Background: Many health care facilities have instituted universal masking policies for health care workers while also systematically testing any symptomatic health care workers. There is a paucity of data examining the effectiveness of universal masking policies in reducing COVID positivity among health care workers.

This study is limited by the retrospective cohort, nonrandomized design. Potential confounders include other infection-control measures such as limiting elective procedures, social distancing, and increasing masking in the general population. It is also unclear that a symptomatic testing database is generalizable to the asymptomatic spread of SARS-CoV-2 among health care workers.

Bottom line: Universal masking policy for health care workers appears to decrease the COVID-positive test rates among symptomatic health care workers.

Citation: Wang X et al. Association between universal masking in a health care system and SARS-CoV-2 positivity among health care workers. JAMA. 2020;324(7):703-4.

Dr. Ouyang is a hospitalist and chief of the hospitalist section at the Lexington (Ky.) VA Health Care System.

Background: Many health care facilities have instituted universal masking policies for health care workers while also systematically testing any symptomatic health care workers. There is a paucity of data examining the effectiveness of universal masking policies in reducing COVID positivity among health care workers.

This study is limited by the retrospective cohort, nonrandomized design. Potential confounders include other infection-control measures such as limiting elective procedures, social distancing, and increasing masking in the general population. It is also unclear that a symptomatic testing database is generalizable to the asymptomatic spread of SARS-CoV-2 among health care workers.

Bottom line: Universal masking policy for health care workers appears to decrease the COVID-positive test rates among symptomatic health care workers.

Citation: Wang X et al. Association between universal masking in a health care system and SARS-CoV-2 positivity among health care workers. JAMA. 2020;324(7):703-4.

Dr. Ouyang is a hospitalist and chief of the hospitalist section at the Lexington (Ky.) VA Health Care System.

Background: Many health care facilities have instituted universal masking policies for health care workers while also systematically testing any symptomatic health care workers. There is a paucity of data examining the effectiveness of universal masking policies in reducing COVID positivity among health care workers.

This study is limited by the retrospective cohort, nonrandomized design. Potential confounders include other infection-control measures such as limiting elective procedures, social distancing, and increasing masking in the general population. It is also unclear that a symptomatic testing database is generalizable to the asymptomatic spread of SARS-CoV-2 among health care workers.

Bottom line: Universal masking policy for health care workers appears to decrease the COVID-positive test rates among symptomatic health care workers.

Citation: Wang X et al. Association between universal masking in a health care system and SARS-CoV-2 positivity among health care workers. JAMA. 2020;324(7):703-4.

Dr. Ouyang is a hospitalist and chief of the hospitalist section at the Lexington (Ky.) VA Health Care System.

For women with breast cancer who undergo mastectomy and opt for implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR), the use of a mesh device does not appear to offer any advantage over conventional techniques.

A European study involving 155 women found that the use of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) did not lead to fewer reoperations, nor was it superior in terms of health-related quality of life or patient-reported cosmetic outcomes.

“We feel that women considering implant-based reconstructions for breast cancer should be informed about the lack of evidence supporting its advantage,” said lead author Fredrik Lohmander MD, department of breast and endocrine surgery, section of breast urgery, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm.

It is difficult to say generally whether ADM should be used in IBBR, he noted. “We can only conclude from our trial that there is no hard evidence that ADM is beneficial when performing breast reconstructions with implants,” he said in an interview. “In selected patients, ADM might be indicated.”

The study was conducted in Sweden and the United Kingdom. “Mostly because of high costs, ADM in implant-based breast reconstructions in Sweden is not frequently used,” Dr. Lohmander said. “It is slightly more common in the U.K., but much more common in the U.S.A.”

Although biological meshes have received regulatory approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for reconstructive purposes, ADM has not been approved for use in breast reconstruction surgery, and its use in this setting is off label.

The study was published online October 1 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Any advantage to using mesh device?

Previous studies of ADMs suggested that the mesh device conferred several benefits, including superior cosmetic results, less need for tissue expanders, fewer elective reoperations, and less capsular contracture. The use of a mesh device also enlarges the subpectoral pocket, which allows for larger fixed-volume implants, the authors note.

However, these suggested advantages have not been universally accepted, and the authors note that there have been reports of associated harm, such as higher rates of infection and implant loss.

The new study included 135 women from five centers in Sweden and the United Kingdom. The patients had breast cancer and had planned to undergo mastectomy and immediate IBBR between 2014 and May 2017.

The primary endpoint was the number of repeat surgeries at 2 years.

At the 2-year follow-up, 31 patients (48%) in the ADM group had undergone at least one reoperation on the ipsilateral side, vs 35 (54%) in the control group (P = .54). Results were similar for the contralateral side: 34 (53%) vs 31 (48%).

Two patients in the ADM group and three patients in the control group underwent a risk-reducing mastectomy on the contralateral side. These five surgeries were included in the final analysis.

For nine patients (14%) in the ADM arm, the implant was removed. Four of the removals took place within 6 months after early surgical complications. In the control group, seven patients (11%) underwent implant removal; four were removed within 6 months, owing to early surgical complications.

The secondary endpoint was postoperative health-related quality of life, including perception of body image and satisfaction with cosmetic outcome. There were no significant differences between the two groups.

Some questions remain

Approached for comment on the study, Sameer A. Patel, MD, FACS, chief of plastic and reconstructive surgery at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, noted that the practice of using AMD for breast reconstruction is quite common in the United States, so these data are informative and add to the current understanding of the value of ADM in breast reconstruction. “The study hypothesized that the use of ADM would reduce the number of reoperations within the first 24 months, which it did not,” he said. “This is despite the fact that the ADM group had a significantly higher number of direct-to-implant reconstructions.”

Importantly, the study showed that patient-reported outcomes, as opposed to surgeon’s evaluation of outcomes, were also not different for the most part between the two groups, Dr. Patel pointed out. “The only exception of small favorable advantage in the ADM group was for fitting bras,” he said.

However, there were limitations to the study’s endpoint. “I would add that there are some purported advantages of using ADM, such as reduction in postoperative pain and reduction in length of hospital stay, which are not evaluated by this study,” Patel explained. “Also, I am not certain that they can conclude from this study that capsular contracture is not reduced, because it is not designed to evaluate that.”

But the biggest limitation is one that study authors point out in their discussion at the end of the article, he added. “The use of prepectoral reconstruction is rapidly replacing the dual plane reconstruction that this paper used in the ADM group,” Dr. Patel said. “The role of ADM in prepectoral reconstruction is somewhat different than in the dual plane reconstruction, and so these results may not necessarily be extrapolated to prepectoral reconstruction.”

The study was funded with grants from the Swedish Breast Cancer Association and Stockholm City Council. The trial was initiated by Karolinska University Hospital and Karolinska Institutet. Acelity (an Allergan company) supplied the study with acellular dermal matrix meshes. Dr. Lohmander and Dr. Patel have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

For women with breast cancer who undergo mastectomy and opt for implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR), the use of a mesh device does not appear to offer any advantage over conventional techniques.

A European study involving 155 women found that the use of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) did not lead to fewer reoperations, nor was it superior in terms of health-related quality of life or patient-reported cosmetic outcomes.

“We feel that women considering implant-based reconstructions for breast cancer should be informed about the lack of evidence supporting its advantage,” said lead author Fredrik Lohmander MD, department of breast and endocrine surgery, section of breast urgery, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm.

It is difficult to say generally whether ADM should be used in IBBR, he noted. “We can only conclude from our trial that there is no hard evidence that ADM is beneficial when performing breast reconstructions with implants,” he said in an interview. “In selected patients, ADM might be indicated.”

The study was conducted in Sweden and the United Kingdom. “Mostly because of high costs, ADM in implant-based breast reconstructions in Sweden is not frequently used,” Dr. Lohmander said. “It is slightly more common in the U.K., but much more common in the U.S.A.”

Although biological meshes have received regulatory approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for reconstructive purposes, ADM has not been approved for use in breast reconstruction surgery, and its use in this setting is off label.

The study was published online October 1 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Any advantage to using mesh device?

Previous studies of ADMs suggested that the mesh device conferred several benefits, including superior cosmetic results, less need for tissue expanders, fewer elective reoperations, and less capsular contracture. The use of a mesh device also enlarges the subpectoral pocket, which allows for larger fixed-volume implants, the authors note.

However, these suggested advantages have not been universally accepted, and the authors note that there have been reports of associated harm, such as higher rates of infection and implant loss.

The new study included 135 women from five centers in Sweden and the United Kingdom. The patients had breast cancer and had planned to undergo mastectomy and immediate IBBR between 2014 and May 2017.

The primary endpoint was the number of repeat surgeries at 2 years.

At the 2-year follow-up, 31 patients (48%) in the ADM group had undergone at least one reoperation on the ipsilateral side, vs 35 (54%) in the control group (P = .54). Results were similar for the contralateral side: 34 (53%) vs 31 (48%).

