adds to the “growing body of research showing the health of the heart and brain are closely connected. However, this study only shows a correlation between resting heart rate and cognition, not causation. More research is needed.

“Evidence shows that other risk factors for cardiovascular disease and stroke – obesity, high blood pressure, and diabetes – negatively impact your cognitive health,” Dr. Sexton said in an interview.

“The Alzheimer’s Association believes the conversation about heart health management is something everyone should be having with their doctor,” she said.

“There are things you can do today to lower your risk for cardiovascular disease, including regular exercise and maintaining a healthy diet. Improving your heart health is an important step to maintaining your brain health as you age,” Dr. Sexton added.

SNAC-K is supported by the Swedish Ministry of Health and Social Affairs and the participating county councils and municipalities and in part by additional grants from the Swedish Research Council and the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare. Dr. Imahori and Dr. Sexton disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Higher resting heart rate (RHR) is associated with increased risk for dementia and accelerated cognitive decline in older adults, independent of the presence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors, new research shows.

“RHR is easy to measure and might be used to identify older people potentially at high risk of dementia and cognitive decline for early interventions,” Yume Imahori, MD, PhD, with the Aging Research Center, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, said in an interview.

“Health care professionals should be aware of potential cognitive consequences associated with elevated RHR in older people and may advise older people with high RHR to have a follow-up assessment of cognitive function,” Dr. Imahori said.

The study was published online Dec. 3, 2021, in Alzheimer’s & Dementia.
 

Heart-brain connection

The findings are based on 2,147 adults (62% women) aged 60 years and older (mean age, 70.6 years) from the population-based Swedish National Aging and Care in Kungsholmen (SNAC-K) study. All were free of dementia at baseline and were followed regularly from 2001-2004 to 2013-2016.

The average RHR at baseline was 65.7 bpm. Individuals in higher RHR groups were older, less educated, and were more likely to be smokers and sedentary and to have hypertension. There were no differences among RHR groups in the prevalence of CVD at baseline.

During a median follow-up of 11.4 years, 289 participants were diagnosed with dementia.

In the fully adjusted model, participants with RHR of 80 bpm or higher had a 55% increased risk of developing dementia, compared with peers with lower RHR of 60 to 69 bpm (hazard ratio, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.06-2.27).

“This association was not due to underlying cardiovascular diseases such as atrial fibrillation and heart failure, which is important because elevated RHR is often related to heart disease,” Dr. Imahori said in an interview.

Regarding cognitive function, Mini-Mental State Examination scores declined over time during the follow-up period in all RHR groups, but participants with RHR 70-79 and 80+ bpm had a greater decline, compared with those with lower RHR of 60-69 bpm.

Dr. Imahori said these findings are in line with data from the U.S. Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study linking elevated RHR of 80+ bpm in midlife to dementia and cognitive decline in late life.
 

Public health implications

Reached for comment, Claire Sexton, DPhil, Alzheimer’s Association director of scientific programs and outreach, said this study adds to the “growing body of research showing the health of the heart and brain are closely connected. However, this study only shows a correlation between resting heart rate and cognition, not causation. More research is needed.

“Evidence shows that other risk factors for cardiovascular disease and stroke – obesity, high blood pressure, and diabetes – negatively impact your cognitive health,” Dr. Sexton said in an interview.

“The Alzheimer’s Association believes the conversation about heart health management is something everyone should be having with their doctor,” she said.

“There are things you can do today to lower your risk for cardiovascular disease, including regular exercise and maintaining a healthy diet. Improving your heart health is an important step to maintaining your brain health as you age,” Dr. Sexton added.

SNAC-K is supported by the Swedish Ministry of Health and Social Affairs and the participating county councils and municipalities and in part by additional grants from the Swedish Research Council and the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare. Dr. Imahori and Dr. Sexton disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Younger patients with two genetic subtypes of diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) – specifically MCD and N1 – show substantial improvements in survival with the addition of ibrutinib to standard R-CHOP chemotherapy, compared with R-CHOP alone, new research shows.

The findings, published Nov. 4, 2021, in Cancer Cell, come from a subanalysis of the phase 3 Phoenix trial. They show that patients with DLBCL aged 60 and younger with either the MCD or N1 genetic subtype had 3-year event-free survival rates as high as 100% when treated with ibrutinib plus R-CHOP, whereas with R-CHOP chemotherapy alone, the survival rates were approximately half of that rate.

“A 100% 3-year event-free survival is almost unheard-of in DLBCL and speaks to the intense dependency of these subtypes to constitutive B cell receptor signaling and their vulnerability to ibrutinib,” first author Louis M. Staudt, MD, of the Lymphoid Malignancies Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., said in an interview.

“By contrast, in ABC DLBCL, the addition of ibrutinib to R-CHOP increased event-free survival by 12.4% to 76.9% in younger patients,” Dr. Staudt said.

ABC, along with GCB and unclassified, are among three key genetic classifications of DLBCL, which is the most common type of lymphoma. While previous studies have shown the Bruton kinase (BTK) inhibitor ibrutinib to induce very low responses among those with the GCB type, favorable responses are seen with the ABC type, of which MCD and N1 are genetic subtypes.

For the Phoenix trial, 838 previously untreated DLBCL patients of the ABC subtype were randomized to ibrutinib (560 mg per day, orally) or placebo plus R-CHOP, in a 21-day cycle for 6 or 8 cycles.

In the overall population, the study failed to achieve its primary survival endpoint of improved survival with ibrutinib. However, a subset analysis stratifying patients by age revealed significant event-free, progression-free, and overall survival benefits with ibrutinib among patients aged 60 and under, with manageable safety. Unexpectedly, this treatment was associated with a worsening of survival outcomes among patients over 60, due to toxicities.

In the new subanalysis, focusing on patients aged 60 and under, Dr. Staudt and his colleagues found that those with the MCD subtype of ABC DLBCL (n = 31) who were treated with ibrutinib had 3-year event-free survival and overall survival rates as high as 100% each, while these rates were significantly lower with R-CHOP alone (48%; P = .01, and 69.6%; P = .032, respectively).