Two patients in the ADM group and three patients in the control group underwent a risk-reducing mastectomy on the contralateral side. These five surgeries were included in the final analysis.

For nine patients (14%) in the ADM arm, the implant was removed. Four of the removals took place within 6 months after early surgical complications. In the control group, seven patients (11%) underwent implant removal; four were removed within 6 months, owing to early surgical complications.

The secondary endpoint was postoperative health-related quality of life, including perception of body image and satisfaction with cosmetic outcome. There were no significant differences between the two groups.

Some questions remain

Approached for comment on the study, Sameer A. Patel, MD, FACS, chief of plastic and reconstructive surgery at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, noted that the practice of using AMD for breast reconstruction is quite common in the United States, so these data are informative and add to the current understanding of the value of ADM in breast reconstruction. “The study hypothesized that the use of ADM would reduce the number of reoperations within the first 24 months, which it did not,” he said. “This is despite the fact that the ADM group had a significantly higher number of direct-to-implant reconstructions.”

Importantly, the study showed that patient-reported outcomes, as opposed to surgeon’s evaluation of outcomes, were also not different for the most part between the two groups, Dr. Patel pointed out. “The only exception of small favorable advantage in the ADM group was for fitting bras,” he said.

However, there were limitations to the study’s endpoint. “I would add that there are some purported advantages of using ADM, such as reduction in postoperative pain and reduction in length of hospital stay, which are not evaluated by this study,” Patel explained. “Also, I am not certain that they can conclude from this study that capsular contracture is not reduced, because it is not designed to evaluate that.”

But the biggest limitation is one that study authors point out in their discussion at the end of the article, he added. “The use of prepectoral reconstruction is rapidly replacing the dual plane reconstruction that this paper used in the ADM group,” Dr. Patel said. “The role of ADM in prepectoral reconstruction is somewhat different than in the dual plane reconstruction, and so these results may not necessarily be extrapolated to prepectoral reconstruction.”

The study was funded with grants from the Swedish Breast Cancer Association and Stockholm City Council. The trial was initiated by Karolinska University Hospital and Karolinska Institutet. Acelity (an Allergan company) supplied the study with acellular dermal matrix meshes. Dr. Lohmander and Dr. Patel have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

For women with breast cancer who undergo mastectomy and opt for implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR), the use of a mesh device does not appear to offer any advantage over conventional techniques.

A European study involving 155 women found that the use of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) did not lead to fewer reoperations, nor was it superior in terms of health-related quality of life or patient-reported cosmetic outcomes.

“We feel that women considering implant-based reconstructions for breast cancer should be informed about the lack of evidence supporting its advantage,” said lead author Fredrik Lohmander MD, department of breast and endocrine surgery, section of breast urgery, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm.

It is difficult to say generally whether ADM should be used in IBBR, he noted. “We can only conclude from our trial that there is no hard evidence that ADM is beneficial when performing breast reconstructions with implants,” he said in an interview. “In selected patients, ADM might be indicated.”

The study was conducted in Sweden and the United Kingdom. “Mostly because of high costs, ADM in implant-based breast reconstructions in Sweden is not frequently used,” Dr. Lohmander said. “It is slightly more common in the U.K., but much more common in the U.S.A.”

Although biological meshes have received regulatory approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for reconstructive purposes, ADM has not been approved for use in breast reconstruction surgery, and its use in this setting is off label.

The study was published online October 1 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Any advantage to using mesh device?

Previous studies of ADMs suggested that the mesh device conferred several benefits, including superior cosmetic results, less need for tissue expanders, fewer elective reoperations, and less capsular contracture. The use of a mesh device also enlarges the subpectoral pocket, which allows for larger fixed-volume implants, the authors note.

However, these suggested advantages have not been universally accepted, and the authors note that there have been reports of associated harm, such as higher rates of infection and implant loss.

The new study included 135 women from five centers in Sweden and the United Kingdom. The patients had breast cancer and had planned to undergo mastectomy and immediate IBBR between 2014 and May 2017.

The primary endpoint was the number of repeat surgeries at 2 years.

At the 2-year follow-up, 31 patients (48%) in the ADM group had undergone at least one reoperation on the ipsilateral side, vs 35 (54%) in the control group (P = .54). Results were similar for the contralateral side: 34 (53%) vs 31 (48%).

Two patients in the ADM group and three patients in the control group underwent a risk-reducing mastectomy on the contralateral side. These five surgeries were included in the final analysis.

For nine patients (14%) in the ADM arm, the implant was removed. Four of the removals took place within 6 months after early surgical complications. In the control group, seven patients (11%) underwent implant removal; four were removed within 6 months, owing to early surgical complications.

The secondary endpoint was postoperative health-related quality of life, including perception of body image and satisfaction with cosmetic outcome. There were no significant differences between the two groups.

Some questions remain

Approached for comment on the study, Sameer A. Patel, MD, FACS, chief of plastic and reconstructive surgery at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, noted that the practice of using AMD for breast reconstruction is quite common in the United States, so these data are informative and add to the current understanding of the value of ADM in breast reconstruction. “The study hypothesized that the use of ADM would reduce the number of reoperations within the first 24 months, which it did not,” he said. “This is despite the fact that the ADM group had a significantly higher number of direct-to-implant reconstructions.”

Importantly, the study showed that patient-reported outcomes, as opposed to surgeon’s evaluation of outcomes, were also not different for the most part between the two groups, Dr. Patel pointed out. “The only exception of small favorable advantage in the ADM group was for fitting bras,” he said.

However, there were limitations to the study’s endpoint. “I would add that there are some purported advantages of using ADM, such as reduction in postoperative pain and reduction in length of hospital stay, which are not evaluated by this study,” Patel explained. “Also, I am not certain that they can conclude from this study that capsular contracture is not reduced, because it is not designed to evaluate that.”

But the biggest limitation is one that study authors point out in their discussion at the end of the article, he added. “The use of prepectoral reconstruction is rapidly replacing the dual plane reconstruction that this paper used in the ADM group,” Dr. Patel said. “The role of ADM in prepectoral reconstruction is somewhat different than in the dual plane reconstruction, and so these results may not necessarily be extrapolated to prepectoral reconstruction.”

The study was funded with grants from the Swedish Breast Cancer Association and Stockholm City Council. The trial was initiated by Karolinska University Hospital and Karolinska Institutet. Acelity (an Allergan company) supplied the study with acellular dermal matrix meshes. Dr. Lohmander and Dr. Patel have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) who are in remission from their disease lack luminal signals capable of inducing macrophage hyporesponsiveness, which may contribute to a patient’s persistent vulnerability to relapse, according to a new study.

“Together with the distinct fecal metabolomic profile of UC patients in remission, our data suggest that UC patients may lack the signals required for proper macrophage education, rendering them vulnerable to relapse,” wrote study authors Lujain Maasfeh, PhD, of the University of Gothenburg (Sweden) and colleagues in Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

Macrophages found in the lamina propria play a role in sustaining intestinal homeostasis. Through education by local signals, intestinal macrophages adopt a hyporesponsive phenotype and tolerogenic nature and are replenished constantly from monocytes. In patients with UC who are in remission, however, the lack of proper macrophage maturation may result in gut inflammation.

Current evidence has yet to define fully the immunomodulating determinants in the education of intestinal macrophages; however, Dr. Maasfeh and associates wrote that “intestinal microbiota and microbiota-derived metabolites increasingly are recognized for their role in imprinting tissue-specific features of intestinal macrophages.”

The researchers added that previous evidence has established that patients with UC demonstrate dysbiosis, which may impact maturation of intestinal macrophages. As such, the hyporesponsive state of intestinal lamina propria macrophages induced by the microbiota may be lost in patients with UC who are in remission, ultimately resulting in disease relapse.

To gauge the effects of fecal luminal factors on macrophage phenotype and function, the researchers extracted fecal supernatants (FS) from the fecal samples of 10 healthy volunteers and 17 patients with UC who were in remission. Following maturation of monocytes to macrophages in the presence of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor without and with FS, the researchers assessed macrophage phenotype and function. The investigators also used gas chromatography and mass spectrometry to analyze fecal metabolomic profiles.

In healthy donors, fecal luminal factors effectively downregulated Toll-like receptor signaling, cytokine signaling, as well as antigen presentation in macrophages. In contrast, the fecal luminal factors in patients with UC demonstrated less potency in their ability to induce lipopolysaccharide hyporesponsiveness. An immune pathway scoring analysis also showed a consistently higher reaction potential among UC remission FS-treated macrophages vs. healthy FS-treated macrophages.

While FS treatment did not seem to affect the phagocytic and bactericidal abilities of macrophages, the researchers observed that the healthy FS-treated macrophages better suppressed a cluster of differentiation 4⁺ T-cell activation as well as interferon gamma secretion vs. FS-treated macrophages from patients with UC in remission. The FS-treated macrophages in the UC remission population also featured less potency in their ability to suppress CD4+ T-cell activation and cytokine secretion.

The authors acknowledged a few limitations, including the small sample size and the effects from using in vitro system.

“Identification of the factors involved in intestinal macrophage education is important to maintain/reestablish gut homeostasis in patients with UC,” they concluded.

The study received financial support from Swedish Research Council-Medicine, in addition to funding from a Region Västra Götaland ALF-agreement, the Knut och Alice Wallenberg Foundation Wallenberg Centre for Molecular and Translational Medicine at the University of Gothenburg, Ruth and Richard Julin’s foundation, Adlerbertska Foundation, Wilhelm and Martina Lundgren Foundation, and Apotekare Hedberg’s Foundation. The authors disclose no conflicts.

Patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) who are in remission from their disease lack luminal signals capable of inducing macrophage hyporesponsiveness, which may contribute to a patient’s persistent vulnerability to relapse, according to a new study.

“Together with the distinct fecal metabolomic profile of UC patients in remission, our data suggest that UC patients may lack the signals required for proper macrophage education, rendering them vulnerable to relapse,” wrote study authors Lujain Maasfeh, PhD, of the University of Gothenburg (Sweden) and colleagues in Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

Macrophages found in the lamina propria play a role in sustaining intestinal homeostasis. Through education by local signals, intestinal macrophages adopt a hyporesponsive phenotype and tolerogenic nature and are replenished constantly from monocytes. In patients with UC who are in remission, however, the lack of proper macrophage maturation may result in gut inflammation.

Current evidence has yet to define fully the immunomodulating determinants in the education of intestinal macrophages; however, Dr. Maasfeh and associates wrote that “intestinal microbiota and microbiota-derived metabolites increasingly are recognized for their role in imprinting tissue-specific features of intestinal macrophages.”

The researchers added that previous evidence has established that patients with UC demonstrate dysbiosis, which may impact maturation of intestinal macrophages. As such, the hyporesponsive state of intestinal lamina propria macrophages induced by the microbiota may be lost in patients with UC who are in remission, ultimately resulting in disease relapse.

To gauge the effects of fecal luminal factors on macrophage phenotype and function, the researchers extracted fecal supernatants (FS) from the fecal samples of 10 healthy volunteers and 17 patients with UC who were in remission. Following maturation of monocytes to macrophages in the presence of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor without and with FS, the researchers assessed macrophage phenotype and function. The investigators also used gas chromatography and mass spectrometry to analyze fecal metabolomic profiles.

In healthy donors, fecal luminal factors effectively downregulated Toll-like receptor signaling, cytokine signaling, as well as antigen presentation in macrophages. In contrast, the fecal luminal factors in patients with UC demonstrated less potency in their ability to induce lipopolysaccharide hyporesponsiveness. An immune pathway scoring analysis also showed a consistently higher reaction potential among UC remission FS-treated macrophages vs. healthy FS-treated macrophages.

While FS treatment did not seem to affect the phagocytic and bactericidal abilities of macrophages, the researchers observed that the healthy FS-treated macrophages better suppressed a cluster of differentiation 4⁺ T-cell activation as well as interferon gamma secretion vs. FS-treated macrophages from patients with UC in remission. The FS-treated macrophages in the UC remission population also featured less potency in their ability to suppress CD4+ T-cell activation and cytokine secretion.

The authors acknowledged a few limitations, including the small sample size and the effects from using in vitro system.

“Identification of the factors involved in intestinal macrophage education is important to maintain/reestablish gut homeostasis in patients with UC,” they concluded.

The study received financial support from Swedish Research Council-Medicine, in addition to funding from a Region Västra Götaland ALF-agreement, the Knut och Alice Wallenberg Foundation Wallenberg Centre for Molecular and Translational Medicine at the University of Gothenburg, Ruth and Richard Julin’s foundation, Adlerbertska Foundation, Wilhelm and Martina Lundgren Foundation, and Apotekare Hedberg’s Foundation. The authors disclose no conflicts.

Patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) who are in remission from their disease lack luminal signals capable of inducing macrophage hyporesponsiveness, which may contribute to a patient’s persistent vulnerability to relapse, according to a new study.

“Together with the distinct fecal metabolomic profile of UC patients in remission, our data suggest that UC patients may lack the signals required for proper macrophage education, rendering them vulnerable to relapse,” wrote study authors Lujain Maasfeh, PhD, of the University of Gothenburg (Sweden) and colleagues in Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

Macrophages found in the lamina propria play a role in sustaining intestinal homeostasis. Through education by local signals, intestinal macrophages adopt a hyporesponsive phenotype and tolerogenic nature and are replenished constantly from monocytes. In patients with UC who are in remission, however, the lack of proper macrophage maturation may result in gut inflammation.

Current evidence has yet to define fully the immunomodulating determinants in the education of intestinal macrophages; however, Dr. Maasfeh and associates wrote that “intestinal microbiota and microbiota-derived metabolites increasingly are recognized for their role in imprinting tissue-specific features of intestinal macrophages.”

The researchers added that previous evidence has established that patients with UC demonstrate dysbiosis, which may impact maturation of intestinal macrophages. As such, the hyporesponsive state of intestinal lamina propria macrophages induced by the microbiota may be lost in patients with UC who are in remission, ultimately resulting in disease relapse.

To gauge the effects of fecal luminal factors on macrophage phenotype and function, the researchers extracted fecal supernatants (FS) from the fecal samples of 10 healthy volunteers and 17 patients with UC who were in remission. Following maturation of monocytes to macrophages in the presence of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor without and with FS, the researchers assessed macrophage phenotype and function. The investigators also used gas chromatography and mass spectrometry to analyze fecal metabolomic profiles.

In healthy donors, fecal luminal factors effectively downregulated Toll-like receptor signaling, cytokine signaling, as well as antigen presentation in macrophages. In contrast, the fecal luminal factors in patients with UC demonstrated less potency in their ability to induce lipopolysaccharide hyporesponsiveness. An immune pathway scoring analysis also showed a consistently higher reaction potential among UC remission FS-treated macrophages vs. healthy FS-treated macrophages.

While FS treatment did not seem to affect the phagocytic and bactericidal abilities of macrophages, the researchers observed that the healthy FS-treated macrophages better suppressed a cluster of differentiation 4⁺ T-cell activation as well as interferon gamma secretion vs. FS-treated macrophages from patients with UC in remission. The FS-treated macrophages in the UC remission population also featured less potency in their ability to suppress CD4+ T-cell activation and cytokine secretion.

The authors acknowledged a few limitations, including the small sample size and the effects from using in vitro system.

“Identification of the factors involved in intestinal macrophage education is important to maintain/reestablish gut homeostasis in patients with UC,” they concluded.

The study received financial support from Swedish Research Council-Medicine, in addition to funding from a Region Västra Götaland ALF-agreement, the Knut och Alice Wallenberg Foundation Wallenberg Centre for Molecular and Translational Medicine at the University of Gothenburg, Ruth and Richard Julin’s foundation, Adlerbertska Foundation, Wilhelm and Martina Lundgren Foundation, and Apotekare Hedberg’s Foundation. The authors disclose no conflicts.

Updated milestones for professional development aim to help specialists in gastroenterology and transplant hepatology achieve knowledge, skills, and attitudes that will help them establish their own practices.

The new version, Milestones 2.0, represents the latest milestones created by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, including six core competencies developed initially in 1999: Patient care (PC), medical knowledge (MK), interpersonal and communication skills (ICS), professionalism (PROF), systems-based practice (SBP), and practice-based learning and improvement (PBLI).

In 2013, the Oversight Working Network, working with gastroenterology societies, developed a companion document of 13 entrustable professional activities (EPAs) aimed at gastroenterologists: These include management of various individual disorders such as liver or pancreatic diseases, performance of specific diagnostic procedures, and managing patient adverse events and nutritional status.

Milestones 1.0 encountered some resistance from the graduate education community. Too many of the milestones were deemed to be too vague or were described using language that was too complex. Some viewed the milestones as burdensome, and a review suggested hundreds of different ways to describe ICS and PROF, leading to confusion.

In an effort to improve matters, the ACGME made some changes. The first involved standardizing milestones used for ICS, PROF, SBP, and PBLI so that they could be used across disciplines. They also developed PC and MK milestones tailored to each specialty.

In the latest article on the topic, appearing in Gastroenterology, the authors led by Brijen J. Shah, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, outlined a second group of changes, which included development of specialty-specific milestones aimed at gastroenterology and transplant hepatology.
 

Development

The new set of milestones includes 17 for gastroenterology and 16 for transplant hepatology.

There are four PC milestones, which include taking a history and conducting patient examinations, patient management, and two more related to cognitive and technical components of procedures. The MK milestones include competency in gastrointestinal and liver diseases (MK1) and medical reasoning (MK2). These milestones are different from the internal medicine milestones met by graduating residents. MK1 includes specialty-specific disorders and diagnostic, therapeutic, and pharmacologic options for treatment or prevention. MK2 encompasses differential diagnoses and how cognitive bias can influence decision-making, a new concept introduced in Milestones 2.0.