Likewise, among younger patients with the N1 subtype (n = 13), the addition of ibrutinib was associated 3-year event-free and overall survival of 100%, while the R-CHOP alone patients had a significantly lower event-free- (50%; P = .0161) and overall survival (50%; P = .0134).

In the study in general, younger patients who were neither MCD nor N1 also showed better responses with ibrutinib versus placebo; however, the effects were not as strong as those with the MCD and N1 genetic subtypes.

Older patients over 60 showed no benefit from ibrutinib, regardless of their genetic subtype. And benefits were not observed in younger patients with BN2 DLBCL (n = 21), another ABC subtype.

The results are important – despite being secondary endpoints, Dr. Staudt emphasized.

“The automatic assumption regarding secondary endpoints is that any positive findings might have occurred by chance. In the present study, we show that this is not the case.”

“Rather, two previously defined genetic subtypes of DLBCL had an exceptional benefit from ibrutinib,” he said.

“Our study provides strong biological support for the view that the original Phoenix trial should be viewed as a positive trial for younger patients (under 60) with non-GCB DLBCL,” Dr. Staudt said.

While the responses to ibrutinib among younger ABC patients in general were not as robust as with the MCD and N1 subtypes, those improvements nevertheless suggest important benefit with the added treatment, he noted.

“Overall, MCD and N1 constitute roughly 10% of DLBCLs; however, our conclusion is that ibrutinib should be considered in younger patients with non-GCB DLBCL, which constitutes roughly 43% of all DLBCLs,” he said.

Dr. Staudt and other authors are inventors on NIH patent applications covering the LymphGen algorithm (a genetic predictor tool) and covering the use of BTK inhibitors in genetic subtypes of DLBCL. The Phoenix trial received support from Janssen Global Services.

Younger patients with two genetic subtypes of diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) – specifically MCD and N1 – show substantial improvements in survival with the addition of ibrutinib to standard R-CHOP chemotherapy, compared with R-CHOP alone, new research shows.

The findings, published Nov. 4, 2021, in Cancer Cell, come from a subanalysis of the phase 3 Phoenix trial. They show that patients with DLBCL aged 60 and younger with either the MCD or N1 genetic subtype had 3-year event-free survival rates as high as 100% when treated with ibrutinib plus R-CHOP, whereas with R-CHOP chemotherapy alone, the survival rates were approximately half of that rate.

“A 100% 3-year event-free survival is almost unheard-of in DLBCL and speaks to the intense dependency of these subtypes to constitutive B cell receptor signaling and their vulnerability to ibrutinib,” first author Louis M. Staudt, MD, of the Lymphoid Malignancies Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., said in an interview.

“By contrast, in ABC DLBCL, the addition of ibrutinib to R-CHOP increased event-free survival by 12.4% to 76.9% in younger patients,” Dr. Staudt said.

ABC, along with GCB and unclassified, are among three key genetic classifications of DLBCL, which is the most common type of lymphoma. While previous studies have shown the Bruton kinase (BTK) inhibitor ibrutinib to induce very low responses among those with the GCB type, favorable responses are seen with the ABC type, of which MCD and N1 are genetic subtypes.

For the Phoenix trial, 838 previously untreated DLBCL patients of the ABC subtype were randomized to ibrutinib (560 mg per day, orally) or placebo plus R-CHOP, in a 21-day cycle for 6 or 8 cycles.

In the overall population, the study failed to achieve its primary survival endpoint of improved survival with ibrutinib. However, a subset analysis stratifying patients by age revealed significant event-free, progression-free, and overall survival benefits with ibrutinib among patients aged 60 and under, with manageable safety. Unexpectedly, this treatment was associated with a worsening of survival outcomes among patients over 60, due to toxicities.

In the new subanalysis, focusing on patients aged 60 and under, Dr. Staudt and his colleagues found that those with the MCD subtype of ABC DLBCL (n = 31) who were treated with ibrutinib had 3-year event-free survival and overall survival rates as high as 100% each, while these rates were significantly lower with R-CHOP alone (48%; P = .01, and 69.6%; P = .032, respectively).

Likewise, among younger patients with the N1 subtype (n = 13), the addition of ibrutinib was associated 3-year event-free and overall survival of 100%, while the R-CHOP alone patients had a significantly lower event-free- (50%; P = .0161) and overall survival (50%; P = .0134).

In the study in general, younger patients who were neither MCD nor N1 also showed better responses with ibrutinib versus placebo; however, the effects were not as strong as those with the MCD and N1 genetic subtypes.

Older patients over 60 showed no benefit from ibrutinib, regardless of their genetic subtype. And benefits were not observed in younger patients with BN2 DLBCL (n = 21), another ABC subtype.

The results are important – despite being secondary endpoints, Dr. Staudt emphasized.

“The automatic assumption regarding secondary endpoints is that any positive findings might have occurred by chance. In the present study, we show that this is not the case.”

“Rather, two previously defined genetic subtypes of DLBCL had an exceptional benefit from ibrutinib,” he said.

“Our study provides strong biological support for the view that the original Phoenix trial should be viewed as a positive trial for younger patients (under 60) with non-GCB DLBCL,” Dr. Staudt said.

While the responses to ibrutinib among younger ABC patients in general were not as robust as with the MCD and N1 subtypes, those improvements nevertheless suggest important benefit with the added treatment, he noted.

“Overall, MCD and N1 constitute roughly 10% of DLBCLs; however, our conclusion is that ibrutinib should be considered in younger patients with non-GCB DLBCL, which constitutes roughly 43% of all DLBCLs,” he said.

Dr. Staudt and other authors are inventors on NIH patent applications covering the LymphGen algorithm (a genetic predictor tool) and covering the use of BTK inhibitors in genetic subtypes of DLBCL. The Phoenix trial received support from Janssen Global Services.

Younger patients with two genetic subtypes of diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) – specifically MCD and N1 – show substantial improvements in survival with the addition of ibrutinib to standard R-CHOP chemotherapy, compared with R-CHOP alone, new research shows.

The findings, published Nov. 4, 2021, in Cancer Cell, come from a subanalysis of the phase 3 Phoenix trial. They show that patients with DLBCL aged 60 and younger with either the MCD or N1 genetic subtype had 3-year event-free survival rates as high as 100% when treated with ibrutinib plus R-CHOP, whereas with R-CHOP chemotherapy alone, the survival rates were approximately half of that rate.