Because the skills represented in the four other core milestones (ICS, PROF, SBP, and PBLI) are “common across specialties,” the authors drafted subcompetencies for these four areas with “harmonized” language for use by every specialty. These harmonized milestones were then tailored for each specialty. An important change occurred with SBP because transplant hepatology poses unique challenges in this domain. They ultimately split SBP into two, with SBP1 focusing on unique liver transplant regulatory requirements and SBP2 covering organ allocation and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score exceptions.
 

Public response

The researchers sought out comment on the updated milestones from program directors and coordinators, and published on the ACGME website, and members of the working group also shared it with faculty, fellows, and specialty societies. Overall, 48 respondents assessed “whether the updated milestone provided a realistic measure of knowledge, skills, and behavior; whether it discriminated between different levels of competency; whether the respondent knew how to assess the milestone effectively; and whether the Supplemental Guide was a useful resource in understanding the milestone.” They rated each on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). They could also provide free-text comments.

Respondents agreed that milestones realistically measure progression (mean, 3.49), could distinguish levels of competency (mean, 3.41), could be used accurately (mean, 3.43), and were explained well by the supplemental guide (mean, 3.42). No trends that suggested a need for additional action were found in the free-text comments.
 

Role of milestones

The milestones can be used to develop learning objectives, which in turn can be worked into clinical rotations and learning activities. For instance, the inpatient consult rotation could be used to address the SBP2 (organ allocation/MELD score exemptions), SBP3 (the physician’s role in the health care system), PBLI1 (evidence-based medicine), and some of the PC (patient care) milestones.

The milestones should not be used as an assessment method by supervisors, the authors cautioned, but rather should be used by the Clinical Competency Committee to assess trainees at various time points. The committee may combine milestones with direct observation, chart-simulated recall, multiple evaluations, and other factors to determine a trainee’s progress.

An institution’s program directors can use the milestones to adjust curriculum development and ensure that any gaps are filled. Milestones can be used at multiple times throughout training: When trainees repeat rotations, they can be used to determine year-to-year progress. Trainees who are not progressing adequately may be identified earlier on, then offered supplemental learning opportunities. On the other hand, trainees who exceed expectations may be offered additional opportunities.

Trainees can also use milestones in self-directed learning, though they should work with the program director and clinical faculty to identify gaps in their learning as well as any deficiencies.

The authors have no relevant financial disclosures.

Updated milestones for professional development aim to help specialists in gastroenterology and transplant hepatology achieve knowledge, skills, and attitudes that will help them establish their own practices.

The new version, Milestones 2.0, represents the latest milestones created by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, including six core competencies developed initially in 1999: Patient care (PC), medical knowledge (MK), interpersonal and communication skills (ICS), professionalism (PROF), systems-based practice (SBP), and practice-based learning and improvement (PBLI).

In 2013, the Oversight Working Network, working with gastroenterology societies, developed a companion document of 13 entrustable professional activities (EPAs) aimed at gastroenterologists: These include management of various individual disorders such as liver or pancreatic diseases, performance of specific diagnostic procedures, and managing patient adverse events and nutritional status.

Milestones 1.0 encountered some resistance from the graduate education community. Too many of the milestones were deemed to be too vague or were described using language that was too complex. Some viewed the milestones as burdensome, and a review suggested hundreds of different ways to describe ICS and PROF, leading to confusion.

In an effort to improve matters, the ACGME made some changes. The first involved standardizing milestones used for ICS, PROF, SBP, and PBLI so that they could be used across disciplines. They also developed PC and MK milestones tailored to each specialty.

In the latest article on the topic, appearing in Gastroenterology, the authors led by Brijen J. Shah, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, outlined a second group of changes, which included development of specialty-specific milestones aimed at gastroenterology and transplant hepatology.
 

Development

The new set of milestones includes 17 for gastroenterology and 16 for transplant hepatology.

There are four PC milestones, which include taking a history and conducting patient examinations, patient management, and two more related to cognitive and technical components of procedures. The MK milestones include competency in gastrointestinal and liver diseases (MK1) and medical reasoning (MK2). These milestones are different from the internal medicine milestones met by graduating residents. MK1 includes specialty-specific disorders and diagnostic, therapeutic, and pharmacologic options for treatment or prevention. MK2 encompasses differential diagnoses and how cognitive bias can influence decision-making, a new concept introduced in Milestones 2.0.

Because the skills represented in the four other core milestones (ICS, PROF, SBP, and PBLI) are “common across specialties,” the authors drafted subcompetencies for these four areas with “harmonized” language for use by every specialty. These harmonized milestones were then tailored for each specialty. An important change occurred with SBP because transplant hepatology poses unique challenges in this domain. They ultimately split SBP into two, with SBP1 focusing on unique liver transplant regulatory requirements and SBP2 covering organ allocation and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score exceptions.
 

Public response

The researchers sought out comment on the updated milestones from program directors and coordinators, and published on the ACGME website, and members of the working group also shared it with faculty, fellows, and specialty societies. Overall, 48 respondents assessed “whether the updated milestone provided a realistic measure of knowledge, skills, and behavior; whether it discriminated between different levels of competency; whether the respondent knew how to assess the milestone effectively; and whether the Supplemental Guide was a useful resource in understanding the milestone.” They rated each on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). They could also provide free-text comments.

Respondents agreed that milestones realistically measure progression (mean, 3.49), could distinguish levels of competency (mean, 3.41), could be used accurately (mean, 3.43), and were explained well by the supplemental guide (mean, 3.42). No trends that suggested a need for additional action were found in the free-text comments.
 

Role of milestones

The milestones can be used to develop learning objectives, which in turn can be worked into clinical rotations and learning activities. For instance, the inpatient consult rotation could be used to address the SBP2 (organ allocation/MELD score exemptions), SBP3 (the physician’s role in the health care system), PBLI1 (evidence-based medicine), and some of the PC (patient care) milestones.

The milestones should not be used as an assessment method by supervisors, the authors cautioned, but rather should be used by the Clinical Competency Committee to assess trainees at various time points. The committee may combine milestones with direct observation, chart-simulated recall, multiple evaluations, and other factors to determine a trainee’s progress.

An institution’s program directors can use the milestones to adjust curriculum development and ensure that any gaps are filled. Milestones can be used at multiple times throughout training: When trainees repeat rotations, they can be used to determine year-to-year progress. Trainees who are not progressing adequately may be identified earlier on, then offered supplemental learning opportunities. On the other hand, trainees who exceed expectations may be offered additional opportunities.

Trainees can also use milestones in self-directed learning, though they should work with the program director and clinical faculty to identify gaps in their learning as well as any deficiencies.

The authors have no relevant financial disclosures.

Updated milestones for professional development aim to help specialists in gastroenterology and transplant hepatology achieve knowledge, skills, and attitudes that will help them establish their own practices.

The new version, Milestones 2.0, represents the latest milestones created by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, including six core competencies developed initially in 1999: Patient care (PC), medical knowledge (MK), interpersonal and communication skills (ICS), professionalism (PROF), systems-based practice (SBP), and practice-based learning and improvement (PBLI).

In 2013, the Oversight Working Network, working with gastroenterology societies, developed a companion document of 13 entrustable professional activities (EPAs) aimed at gastroenterologists: These include management of various individual disorders such as liver or pancreatic diseases, performance of specific diagnostic procedures, and managing patient adverse events and nutritional status.

Milestones 1.0 encountered some resistance from the graduate education community. Too many of the milestones were deemed to be too vague or were described using language that was too complex. Some viewed the milestones as burdensome, and a review suggested hundreds of different ways to describe ICS and PROF, leading to confusion.

In an effort to improve matters, the ACGME made some changes. The first involved standardizing milestones used for ICS, PROF, SBP, and PBLI so that they could be used across disciplines. They also developed PC and MK milestones tailored to each specialty.

In the latest article on the topic, appearing in Gastroenterology, the authors led by Brijen J. Shah, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, outlined a second group of changes, which included development of specialty-specific milestones aimed at gastroenterology and transplant hepatology.
 

Development

The new set of milestones includes 17 for gastroenterology and 16 for transplant hepatology.

There are four PC milestones, which include taking a history and conducting patient examinations, patient management, and two more related to cognitive and technical components of procedures. The MK milestones include competency in gastrointestinal and liver diseases (MK1) and medical reasoning (MK2). These milestones are different from the internal medicine milestones met by graduating residents. MK1 includes specialty-specific disorders and diagnostic, therapeutic, and pharmacologic options for treatment or prevention. MK2 encompasses differential diagnoses and how cognitive bias can influence decision-making, a new concept introduced in Milestones 2.0.