“A 100% 3-year event-free survival is almost unheard-of in DLBCL and speaks to the intense dependency of these subtypes to constitutive B cell receptor signaling and their vulnerability to ibrutinib,” first author Louis M. Staudt, MD, of the Lymphoid Malignancies Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., said in an interview.

“By contrast, in ABC DLBCL, the addition of ibrutinib to R-CHOP increased event-free survival by 12.4% to 76.9% in younger patients,” Dr. Staudt said.

ABC, along with GCB and unclassified, are among three key genetic classifications of DLBCL, which is the most common type of lymphoma. While previous studies have shown the Bruton kinase (BTK) inhibitor ibrutinib to induce very low responses among those with the GCB type, favorable responses are seen with the ABC type, of which MCD and N1 are genetic subtypes.

For the Phoenix trial, 838 previously untreated DLBCL patients of the ABC subtype were randomized to ibrutinib (560 mg per day, orally) or placebo plus R-CHOP, in a 21-day cycle for 6 or 8 cycles.

In the overall population, the study failed to achieve its primary survival endpoint of improved survival with ibrutinib. However, a subset analysis stratifying patients by age revealed significant event-free, progression-free, and overall survival benefits with ibrutinib among patients aged 60 and under, with manageable safety. Unexpectedly, this treatment was associated with a worsening of survival outcomes among patients over 60, due to toxicities.

In the new subanalysis, focusing on patients aged 60 and under, Dr. Staudt and his colleagues found that those with the MCD subtype of ABC DLBCL (n = 31) who were treated with ibrutinib had 3-year event-free survival and overall survival rates as high as 100% each, while these rates were significantly lower with R-CHOP alone (48%; P = .01, and 69.6%; P = .032, respectively).

Likewise, among younger patients with the N1 subtype (n = 13), the addition of ibrutinib was associated 3-year event-free and overall survival of 100%, while the R-CHOP alone patients had a significantly lower event-free- (50%; P = .0161) and overall survival (50%; P = .0134).

In the study in general, younger patients who were neither MCD nor N1 also showed better responses with ibrutinib versus placebo; however, the effects were not as strong as those with the MCD and N1 genetic subtypes.

Older patients over 60 showed no benefit from ibrutinib, regardless of their genetic subtype. And benefits were not observed in younger patients with BN2 DLBCL (n = 21), another ABC subtype.

The results are important – despite being secondary endpoints, Dr. Staudt emphasized.

“The automatic assumption regarding secondary endpoints is that any positive findings might have occurred by chance. In the present study, we show that this is not the case.”

“Rather, two previously defined genetic subtypes of DLBCL had an exceptional benefit from ibrutinib,” he said.

“Our study provides strong biological support for the view that the original Phoenix trial should be viewed as a positive trial for younger patients (under 60) with non-GCB DLBCL,” Dr. Staudt said.

While the responses to ibrutinib among younger ABC patients in general were not as robust as with the MCD and N1 subtypes, those improvements nevertheless suggest important benefit with the added treatment, he noted.

“Overall, MCD and N1 constitute roughly 10% of DLBCLs; however, our conclusion is that ibrutinib should be considered in younger patients with non-GCB DLBCL, which constitutes roughly 43% of all DLBCLs,” he said.

Dr. Staudt and other authors are inventors on NIH patent applications covering the LymphGen algorithm (a genetic predictor tool) and covering the use of BTK inhibitors in genetic subtypes of DLBCL. The Phoenix trial received support from Janssen Global Services.

Microneedling is a safe and effective adjuvant to topical therapies for melasma, with optimal results typically seen at 12 weeks, results from a combined systematic review and meta-analysis suggest.

“Microneedling has a similar efficacy to other drug delivery methods, such as CO₂ laser or intradermal microinjections, for the treatment of melasma,” presenting author Marcus G. Tan, MD, said during a virtual abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery. “When used in combination with topical depigmenting therapies, microneedling also demonstrated superior efficacy and a more favorable safety profile compared to oral tranexamic acid.”

For the study, Dr. Tan, a 5-year dermatology resident at the University of Ottawa, and colleagues searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials using the keywords “melasma” and “microneedling.” They limited their analysis to prospective, comparative studies incorporating the use of microneedling in the treatment of melasma and excluded those involving radiofrequency. The primary outcome was improvement in melasma severity, evaluated through the Melasma Area and Severity Index (MASI). The secondary outcomes were improvement in patient satisfaction, quality of life, and any reported adverse events.

Twelve studies involving 459 patients from seven countries were included in the final analysis. Of these, seven were randomized controlled studies and five were nonrandomized split-face studies. Topical treatments used in the studies included tranexamic acid (TXA), vitamin C, platelet-rich plasma, and hydroquinone-based depigmenting serums such as rucinol, sophora-alpha, and N-acetyl glucosamine. Of the 12 studies, 4 used mechanical microneedling and 8 used electric repeating microneedling. The most common needle length used was 1.5 mm, with a range from 0.1 to 1.5 mm, depending on the anatomic site treated. Topical anesthesia was applied 30-60 minutes prior to treatment. Treatment intervals were 2-4 weeks apart.

Their analysis found that microneedling alone resulted in a 23%-29% improvement in MASI. “Across all studies, adding topical therapies resulted in greater improvements in melasma severity, with a moderate effect at 8 weeks and a large effect at 12-16 weeks,” Dr. Tan said. “This also translated to higher patient satisfaction scores and improved patient-reported quality of life.”

A split-face study in the analysis, which compared topical TXA with microneedling to topical TXA with fractional CO₂ laser, found that both approaches had similar efficacy and rates of adverse events. Another split-face study that evaluated recalcitrant melasma found that adding vitamin C with microneedling to a nonablative Q-switched Nd:YAG laser resulted in a further 38.3% greater improvement in MASI and a 12.5% lower recurrence rate at 6 months.

In two other studies, researchers compared microneedling to intradermal microinjections to deliver platelet-rich plasma or topical TXA. Both modalities were found to have similar efficacy. “However, microneedling was found to be better tolerated and had higher patient satisfaction as a result,” Dr. Tan said.