Because the skills represented in the four other core milestones (ICS, PROF, SBP, and PBLI) are “common across specialties,” the authors drafted subcompetencies for these four areas with “harmonized” language for use by every specialty. These harmonized milestones were then tailored for each specialty. An important change occurred with SBP because transplant hepatology poses unique challenges in this domain. They ultimately split SBP into two, with SBP1 focusing on unique liver transplant regulatory requirements and SBP2 covering organ allocation and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score exceptions.
 

Public response

The researchers sought out comment on the updated milestones from program directors and coordinators, and published on the ACGME website, and members of the working group also shared it with faculty, fellows, and specialty societies. Overall, 48 respondents assessed “whether the updated milestone provided a realistic measure of knowledge, skills, and behavior; whether it discriminated between different levels of competency; whether the respondent knew how to assess the milestone effectively; and whether the Supplemental Guide was a useful resource in understanding the milestone.” They rated each on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). They could also provide free-text comments.

Respondents agreed that milestones realistically measure progression (mean, 3.49), could distinguish levels of competency (mean, 3.41), could be used accurately (mean, 3.43), and were explained well by the supplemental guide (mean, 3.42). No trends that suggested a need for additional action were found in the free-text comments.
 

Role of milestones

The milestones can be used to develop learning objectives, which in turn can be worked into clinical rotations and learning activities. For instance, the inpatient consult rotation could be used to address the SBP2 (organ allocation/MELD score exemptions), SBP3 (the physician’s role in the health care system), PBLI1 (evidence-based medicine), and some of the PC (patient care) milestones.

The milestones should not be used as an assessment method by supervisors, the authors cautioned, but rather should be used by the Clinical Competency Committee to assess trainees at various time points. The committee may combine milestones with direct observation, chart-simulated recall, multiple evaluations, and other factors to determine a trainee’s progress.

An institution’s program directors can use the milestones to adjust curriculum development and ensure that any gaps are filled. Milestones can be used at multiple times throughout training: When trainees repeat rotations, they can be used to determine year-to-year progress. Trainees who are not progressing adequately may be identified earlier on, then offered supplemental learning opportunities. On the other hand, trainees who exceed expectations may be offered additional opportunities.

Trainees can also use milestones in self-directed learning, though they should work with the program director and clinical faculty to identify gaps in their learning as well as any deficiencies.

The authors have no relevant financial disclosures.

The Food and Drug Administration approved a supplement to the biologics license application of the adalimumab biosimilar drug Cyltezo (adalimumab-adbm) that makes it the first interchangeable biosimilar with Humira (adalimumab), the original branded version of the drug, its manufacturer Boehringer Ingelheim announced Oct. 15.

The FDA originally approved Cyltezo in 2017 for the treatment of multiple chronic inflammatory diseases, including seven of Humira’s nine indications for adults and pediatric patients: rheumatoid arthritis, polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and plaque psoriasis.

The interchangeability designation means that Cyltezo was tested in an additional clinical trial in which patients were successfully switched back and forth multiple times from Humira to Cyltezo and allows pharmacists to autosubstitute Humira with Cyltezo. In these cases, individual state laws control how and whether physicians will be notified of this switch.

Cyltezo is just the second biosimilar to be designated as interchangeable with its originator biologic product. The first approval, announced July 28, was for the interchangeability of Semglee (insulin glargine-yfgn) with the originator Lantus.

The agency based its decision on positive data from the VOLTAIRE-X study of 238 patients with moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis in which Cyltezo had no meaningful clinical differences from Humira in pharmacokinetics, efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety between the switching and continuous treatment groups.

Cyltezo will not be commercially available in the United States until July 1, 2023, according to Boehringer Ingelheim.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration approved a supplement to the biologics license application of the adalimumab biosimilar drug Cyltezo (adalimumab-adbm) that makes it the first interchangeable biosimilar with Humira (adalimumab), the original branded version of the drug, its manufacturer Boehringer Ingelheim announced Oct. 15.

The FDA originally approved Cyltezo in 2017 for the treatment of multiple chronic inflammatory diseases, including seven of Humira’s nine indications for adults and pediatric patients: rheumatoid arthritis, polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and plaque psoriasis.

The interchangeability designation means that Cyltezo was tested in an additional clinical trial in which patients were successfully switched back and forth multiple times from Humira to Cyltezo and allows pharmacists to autosubstitute Humira with Cyltezo. In these cases, individual state laws control how and whether physicians will be notified of this switch.

Cyltezo is just the second biosimilar to be designated as interchangeable with its originator biologic product. The first approval, announced July 28, was for the interchangeability of Semglee (insulin glargine-yfgn) with the originator Lantus.

The agency based its decision on positive data from the VOLTAIRE-X study of 238 patients with moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis in which Cyltezo had no meaningful clinical differences from Humira in pharmacokinetics, efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety between the switching and continuous treatment groups.

Cyltezo will not be commercially available in the United States until July 1, 2023, according to Boehringer Ingelheim.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration approved a supplement to the biologics license application of the adalimumab biosimilar drug Cyltezo (adalimumab-adbm) that makes it the first interchangeable biosimilar with Humira (adalimumab), the original branded version of the drug, its manufacturer Boehringer Ingelheim announced Oct. 15.

The FDA originally approved Cyltezo in 2017 for the treatment of multiple chronic inflammatory diseases, including seven of Humira’s nine indications for adults and pediatric patients: rheumatoid arthritis, polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and plaque psoriasis.

The interchangeability designation means that Cyltezo was tested in an additional clinical trial in which patients were successfully switched back and forth multiple times from Humira to Cyltezo and allows pharmacists to autosubstitute Humira with Cyltezo. In these cases, individual state laws control how and whether physicians will be notified of this switch.

Cyltezo is just the second biosimilar to be designated as interchangeable with its originator biologic product. The first approval, announced July 28, was for the interchangeability of Semglee (insulin glargine-yfgn) with the originator Lantus.

The agency based its decision on positive data from the VOLTAIRE-X study of 238 patients with moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis in which Cyltezo had no meaningful clinical differences from Humira in pharmacokinetics, efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety between the switching and continuous treatment groups.

Cyltezo will not be commercially available in the United States until July 1, 2023, according to Boehringer Ingelheim.

[email protected]

A new clinical practice update expert review for the diagnosis and management of atrophic gastritis (AG) from the American Gastroenterological Association focuses on cases linked to Helicobacter pylori infection or autoimmunity.

This update addresses a sparsity of guidelines for AG in the United States and should be seen as complementary to the AGA Clinical Practice Guidelines on Management of Gastric Intestinal Metaplasia, according to the authors led by Shailja C. Shah, MD, MPH, of the gastroenterology section at Veterans Affairs San Diego Healthcare System and the division of gastroenterology at the University of California, San Diego.

The 2020 guidelines didn’t specifically discuss diagnosis and management of AG; however, a diagnosis of intestinal metaplasia based on gastric histopathology indicates the presence AG since metaplasia occurs in atrophic mucosa. Nevertheless, AG often goes unmentioned in histopathology reports. Such omissions are important because AG is an important stage in the potential development of gastric cancer.

AG is believed to result from genetic and environmental factors. The two primary triggers for the condition are H. pylori infection (HpAG) and autoimmunity (AIG). The condition results from chronic inflammation and replacement of normal gastric glandular structures with connective tissue or nonnative epithelium. It can proceed to other precancerous conditions, including gastric intestinal metaplasia and dysplasia. An estimated 15% of the U.S. population has AG, according to the authors, although this prevalence could be higher in populations with higher rates of H. pylori infection. AIG is rare, occurring in 0.5%-2% of the U.S. population.

Among individuals with AG, 0.1%-0.3% per year go on to develop gastric adenocarcinoma, though additional factors could heighten this risk. Furthermore, 0.4%-0.7% per year go on develop type 1 neuroendocrine tumors.

HpAG and AIG have different patterns of mucosal involvement. During diagnosis, the authors advised careful mucosal visualization with air insufflation and mucosal cleansing. High-definition white-light endoscopy is more sensitive than traditional WLE in the identification of premalignant mucosal changes.

AG diagnosis should be confirmed by histopathology. The updated Sydney protocol should be used to obtain biopsies, and serum pepsinogens can be used to identify extensive atrophy, though this testing is not generally available in the United States for clinical use. When histology results are suggestive of AIG, the presence of parietal cell antibodies and intrinsic factor antibodies can contribute to a diagnosis, although the former can be prone to false positives because of H. pylori infection, and the latter has low sensitivity.

Patients identified with AG should be tested for H. pylori and treated for infection, followed by nonserologic testing to confirm treatment success. If H. pylori is present, successful eradication may allow for reversal of AG to normal gastric mucosa; however, patients may have irreversible changes. This could leave them at elevated risk of further progression, though elimination of H. pylori does appear to blunt that risk somewhat.