A separate analysis found that Tri-Luma (fluocinolone acetonide, hydroquinone, and tretinoin) cream with microneedling outperformed Tri-Luma plus oral TXA in terms of efficacy, patient satisfaction, and tolerability. “Interestingly, adding oral TXA to Tri-Luma with microneedling did not lead to further improvements,” Dr. Tan said.

The researchers found that microneedling was well tolerated in all 12 studies. Overall, no scarring or serious adverse events were reported. Mild-transient dyspigmentation occurred in 5%-12% of cases and herpes simplex virus reactivation was seen in a minority of patients.

Dr. Tan commented on three proposed mechanisms of action, which support the efficacy of microneedling for the treatment of melasma. “First, microneedling assists in the transcutaneous delivery of topical agents through the micropores,” he said. “Second, microneedling also assists in the transcutaneous elimination of melanin and other skin debris through the micropores. Third, the microinjuries stimulate the wound healing response, resulting in neocollagenesis, neoelastogenesis, and epidermal thickening.”

In an interview, Dr. Tan acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the pooling of randomized and nonrandomized studies in the final meta-analysis, the heterogeneity in the treatment protocols and devices used, as well as the inclusion of studies with a moderate risk of bias. “Nonetheless, these limitations do not affect the conclusion that microneedling is a useful and safe adjuvant to topical therapies for melasma,” he said.

Catherine M. DiGiorgio, MD, who was asked to comment on the study, noted that melasma is a notoriously difficult condition to treat. “Many energy-based device treatments as well as other therapies have been proposed for treatment over the years. However, none have shown reliable, reproducible, and most importantly long-lasting results,” said Dr. DiGiorgio, a laser and cosmetic dermatologist at The Boston Center for Facial Rejuvenation. “Caution should be employed regarding the true efficacy of treatments for other than, at best, temporary results.”

The review included numerous studies without a clear definition of the strengths or methodologies of the studies, she added, noting that randomized controlled split-face studies with long-term follow up are the best way to assess the efficacy of treatments. “Further, regarding drug delivery, microneedling is the least effective method of delivery of drugs to the skin and laser-assisted drug delivery using ablative fractional lasers is the most effective. As with all melasma treatments, healthy skepticism is never a bad approach.”

Dr. Tan reported having no financial disclosures. Dr. DiGiorgio disclosed that she conducts research for Quthero Inc., and holds stock in the company.

[email protected]

Microneedling is a safe and effective adjuvant to topical therapies for melasma, with optimal results typically seen at 12 weeks, results from a combined systematic review and meta-analysis suggest.

“Microneedling has a similar efficacy to other drug delivery methods, such as CO₂ laser or intradermal microinjections, for the treatment of melasma,” presenting author Marcus G. Tan, MD, said during a virtual abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery. “When used in combination with topical depigmenting therapies, microneedling also demonstrated superior efficacy and a more favorable safety profile compared to oral tranexamic acid.”

For the study, Dr. Tan, a 5-year dermatology resident at the University of Ottawa, and colleagues searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials using the keywords “melasma” and “microneedling.” They limited their analysis to prospective, comparative studies incorporating the use of microneedling in the treatment of melasma and excluded those involving radiofrequency. The primary outcome was improvement in melasma severity, evaluated through the Melasma Area and Severity Index (MASI). The secondary outcomes were improvement in patient satisfaction, quality of life, and any reported adverse events.

Twelve studies involving 459 patients from seven countries were included in the final analysis. Of these, seven were randomized controlled studies and five were nonrandomized split-face studies. Topical treatments used in the studies included tranexamic acid (TXA), vitamin C, platelet-rich plasma, and hydroquinone-based depigmenting serums such as rucinol, sophora-alpha, and N-acetyl glucosamine. Of the 12 studies, 4 used mechanical microneedling and 8 used electric repeating microneedling. The most common needle length used was 1.5 mm, with a range from 0.1 to 1.5 mm, depending on the anatomic site treated. Topical anesthesia was applied 30-60 minutes prior to treatment. Treatment intervals were 2-4 weeks apart.

Their analysis found that microneedling alone resulted in a 23%-29% improvement in MASI. “Across all studies, adding topical therapies resulted in greater improvements in melasma severity, with a moderate effect at 8 weeks and a large effect at 12-16 weeks,” Dr. Tan said. “This also translated to higher patient satisfaction scores and improved patient-reported quality of life.”

A split-face study in the analysis, which compared topical TXA with microneedling to topical TXA with fractional CO₂ laser, found that both approaches had similar efficacy and rates of adverse events. Another split-face study that evaluated recalcitrant melasma found that adding vitamin C with microneedling to a nonablative Q-switched Nd:YAG laser resulted in a further 38.3% greater improvement in MASI and a 12.5% lower recurrence rate at 6 months.

In two other studies, researchers compared microneedling to intradermal microinjections to deliver platelet-rich plasma or topical TXA. Both modalities were found to have similar efficacy. “However, microneedling was found to be better tolerated and had higher patient satisfaction as a result,” Dr. Tan said.

A separate analysis found that Tri-Luma (fluocinolone acetonide, hydroquinone, and tretinoin) cream with microneedling outperformed Tri-Luma plus oral TXA in terms of efficacy, patient satisfaction, and tolerability. “Interestingly, adding oral TXA to Tri-Luma with microneedling did not lead to further improvements,” Dr. Tan said.

The researchers found that microneedling was well tolerated in all 12 studies. Overall, no scarring or serious adverse events were reported. Mild-transient dyspigmentation occurred in 5%-12% of cases and herpes simplex virus reactivation was seen in a minority of patients.

Dr. Tan commented on three proposed mechanisms of action, which support the efficacy of microneedling for the treatment of melasma. “First, microneedling assists in the transcutaneous delivery of topical agents through the micropores,” he said. “Second, microneedling also assists in the transcutaneous elimination of melanin and other skin debris through the micropores. Third, the microinjuries stimulate the wound healing response, resulting in neocollagenesis, neoelastogenesis, and epidermal thickening.”