Neoplastic complications from AG are rare, and the benefits of surveillance among those with AG have not been demonstrated in prospective trials. Observational trials show that severe AG is associated with greater risk of gastric adenocarcinoma, and other factors, such as comorbidities and patient values and priorities, should inform decision-making. When called for, providers should consider surveillance endoscopies every 3 years, though the authors noted that the optimal surveillance interval is unknown. Factors such as the quality of the original endoscopy, family history of gastric cancer, and a history of immigration from regions with high rates of H. pylori infection may impact decisions on surveillance intervals.

AG can lead to iron or vitamin B₁₂ deficiency, so patients with AG, especially those with corpus-predominant AG, should be evaluated for both. AG should also be considered as a differential diagnosis in patients presenting with either deficiency.

A diagnosis of AIG should be accompanied by screening for autoimmune thyroid disease, and type 1 diabetes or Addison’s disease may also be indicated if clinical presentation is consistent.

Because AG is commonly underdiagnosed, the authors advise that gastroenterologists and pathologists should improve coordination to maximize diagnosis of the condition, and they call for comparative clinical trials to improve risk stratification algorithms and surveillance strategies.

The authors disclose no relevant conflicts of interest.

A new clinical practice update expert review for the diagnosis and management of atrophic gastritis (AG) from the American Gastroenterological Association focuses on cases linked to Helicobacter pylori infection or autoimmunity.

This update addresses a sparsity of guidelines for AG in the United States and should be seen as complementary to the AGA Clinical Practice Guidelines on Management of Gastric Intestinal Metaplasia, according to the authors led by Shailja C. Shah, MD, MPH, of the gastroenterology section at Veterans Affairs San Diego Healthcare System and the division of gastroenterology at the University of California, San Diego.

The 2020 guidelines didn’t specifically discuss diagnosis and management of AG; however, a diagnosis of intestinal metaplasia based on gastric histopathology indicates the presence AG since metaplasia occurs in atrophic mucosa. Nevertheless, AG often goes unmentioned in histopathology reports. Such omissions are important because AG is an important stage in the potential development of gastric cancer.

AG is believed to result from genetic and environmental factors. The two primary triggers for the condition are H. pylori infection (HpAG) and autoimmunity (AIG). The condition results from chronic inflammation and replacement of normal gastric glandular structures with connective tissue or nonnative epithelium. It can proceed to other precancerous conditions, including gastric intestinal metaplasia and dysplasia. An estimated 15% of the U.S. population has AG, according to the authors, although this prevalence could be higher in populations with higher rates of H. pylori infection. AIG is rare, occurring in 0.5%-2% of the U.S. population.

Among individuals with AG, 0.1%-0.3% per year go on to develop gastric adenocarcinoma, though additional factors could heighten this risk. Furthermore, 0.4%-0.7% per year go on develop type 1 neuroendocrine tumors.

HpAG and AIG have different patterns of mucosal involvement. During diagnosis, the authors advised careful mucosal visualization with air insufflation and mucosal cleansing. High-definition white-light endoscopy is more sensitive than traditional WLE in the identification of premalignant mucosal changes.

AG diagnosis should be confirmed by histopathology. The updated Sydney protocol should be used to obtain biopsies, and serum pepsinogens can be used to identify extensive atrophy, though this testing is not generally available in the United States for clinical use. When histology results are suggestive of AIG, the presence of parietal cell antibodies and intrinsic factor antibodies can contribute to a diagnosis, although the former can be prone to false positives because of H. pylori infection, and the latter has low sensitivity.

Patients identified with AG should be tested for H. pylori and treated for infection, followed by nonserologic testing to confirm treatment success. If H. pylori is present, successful eradication may allow for reversal of AG to normal gastric mucosa; however, patients may have irreversible changes. This could leave them at elevated risk of further progression, though elimination of H. pylori does appear to blunt that risk somewhat.

Neoplastic complications from AG are rare, and the benefits of surveillance among those with AG have not been demonstrated in prospective trials. Observational trials show that severe AG is associated with greater risk of gastric adenocarcinoma, and other factors, such as comorbidities and patient values and priorities, should inform decision-making. When called for, providers should consider surveillance endoscopies every 3 years, though the authors noted that the optimal surveillance interval is unknown. Factors such as the quality of the original endoscopy, family history of gastric cancer, and a history of immigration from regions with high rates of H. pylori infection may impact decisions on surveillance intervals.

AG can lead to iron or vitamin B₁₂ deficiency, so patients with AG, especially those with corpus-predominant AG, should be evaluated for both. AG should also be considered as a differential diagnosis in patients presenting with either deficiency.

A diagnosis of AIG should be accompanied by screening for autoimmune thyroid disease, and type 1 diabetes or Addison’s disease may also be indicated if clinical presentation is consistent.

Because AG is commonly underdiagnosed, the authors advise that gastroenterologists and pathologists should improve coordination to maximize diagnosis of the condition, and they call for comparative clinical trials to improve risk stratification algorithms and surveillance strategies.

The authors disclose no relevant conflicts of interest.

A new clinical practice update expert review for the diagnosis and management of atrophic gastritis (AG) from the American Gastroenterological Association focuses on cases linked to Helicobacter pylori infection or autoimmunity.

This update addresses a sparsity of guidelines for AG in the United States and should be seen as complementary to the AGA Clinical Practice Guidelines on Management of Gastric Intestinal Metaplasia, according to the authors led by Shailja C. Shah, MD, MPH, of the gastroenterology section at Veterans Affairs San Diego Healthcare System and the division of gastroenterology at the University of California, San Diego.

The 2020 guidelines didn’t specifically discuss diagnosis and management of AG; however, a diagnosis of intestinal metaplasia based on gastric histopathology indicates the presence AG since metaplasia occurs in atrophic mucosa. Nevertheless, AG often goes unmentioned in histopathology reports. Such omissions are important because AG is an important stage in the potential development of gastric cancer.

AG is believed to result from genetic and environmental factors. The two primary triggers for the condition are H. pylori infection (HpAG) and autoimmunity (AIG). The condition results from chronic inflammation and replacement of normal gastric glandular structures with connective tissue or nonnative epithelium. It can proceed to other precancerous conditions, including gastric intestinal metaplasia and dysplasia. An estimated 15% of the U.S. population has AG, according to the authors, although this prevalence could be higher in populations with higher rates of H. pylori infection. AIG is rare, occurring in 0.5%-2% of the U.S. population.

Among individuals with AG, 0.1%-0.3% per year go on to develop gastric adenocarcinoma, though additional factors could heighten this risk. Furthermore, 0.4%-0.7% per year go on develop type 1 neuroendocrine tumors.

HpAG and AIG have different patterns of mucosal involvement. During diagnosis, the authors advised careful mucosal visualization with air insufflation and mucosal cleansing. High-definition white-light endoscopy is more sensitive than traditional WLE in the identification of premalignant mucosal changes.

AG diagnosis should be confirmed by histopathology. The updated Sydney protocol should be used to obtain biopsies, and serum pepsinogens can be used to identify extensive atrophy, though this testing is not generally available in the United States for clinical use. When histology results are suggestive of AIG, the presence of parietal cell antibodies and intrinsic factor antibodies can contribute to a diagnosis, although the former can be prone to false positives because of H. pylori infection, and the latter has low sensitivity.

Patients identified with AG should be tested for H. pylori and treated for infection, followed by nonserologic testing to confirm treatment success. If H. pylori is present, successful eradication may allow for reversal of AG to normal gastric mucosa; however, patients may have irreversible changes. This could leave them at elevated risk of further progression, though elimination of H. pylori does appear to blunt that risk somewhat.

Neoplastic complications from AG are rare, and the benefits of surveillance among those with AG have not been demonstrated in prospective trials. Observational trials show that severe AG is associated with greater risk of gastric adenocarcinoma, and other factors, such as comorbidities and patient values and priorities, should inform decision-making. When called for, providers should consider surveillance endoscopies every 3 years, though the authors noted that the optimal surveillance interval is unknown. Factors such as the quality of the original endoscopy, family history of gastric cancer, and a history of immigration from regions with high rates of H. pylori infection may impact decisions on surveillance intervals.

AG can lead to iron or vitamin B₁₂ deficiency, so patients with AG, especially those with corpus-predominant AG, should be evaluated for both. AG should also be considered as a differential diagnosis in patients presenting with either deficiency.

A diagnosis of AIG should be accompanied by screening for autoimmune thyroid disease, and type 1 diabetes or Addison’s disease may also be indicated if clinical presentation is consistent.

Because AG is commonly underdiagnosed, the authors advise that gastroenterologists and pathologists should improve coordination to maximize diagnosis of the condition, and they call for comparative clinical trials to improve risk stratification algorithms and surveillance strategies.

The authors disclose no relevant conflicts of interest.

Lupin Pharmaceuticals is recalling all batches of irbesartan tablets USP 75 mg, 150 mg, and 300 mg and irbesartan and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) tablets USP 150 mg/12.5 mg and 300 mg/12.5 mg because of the potential presence of the N-nitrosoirbesartan impurity.