In an interview, Dr. Tan acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the pooling of randomized and nonrandomized studies in the final meta-analysis, the heterogeneity in the treatment protocols and devices used, as well as the inclusion of studies with a moderate risk of bias. “Nonetheless, these limitations do not affect the conclusion that microneedling is a useful and safe adjuvant to topical therapies for melasma,” he said.

Catherine M. DiGiorgio, MD, who was asked to comment on the study, noted that melasma is a notoriously difficult condition to treat. “Many energy-based device treatments as well as other therapies have been proposed for treatment over the years. However, none have shown reliable, reproducible, and most importantly long-lasting results,” said Dr. DiGiorgio, a laser and cosmetic dermatologist at The Boston Center for Facial Rejuvenation. “Caution should be employed regarding the true efficacy of treatments for other than, at best, temporary results.”

The review included numerous studies without a clear definition of the strengths or methodologies of the studies, she added, noting that randomized controlled split-face studies with long-term follow up are the best way to assess the efficacy of treatments. “Further, regarding drug delivery, microneedling is the least effective method of delivery of drugs to the skin and laser-assisted drug delivery using ablative fractional lasers is the most effective. As with all melasma treatments, healthy skepticism is never a bad approach.”

Dr. Tan reported having no financial disclosures. Dr. DiGiorgio disclosed that she conducts research for Quthero Inc., and holds stock in the company.

[email protected]

Microneedling is a safe and effective adjuvant to topical therapies for melasma, with optimal results typically seen at 12 weeks, results from a combined systematic review and meta-analysis suggest.

“Microneedling has a similar efficacy to other drug delivery methods, such as CO₂ laser or intradermal microinjections, for the treatment of melasma,” presenting author Marcus G. Tan, MD, said during a virtual abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery. “When used in combination with topical depigmenting therapies, microneedling also demonstrated superior efficacy and a more favorable safety profile compared to oral tranexamic acid.”

For the study, Dr. Tan, a 5-year dermatology resident at the University of Ottawa, and colleagues searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials using the keywords “melasma” and “microneedling.” They limited their analysis to prospective, comparative studies incorporating the use of microneedling in the treatment of melasma and excluded those involving radiofrequency. The primary outcome was improvement in melasma severity, evaluated through the Melasma Area and Severity Index (MASI). The secondary outcomes were improvement in patient satisfaction, quality of life, and any reported adverse events.

Twelve studies involving 459 patients from seven countries were included in the final analysis. Of these, seven were randomized controlled studies and five were nonrandomized split-face studies. Topical treatments used in the studies included tranexamic acid (TXA), vitamin C, platelet-rich plasma, and hydroquinone-based depigmenting serums such as rucinol, sophora-alpha, and N-acetyl glucosamine. Of the 12 studies, 4 used mechanical microneedling and 8 used electric repeating microneedling. The most common needle length used was 1.5 mm, with a range from 0.1 to 1.5 mm, depending on the anatomic site treated. Topical anesthesia was applied 30-60 minutes prior to treatment. Treatment intervals were 2-4 weeks apart.

Their analysis found that microneedling alone resulted in a 23%-29% improvement in MASI. “Across all studies, adding topical therapies resulted in greater improvements in melasma severity, with a moderate effect at 8 weeks and a large effect at 12-16 weeks,” Dr. Tan said. “This also translated to higher patient satisfaction scores and improved patient-reported quality of life.”

A split-face study in the analysis, which compared topical TXA with microneedling to topical TXA with fractional CO₂ laser, found that both approaches had similar efficacy and rates of adverse events. Another split-face study that evaluated recalcitrant melasma found that adding vitamin C with microneedling to a nonablative Q-switched Nd:YAG laser resulted in a further 38.3% greater improvement in MASI and a 12.5% lower recurrence rate at 6 months.

In two other studies, researchers compared microneedling to intradermal microinjections to deliver platelet-rich plasma or topical TXA. Both modalities were found to have similar efficacy. “However, microneedling was found to be better tolerated and had higher patient satisfaction as a result,” Dr. Tan said.

A separate analysis found that Tri-Luma (fluocinolone acetonide, hydroquinone, and tretinoin) cream with microneedling outperformed Tri-Luma plus oral TXA in terms of efficacy, patient satisfaction, and tolerability. “Interestingly, adding oral TXA to Tri-Luma with microneedling did not lead to further improvements,” Dr. Tan said.

The researchers found that microneedling was well tolerated in all 12 studies. Overall, no scarring or serious adverse events were reported. Mild-transient dyspigmentation occurred in 5%-12% of cases and herpes simplex virus reactivation was seen in a minority of patients.

Dr. Tan commented on three proposed mechanisms of action, which support the efficacy of microneedling for the treatment of melasma. “First, microneedling assists in the transcutaneous delivery of topical agents through the micropores,” he said. “Second, microneedling also assists in the transcutaneous elimination of melanin and other skin debris through the micropores. Third, the microinjuries stimulate the wound healing response, resulting in neocollagenesis, neoelastogenesis, and epidermal thickening.”

In an interview, Dr. Tan acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the pooling of randomized and nonrandomized studies in the final meta-analysis, the heterogeneity in the treatment protocols and devices used, as well as the inclusion of studies with a moderate risk of bias. “Nonetheless, these limitations do not affect the conclusion that microneedling is a useful and safe adjuvant to topical therapies for melasma,” he said.

Catherine M. DiGiorgio, MD, who was asked to comment on the study, noted that melasma is a notoriously difficult condition to treat. “Many energy-based device treatments as well as other therapies have been proposed for treatment over the years. However, none have shown reliable, reproducible, and most importantly long-lasting results,” said Dr. DiGiorgio, a laser and cosmetic dermatologist at The Boston Center for Facial Rejuvenation. “Caution should be employed regarding the true efficacy of treatments for other than, at best, temporary results.”

The review included numerous studies without a clear definition of the strengths or methodologies of the studies, she added, noting that randomized controlled split-face studies with long-term follow up are the best way to assess the efficacy of treatments. “Further, regarding drug delivery, microneedling is the least effective method of delivery of drugs to the skin and laser-assisted drug delivery using ablative fractional lasers is the most effective. As with all melasma treatments, healthy skepticism is never a bad approach.”