“As part of Lupin’s ongoing assessment, analysis revealed that certain tested active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) batches (but not finished product batches) were above the specification limit for the impurity, N-nitrosoirbesartan,” the company said in a news release posted on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s website. It notes that the impurity is a “probable human carcinogen.”

Lupin discontinued the marketing of irbesartan and irbesartan/HCTZ tablets on Jan. 7, 2021. It says it “has received no reports of illness that appear to relate to this issue” and is issuing the recall out of “an abundance of caution.”

The company, however, goes on to note that from Oct. 8, 2018 (the earliest date of shipment from the manufacturing site of any of the affected batches) to September 30 of this year, Lupin received four reports of illness from irbesartan and 0 reports from irbesartan/HCTZ.

Irbesartan is an angiotensin II receptor blocker indicated for treatment of hypertension in patients with type 2 diabetes, elevated serum creatinine, and proteinuria.

Irbesartan/HCTZ tablets include irbesartan and hydrochlorothiazide, a thiazide diuretic, indicated for hypertension in patients not adequately controlled with monotherapy or as an initial therapy in patients likely to need multiple drugs to achieve blood pressure goals.

Lupin is notifying wholesalers, distributors, and retail outlets to immediately discontinue sales of the affected product lots and return them to the company. Specific lot numbers can be found here.

The company is advising patients to continue taking their medication and to contact their pharmacist, physician, or health care professional for advice regarding an alternative treatment.

Patients and physicians are also advised to report any adverse events or side effects related to the affected products to MedWatch, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting program.

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

Lupin Pharmaceuticals is recalling all batches of irbesartan tablets USP 75 mg, 150 mg, and 300 mg and irbesartan and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) tablets USP 150 mg/12.5 mg and 300 mg/12.5 mg because of the potential presence of the N-nitrosoirbesartan impurity.

“As part of Lupin’s ongoing assessment, analysis revealed that certain tested active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) batches (but not finished product batches) were above the specification limit for the impurity, N-nitrosoirbesartan,” the company said in a news release posted on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s website. It notes that the impurity is a “probable human carcinogen.”

Lupin discontinued the marketing of irbesartan and irbesartan/HCTZ tablets on Jan. 7, 2021. It says it “has received no reports of illness that appear to relate to this issue” and is issuing the recall out of “an abundance of caution.”

The company, however, goes on to note that from Oct. 8, 2018 (the earliest date of shipment from the manufacturing site of any of the affected batches) to September 30 of this year, Lupin received four reports of illness from irbesartan and 0 reports from irbesartan/HCTZ.

Irbesartan is an angiotensin II receptor blocker indicated for treatment of hypertension in patients with type 2 diabetes, elevated serum creatinine, and proteinuria.

Irbesartan/HCTZ tablets include irbesartan and hydrochlorothiazide, a thiazide diuretic, indicated for hypertension in patients not adequately controlled with monotherapy or as an initial therapy in patients likely to need multiple drugs to achieve blood pressure goals.

Lupin is notifying wholesalers, distributors, and retail outlets to immediately discontinue sales of the affected product lots and return them to the company. Specific lot numbers can be found here.

The company is advising patients to continue taking their medication and to contact their pharmacist, physician, or health care professional for advice regarding an alternative treatment.

Patients and physicians are also advised to report any adverse events or side effects related to the affected products to MedWatch, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting program.

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

Lupin Pharmaceuticals is recalling all batches of irbesartan tablets USP 75 mg, 150 mg, and 300 mg and irbesartan and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) tablets USP 150 mg/12.5 mg and 300 mg/12.5 mg because of the potential presence of the N-nitrosoirbesartan impurity.

“As part of Lupin’s ongoing assessment, analysis revealed that certain tested active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) batches (but not finished product batches) were above the specification limit for the impurity, N-nitrosoirbesartan,” the company said in a news release posted on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s website. It notes that the impurity is a “probable human carcinogen.”

Lupin discontinued the marketing of irbesartan and irbesartan/HCTZ tablets on Jan. 7, 2021. It says it “has received no reports of illness that appear to relate to this issue” and is issuing the recall out of “an abundance of caution.”

The company, however, goes on to note that from Oct. 8, 2018 (the earliest date of shipment from the manufacturing site of any of the affected batches) to September 30 of this year, Lupin received four reports of illness from irbesartan and 0 reports from irbesartan/HCTZ.

Irbesartan is an angiotensin II receptor blocker indicated for treatment of hypertension in patients with type 2 diabetes, elevated serum creatinine, and proteinuria.

Irbesartan/HCTZ tablets include irbesartan and hydrochlorothiazide, a thiazide diuretic, indicated for hypertension in patients not adequately controlled with monotherapy or as an initial therapy in patients likely to need multiple drugs to achieve blood pressure goals.

Lupin is notifying wholesalers, distributors, and retail outlets to immediately discontinue sales of the affected product lots and return them to the company. Specific lot numbers can be found here.

The company is advising patients to continue taking their medication and to contact their pharmacist, physician, or health care professional for advice regarding an alternative treatment.

Patients and physicians are also advised to report any adverse events or side effects related to the affected products to MedWatch, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting program.

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

Nearly 2 years into the pandemic, all things COVID-19 will of course be a major focus at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians, held virtually this year.

“During the pandemic, critical care has been at the forefront of what people are interested in,” said CHEST 2021 program cochair Christopher Carroll, MD, FCCP, from Connecticut Children’s Medical Center, Hartford.

“There is so much volume in critical care units that people have interest in anything related to critical care, including infectious diseases and disaster management in critical care,” he said in an interview.

Sessions at this year’s meeting that have a COVID-19 theme will focus on care of both patients and caregivers. Multiple symposiums, oral abstracts, scientific posters, and case reports will focus on clinical aspects of SARS-CoV-2 infections and COVID-19, including complications such as ventilator-associated and hospital-acquired pneumonia, a session called “Viruses, Variants, Vaccines, and Virulence: The Present and Future of COVID-19,” and support of patients and families.

Other presentations will focus on how COVID-19 has affected lung cancer screening, outpatient practices, pulmonary care, and sleep medicine.

Importantly, the meeting will include sessions focusing on the mental, physical, and social health of clinicians, especially those on the front lines in critical care and intensive care units. There will be sessions on how to recognize and avoid burnout, practice mental health awareness, and take time for self-care.

Presidential Honor Lecturer Curtis N. Sessler, MD, Master FCCP, FCCM, of Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, with give a talk titled, “Navigating the Road to Well-Being in the ICU.”
 

Empathy and diversity

Program cochair David Zielinski, MD, FCCP, of Montreal Children’s Hospital, Quebec, told this news organization that the COVID-19 pandemic has brought into even starker contrast inequities in patient care and in the health care system at large.

“This is a subject people are very keen about right now, whether it’s about how providers are treated, opportunities for improvement, or correcting inequities in outcomes for patients,” he said in an interview.

The program doesn’t shy away from the controversy, either, with a session provocatively titled, “Racism in Health Care: The Fuel That Lit the COVID-19 Fire.”

Keynote speaker Demondes Haynes, MD, FCCP, professor of medicine and associate dean of admissions at the University of Mississippi, Jackson, will speak on the importance of empathy in physician-patient communications and on ways to create a more diverse and inclusive workforce in medicine.
 

Beyond COVID-19

CHEST 2021 will include important information for sleep medicine physicians, including the latest news regarding an equipment recall affecting one of the two major manufacturers of continuous positive airway pressure devices.

“This has caused a lot of angst among sleep physicians and patients, and there are not enough devices to replace them,” Dr. Zielinski said.

“People who are on home ventilators are also affected by this recall,” Dr. Carroll added. “The population of patients who have sleep apnea is much greater than the population who are on home ventilators, but patients who are on home ventilators need it to save their lives.”

The meeting will include informative sessions summarizing U.S. and European asthma guidelines published over the past 2 years, as well as pending guidelines from the American College of Chest Physicians on venous thromboembolism and lung cancer screening.

Additional topics of importance include chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, interstitial lung disease, asthma management, acute respiratory failure in special populations, new therapies and strategies for treating tuberculosis, and many others.

There will be skill-polishing simulation sessions designed to help clinicians connect with experts in the field, update their knowledge, and sharpen their technique.
 

Fun and games

In addition to the serious subjects, CHEST 2021 attendees will have the chance to network with colleagues and friends and enjoy online games, including the 20th annual CHEST Challenge, which will pit teams of fellows-in-training from the Interfaith Medical Center, in Brooklyn, New York; the State University of New York, in Buffalo; and the Ohio State University Medical Center, in Columbus, in a Jeopardy!-style battle of wits and medical knowledge.

Close to 7,000 registrants from around the world took part in last year’s CHEST annual meeting, and a similar number is expected for this year’s edition, Dr. Carroll and Dr. Zielinski said.
 