Dr. Tan reported having no financial disclosures. Dr. DiGiorgio disclosed that she conducts research for Quthero Inc., and holds stock in the company.

[email protected]

What are the major manifestations of congenital rubella syndrome?

Continue to the answer...

Rubella is one of the most highly teratogenic of all the viral infections, particularly when maternal infection occurs in the first trimester. Manifestations of congenital rubella include hearing deficits, cataracts, glaucoma, microcephaly, mental retardation, cardiac malformations such as patent ductus arteriosus and pulmonic stenosis, and growth restriction.

What are the major manifestations of congenital rubella syndrome?

Continue to the answer...

Rubella is one of the most highly teratogenic of all the viral infections, particularly when maternal infection occurs in the first trimester. Manifestations of congenital rubella include hearing deficits, cataracts, glaucoma, microcephaly, mental retardation, cardiac malformations such as patent ductus arteriosus and pulmonic stenosis, and growth restriction.

What are the major manifestations of congenital rubella syndrome?

Continue to the answer...

Rubella is one of the most highly teratogenic of all the viral infections, particularly when maternal infection occurs in the first trimester. Manifestations of congenital rubella include hearing deficits, cataracts, glaucoma, microcephaly, mental retardation, cardiac malformations such as patent ductus arteriosus and pulmonic stenosis, and growth restriction.

Pinker or redder actinic keratoses (AKs) indicate greater inflammation, according to a retrospective study that analyzed images and histopathology slides of 49 actinic keratosis lesions.

Data suggest that up to 65% of squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs) were at some point diagnosed as AKs, wrote Jessica G. Labadie, MD, of the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, and colleagues. Early identification of AKs is important to prevent progression to SCCs; previous studies have used histology or morphology, but not color, to characterize AK lesions, they said. In the study published in Dermatologic Surgery, the researchers analyzed images and histopathology slides to characterize AKs by color and to examine associations with inflammation and vasculature. They identified AKs from patients diagnosed between January 2018 and October 2019. The lesions were classified as white (4), brown (9), red (15), or pink (21).

Overall, white AKs had an absence of erythema and were significantly less likely to show inflammation on histopathology, compared with other colors. Brown AKs showed no significant increase in vascularity, but were significantly associated with pigment incontinence, basilar pigment presence, and absence of inflammation.

Notably, dermoscopy of red AKs revealed a distinctive polymorphous vessel pattern in most samples, as well as erythema in all. Similarly, all pink AKs showed erythema, and all showed inflammatory infiltrate on histology, although most did not show increased vascularity.

For all colors of AKs, there was a significant association between the presence of erythema on dermoscopy and the presence of inflammation on histology, while the absence of erythema on dermoscopy corresponded to a significant absence of inflammation on histology, the researchers noted.

“This report adds to the armamentarium of a dermatologist by proposing a novel way to characterize AK lesions,” the researchers wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the inability to confirm which AKs would transform into SCCs based on color, and the inclusion of a study population with advanced AKs that may not generalize to typical AKs, the researchers noted. More research is needed to explore the impact of AK color on SCC development, they emphasized.

However, the results represent a novel way to characterize AK lesions, and triage them in a way that may spare some patients from unneeded biopsies, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Pinker or redder actinic keratoses (AKs) indicate greater inflammation, according to a retrospective study that analyzed images and histopathology slides of 49 actinic keratosis lesions.

Data suggest that up to 65% of squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs) were at some point diagnosed as AKs, wrote Jessica G. Labadie, MD, of the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, and colleagues. Early identification of AKs is important to prevent progression to SCCs; previous studies have used histology or morphology, but not color, to characterize AK lesions, they said. In the study published in Dermatologic Surgery, the researchers analyzed images and histopathology slides to characterize AKs by color and to examine associations with inflammation and vasculature. They identified AKs from patients diagnosed between January 2018 and October 2019. The lesions were classified as white (4), brown (9), red (15), or pink (21).

Overall, white AKs had an absence of erythema and were significantly less likely to show inflammation on histopathology, compared with other colors. Brown AKs showed no significant increase in vascularity, but were significantly associated with pigment incontinence, basilar pigment presence, and absence of inflammation.

Notably, dermoscopy of red AKs revealed a distinctive polymorphous vessel pattern in most samples, as well as erythema in all. Similarly, all pink AKs showed erythema, and all showed inflammatory infiltrate on histology, although most did not show increased vascularity.

For all colors of AKs, there was a significant association between the presence of erythema on dermoscopy and the presence of inflammation on histology, while the absence of erythema on dermoscopy corresponded to a significant absence of inflammation on histology, the researchers noted.

“This report adds to the armamentarium of a dermatologist by proposing a novel way to characterize AK lesions,” the researchers wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the inability to confirm which AKs would transform into SCCs based on color, and the inclusion of a study population with advanced AKs that may not generalize to typical AKs, the researchers noted. More research is needed to explore the impact of AK color on SCC development, they emphasized.

However, the results represent a novel way to characterize AK lesions, and triage them in a way that may spare some patients from unneeded biopsies, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Pinker or redder actinic keratoses (AKs) indicate greater inflammation, according to a retrospective study that analyzed images and histopathology slides of 49 actinic keratosis lesions.

Data suggest that up to 65% of squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs) were at some point diagnosed as AKs, wrote Jessica G. Labadie, MD, of the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, and colleagues. Early identification of AKs is important to prevent progression to SCCs; previous studies have used histology or morphology, but not color, to characterize AK lesions, they said. In the study published in Dermatologic Surgery, the researchers analyzed images and histopathology slides to characterize AKs by color and to examine associations with inflammation and vasculature. They identified AKs from patients diagnosed between January 2018 and October 2019. The lesions were classified as white (4), brown (9), red (15), or pink (21).

Overall, white AKs had an absence of erythema and were significantly less likely to show inflammation on histopathology, compared with other colors. Brown AKs showed no significant increase in vascularity, but were significantly associated with pigment incontinence, basilar pigment presence, and absence of inflammation.

Notably, dermoscopy of red AKs revealed a distinctive polymorphous vessel pattern in most samples, as well as erythema in all. Similarly, all pink AKs showed erythema, and all showed inflammatory infiltrate on histology, although most did not show increased vascularity.

For all colors of AKs, there was a significant association between the presence of erythema on dermoscopy and the presence of inflammation on histology, while the absence of erythema on dermoscopy corresponded to a significant absence of inflammation on histology, the researchers noted.

“This report adds to the armamentarium of a dermatologist by proposing a novel way to characterize AK lesions,” the researchers wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the inability to confirm which AKs would transform into SCCs based on color, and the inclusion of a study population with advanced AKs that may not generalize to typical AKs, the researchers noted. More research is needed to explore the impact of AK color on SCC development, they emphasized.

However, the results represent a novel way to characterize AK lesions, and triage them in a way that may spare some patients from unneeded biopsies, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Genomic profiling improves outcomes for patients with metastatic breast cancer as long as the alteration-drug match has good clinical trial evidence supporting its use, a new pooled analysis suggests.

“The message is very simple,” lead study author Fabrice Andre, MD, PhD, research director, Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, Villejuif, France, told this news organization during a virtual press briefing. “If a genomic alteration is validated, it is useful to give targeted therapy, but if the genomic alteration is not validated, we should not give a targeted therapy.”

The study, which pooled results from phase 2 randomized trials SAFIR02-BREAST and SAFIR-P13K, was presented Dec. 7 in a virtual press briefing at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2021.

The new analysis explored two key questions: Is genomic testing of a cancer effective? And how should oncologists interpret a genomic report?

A total of 1,462 patients with metastatic HER2-negative breast cancer underwent next-generation sequencing. After receiving six to eight cycles of chemotherapy, 238 patients (16%) were randomized to one of nine targeted therapies matched to the genomic alteration identified on testing or to maintenance chemotherapy.

Genomic alterations in the patients’ tumors were classified using the ESMO Scale of Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT). A tier I ranking indicates that the alteration-drug match is associated with improved outcomes in clinical trials, while a tier II ranking means that the alteration-drug match is associated with antitumor activity but the magnitude of benefit remains unknown.

In an analysis of the overall trial population, Dr. Andre and colleagues found an improvement in progression-free survival in the targeted therapy group (median of 5.5 months) in comparison with the maintenance chemotherapy group (2.9 months), but the difference was not significant (P = .109).

In a subgroup of 115 patients presenting with I- or II-tier genomic alterations, median progression-free survival was 59% longer, at 9.1 months, among patients receiving targeted therapy, compared with 2.8 months in the maintenance chemotherapy group (hazard ratio, 0.41; P < .001).

In addition, the team carried out single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array analyses on 926 patients. They identified 21 genes that were altered more frequently in the metastases compared with the primary tumors, and they observed that a high homologous recombination deficiency score in patients with BCRA 1 or 2 mutations was associated with a longer progression-free survival in patients treated with olaparib.

“We also identified a subset of patients who are resistant to CDK4/6 inhibitors who presented with CDK4 amplification, and this amplification is associated with overexpression,” Dr. Andre explained.

When asked whether most oncologists were using genomic profiling to tailor treatment for breast cancer patients, Dr. Andre said that multigene sequencing is now widely used.

“The issue is not so much whether we should use or not use genomics; the issue here is to force everyone to put the genomic alteration in the right context in terms of its level of evidence,” Dr. Andre told this news organization.

Oncologists may overinterpret the genomic activation identified and give a targeted therapy that is not validated, but “oncologists should not use genomic information when the target has not been previously validated in a therapeutic trial,” he added.

Virginia Kaklamani, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Texas Health Sciences Center in San Antonio, said in an interview that approximately 5 years ago, Dr. Andre was part of the first debate at the SABCS discussing whether oncologists should be conducting next-generation sequencing for their patients with breast cancer.

“At the time, [Dr.] Andre’s comment was that we should not be doing it,” recalled Dr. Kaklamani, who is also leader of the breast cancer program at the Mays Cancer Center at the University of Texas Health San Antonio MD Anderson. “At that point, I think it was clear that we did not have the data we needed to be able to use next-generation sequencing to change our clinical management.”

However, the evidence has evolved. “Based on this clinical trial, I think we now do have the data,” she said. “I think that [next-generation sequencing] is something we will be using more and more in practice and treating our patients based on [validated] genomic alterations.”

Dr. Andre has received grants or advisory board/speaker honoraria from Daiichi Sankyo, Roche, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Lily, and Novartis. Dr. Kaklamani has served as a consultant for Puma, AstraZeneca, Athenex, and Immunomedics, has received research funding from Eisai, and has served as a speaker for Pfizer, Celgene, Genentech, and Genomic Health, among other companies.

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

Genomic profiling improves outcomes for patients with metastatic breast cancer as long as the alteration-drug match has good clinical trial evidence supporting its use, a new pooled analysis suggests.

“The message is very simple,” lead study author Fabrice Andre, MD, PhD, research director, Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, Villejuif, France, told this news organization during a virtual press briefing. “If a genomic alteration is validated, it is useful to give targeted therapy, but if the genomic alteration is not validated, we should not give a targeted therapy.”

The study, which pooled results from phase 2 randomized trials SAFIR02-BREAST and SAFIR-P13K, was presented Dec. 7 in a virtual press briefing at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2021.

The new analysis explored two key questions: Is genomic testing of a cancer effective? And how should oncologists interpret a genomic report?

A total of 1,462 patients with metastatic HER2-negative breast cancer underwent next-generation sequencing. After receiving six to eight cycles of chemotherapy, 238 patients (16%) were randomized to one of nine targeted therapies matched to the genomic alteration identified on testing or to maintenance chemotherapy.

Genomic alterations in the patients’ tumors were classified using the ESMO Scale of Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT). A tier I ranking indicates that the alteration-drug match is associated with improved outcomes in clinical trials, while a tier II ranking means that the alteration-drug match is associated with antitumor activity but the magnitude of benefit remains unknown.

In an analysis of the overall trial population, Dr. Andre and colleagues found an improvement in progression-free survival in the targeted therapy group (median of 5.5 months) in comparison with the maintenance chemotherapy group (2.9 months), but the difference was not significant (P = .109).

In a subgroup of 115 patients presenting with I- or II-tier genomic alterations, median progression-free survival was 59% longer, at 9.1 months, among patients receiving targeted therapy, compared with 2.8 months in the maintenance chemotherapy group (hazard ratio, 0.41; P < .001).

In addition, the team carried out single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array analyses on 926 patients. They identified 21 genes that were altered more frequently in the metastases compared with the primary tumors, and they observed that a high homologous recombination deficiency score in patients with BCRA 1 or 2 mutations was associated with a longer progression-free survival in patients treated with olaparib.

“We also identified a subset of patients who are resistant to CDK4/6 inhibitors who presented with CDK4 amplification, and this amplification is associated with overexpression,” Dr. Andre explained.

When asked whether most oncologists were using genomic profiling to tailor treatment for breast cancer patients, Dr. Andre said that multigene sequencing is now widely used.

“The issue is not so much whether we should use or not use genomics; the issue here is to force everyone to put the genomic alteration in the right context in terms of its level of evidence,” Dr. Andre told this news organization.

Oncologists may overinterpret the genomic activation identified and give a targeted therapy that is not validated, but “oncologists should not use genomic information when the target has not been previously validated in a therapeutic trial,” he added.

Virginia Kaklamani, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Texas Health Sciences Center in San Antonio, said in an interview that approximately 5 years ago, Dr. Andre was part of the first debate at the SABCS discussing whether oncologists should be conducting next-generation sequencing for their patients with breast cancer.

“At the time, [Dr.] Andre’s comment was that we should not be doing it,” recalled Dr. Kaklamani, who is also leader of the breast cancer program at the Mays Cancer Center at the University of Texas Health San Antonio MD Anderson. “At that point, I think it was clear that we did not have the data we needed to be able to use next-generation sequencing to change our clinical management.”

However, the evidence has evolved. “Based on this clinical trial, I think we now do have the data,” she said. “I think that [next-generation sequencing] is something we will be using more and more in practice and treating our patients based on [validated] genomic alterations.”

Dr. Andre has received grants or advisory board/speaker honoraria from Daiichi Sankyo, Roche, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Lily, and Novartis. Dr. Kaklamani has served as a consultant for Puma, AstraZeneca, Athenex, and Immunomedics, has received research funding from Eisai, and has served as a speaker for Pfizer, Celgene, Genentech, and Genomic Health, among other companies.

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

Genomic profiling improves outcomes for patients with metastatic breast cancer as long as the alteration-drug match has good clinical trial evidence supporting its use, a new pooled analysis suggests.

“The message is very simple,” lead study author Fabrice Andre, MD, PhD, research director, Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, Villejuif, France, told this news organization during a virtual press briefing. “If a genomic alteration is validated, it is useful to give targeted therapy, but if the genomic alteration is not validated, we should not give a targeted therapy.”

The study, which pooled results from phase 2 randomized trials SAFIR02-BREAST and SAFIR-P13K, was presented Dec. 7 in a virtual press briefing at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2021.

The new analysis explored two key questions: Is genomic testing of a cancer effective? And how should oncologists interpret a genomic report?

A total of 1,462 patients with metastatic HER2-negative breast cancer underwent next-generation sequencing. After receiving six to eight cycles of chemotherapy, 238 patients (16%) were randomized to one of nine targeted therapies matched to the genomic alteration identified on testing or to maintenance chemotherapy.

Genomic alterations in the patients’ tumors were classified using the ESMO Scale of Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT). A tier I ranking indicates that the alteration-drug match is associated with improved outcomes in clinical trials, while a tier II ranking means that the alteration-drug match is associated with antitumor activity but the magnitude of benefit remains unknown.

In an analysis of the overall trial population, Dr. Andre and colleagues found an improvement in progression-free survival in the targeted therapy group (median of 5.5 months) in comparison with the maintenance chemotherapy group (2.9 months), but the difference was not significant (P = .109).

In a subgroup of 115 patients presenting with I- or II-tier genomic alterations, median progression-free survival was 59% longer, at 9.1 months, among patients receiving targeted therapy, compared with 2.8 months in the maintenance chemotherapy group (hazard ratio, 0.41; P < .001).

In addition, the team carried out single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array analyses on 926 patients. They identified 21 genes that were altered more frequently in the metastases compared with the primary tumors, and they observed that a high homologous recombination deficiency score in patients with BCRA 1 or 2 mutations was associated with a longer progression-free survival in patients treated with olaparib.

“We also identified a subset of patients who are resistant to CDK4/6 inhibitors who presented with CDK4 amplification, and this amplification is associated with overexpression,” Dr. Andre explained.

When asked whether most oncologists were using genomic profiling to tailor treatment for breast cancer patients, Dr. Andre said that multigene sequencing is now widely used.

“The issue is not so much whether we should use or not use genomics; the issue here is to force everyone to put the genomic alteration in the right context in terms of its level of evidence,” Dr. Andre told this news organization.

Oncologists may overinterpret the genomic activation identified and give a targeted therapy that is not validated, but “oncologists should not use genomic information when the target has not been previously validated in a therapeutic trial,” he added.

Virginia Kaklamani, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Texas Health Sciences Center in San Antonio, said in an interview that approximately 5 years ago, Dr. Andre was part of the first debate at the SABCS discussing whether oncologists should be conducting next-generation sequencing for their patients with breast cancer.

“At the time, [Dr.] Andre’s comment was that we should not be doing it,” recalled Dr. Kaklamani, who is also leader of the breast cancer program at the Mays Cancer Center at the University of Texas Health San Antonio MD Anderson. “At that point, I think it was clear that we did not have the data we needed to be able to use next-generation sequencing to change our clinical management.”

However, the evidence has evolved. “Based on this clinical trial, I think we now do have the data,” she said. “I think that [next-generation sequencing] is something we will be using more and more in practice and treating our patients based on [validated] genomic alterations.”

Dr. Andre has received grants or advisory board/speaker honoraria from Daiichi Sankyo, Roche, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Lily, and Novartis. Dr. Kaklamani has served as a consultant for Puma, AstraZeneca, Athenex, and Immunomedics, has received research funding from Eisai, and has served as a speaker for Pfizer, Celgene, Genentech, and Genomic Health, among other companies.

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