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

Nearly 2 years into the pandemic, all things COVID-19 will of course be a major focus at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians, held virtually this year.

“During the pandemic, critical care has been at the forefront of what people are interested in,” said CHEST 2021 program cochair Christopher Carroll, MD, FCCP, from Connecticut Children’s Medical Center, Hartford.

“There is so much volume in critical care units that people have interest in anything related to critical care, including infectious diseases and disaster management in critical care,” he said in an interview.

Sessions at this year’s meeting that have a COVID-19 theme will focus on care of both patients and caregivers. Multiple symposiums, oral abstracts, scientific posters, and case reports will focus on clinical aspects of SARS-CoV-2 infections and COVID-19, including complications such as ventilator-associated and hospital-acquired pneumonia, a session called “Viruses, Variants, Vaccines, and Virulence: The Present and Future of COVID-19,” and support of patients and families.

Other presentations will focus on how COVID-19 has affected lung cancer screening, outpatient practices, pulmonary care, and sleep medicine.

Importantly, the meeting will include sessions focusing on the mental, physical, and social health of clinicians, especially those on the front lines in critical care and intensive care units. There will be sessions on how to recognize and avoid burnout, practice mental health awareness, and take time for self-care.

Presidential Honor Lecturer Curtis N. Sessler, MD, Master FCCP, FCCM, of Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, with give a talk titled, “Navigating the Road to Well-Being in the ICU.”
 

Empathy and diversity

Program cochair David Zielinski, MD, FCCP, of Montreal Children’s Hospital, Quebec, told this news organization that the COVID-19 pandemic has brought into even starker contrast inequities in patient care and in the health care system at large.

“This is a subject people are very keen about right now, whether it’s about how providers are treated, opportunities for improvement, or correcting inequities in outcomes for patients,” he said in an interview.

The program doesn’t shy away from the controversy, either, with a session provocatively titled, “Racism in Health Care: The Fuel That Lit the COVID-19 Fire.”

Keynote speaker Demondes Haynes, MD, FCCP, professor of medicine and associate dean of admissions at the University of Mississippi, Jackson, will speak on the importance of empathy in physician-patient communications and on ways to create a more diverse and inclusive workforce in medicine.
 

Beyond COVID-19

CHEST 2021 will include important information for sleep medicine physicians, including the latest news regarding an equipment recall affecting one of the two major manufacturers of continuous positive airway pressure devices.

“This has caused a lot of angst among sleep physicians and patients, and there are not enough devices to replace them,” Dr. Zielinski said.

“People who are on home ventilators are also affected by this recall,” Dr. Carroll added. “The population of patients who have sleep apnea is much greater than the population who are on home ventilators, but patients who are on home ventilators need it to save their lives.”

The meeting will include informative sessions summarizing U.S. and European asthma guidelines published over the past 2 years, as well as pending guidelines from the American College of Chest Physicians on venous thromboembolism and lung cancer screening.

Additional topics of importance include chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, interstitial lung disease, asthma management, acute respiratory failure in special populations, new therapies and strategies for treating tuberculosis, and many others.

There will be skill-polishing simulation sessions designed to help clinicians connect with experts in the field, update their knowledge, and sharpen their technique.
 

Fun and games

In addition to the serious subjects, CHEST 2021 attendees will have the chance to network with colleagues and friends and enjoy online games, including the 20th annual CHEST Challenge, which will pit teams of fellows-in-training from the Interfaith Medical Center, in Brooklyn, New York; the State University of New York, in Buffalo; and the Ohio State University Medical Center, in Columbus, in a Jeopardy!-style battle of wits and medical knowledge.

Close to 7,000 registrants from around the world took part in last year’s CHEST annual meeting, and a similar number is expected for this year’s edition, Dr. Carroll and Dr. Zielinski said.
 

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

Nearly 2 years into the pandemic, all things COVID-19 will of course be a major focus at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians, held virtually this year.

“During the pandemic, critical care has been at the forefront of what people are interested in,” said CHEST 2021 program cochair Christopher Carroll, MD, FCCP, from Connecticut Children’s Medical Center, Hartford.

“There is so much volume in critical care units that people have interest in anything related to critical care, including infectious diseases and disaster management in critical care,” he said in an interview.

Sessions at this year’s meeting that have a COVID-19 theme will focus on care of both patients and caregivers. Multiple symposiums, oral abstracts, scientific posters, and case reports will focus on clinical aspects of SARS-CoV-2 infections and COVID-19, including complications such as ventilator-associated and hospital-acquired pneumonia, a session called “Viruses, Variants, Vaccines, and Virulence: The Present and Future of COVID-19,” and support of patients and families.

Other presentations will focus on how COVID-19 has affected lung cancer screening, outpatient practices, pulmonary care, and sleep medicine.

Importantly, the meeting will include sessions focusing on the mental, physical, and social health of clinicians, especially those on the front lines in critical care and intensive care units. There will be sessions on how to recognize and avoid burnout, practice mental health awareness, and take time for self-care.

Presidential Honor Lecturer Curtis N. Sessler, MD, Master FCCP, FCCM, of Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, with give a talk titled, “Navigating the Road to Well-Being in the ICU.”
 

Empathy and diversity

Program cochair David Zielinski, MD, FCCP, of Montreal Children’s Hospital, Quebec, told this news organization that the COVID-19 pandemic has brought into even starker contrast inequities in patient care and in the health care system at large.

“This is a subject people are very keen about right now, whether it’s about how providers are treated, opportunities for improvement, or correcting inequities in outcomes for patients,” he said in an interview.

The program doesn’t shy away from the controversy, either, with a session provocatively titled, “Racism in Health Care: The Fuel That Lit the COVID-19 Fire.”

Keynote speaker Demondes Haynes, MD, FCCP, professor of medicine and associate dean of admissions at the University of Mississippi, Jackson, will speak on the importance of empathy in physician-patient communications and on ways to create a more diverse and inclusive workforce in medicine.
 

Beyond COVID-19

CHEST 2021 will include important information for sleep medicine physicians, including the latest news regarding an equipment recall affecting one of the two major manufacturers of continuous positive airway pressure devices.

“This has caused a lot of angst among sleep physicians and patients, and there are not enough devices to replace them,” Dr. Zielinski said.

“People who are on home ventilators are also affected by this recall,” Dr. Carroll added. “The population of patients who have sleep apnea is much greater than the population who are on home ventilators, but patients who are on home ventilators need it to save their lives.”

The meeting will include informative sessions summarizing U.S. and European asthma guidelines published over the past 2 years, as well as pending guidelines from the American College of Chest Physicians on venous thromboembolism and lung cancer screening.

Additional topics of importance include chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, interstitial lung disease, asthma management, acute respiratory failure in special populations, new therapies and strategies for treating tuberculosis, and many others.

There will be skill-polishing simulation sessions designed to help clinicians connect with experts in the field, update their knowledge, and sharpen their technique.
 

Fun and games

In addition to the serious subjects, CHEST 2021 attendees will have the chance to network with colleagues and friends and enjoy online games, including the 20th annual CHEST Challenge, which will pit teams of fellows-in-training from the Interfaith Medical Center, in Brooklyn, New York; the State University of New York, in Buffalo; and the Ohio State University Medical Center, in Columbus, in a Jeopardy!-style battle of wits and medical knowledge.

Close to 7,000 registrants from around the world took part in last year’s CHEST annual meeting, and a similar number is expected for this year’s edition, Dr. Carroll and Dr. Zielinski said.
 

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

A case report describes the dramatic shrinkage of a tumor to a quarter of its original size in a patient with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who had declined conventional treatment, continued smoking, and who later revealed that she was ingesting cannabidiol (CBD) oil.

The patient was an 80-year-old woman.

At diagnosis, the tumor measured 41 mm, and there was no evidence of local or further spread. Hence, it was suitable for a standard treatment regimen of surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy, note the authors.

The patient declined conventional treatment. She underwent monitoring with regular CT scans every 3–6 months.

After 2.5 years, the CT scans showed that the tumor had shrunk to 10 mm.

The patient then disclosed that she had been ingesting CBD oil, which had been suggested to her by a family member. It was taken orally about two to three times a day.

Details of the case were published on October 14 in BMJ Case Reports.

“We are aware of the limitations of this case report,” write the authors, led by Kah Ling Liew, MD, of Watford General Hospital, Watford, United Kingdom.

“Although there appears to be a relationship between the intake of ‘CBD oil’ and the observed tumour regression, we are unable to conclusively confirm that the tumour regression is due to the patient taking ‘CBD oil,’ ” they comment.

The team also notes that there are similar case reports in the medical literature.

Both points were emphasized by experts reacting to the publication via the UK Science Media Center.

“This is one of many such promising single case reports of medical cannabis self-treatment for various cancers,” said David Nutt, DM, FRCP, FRCPsych, the Edmond J. Safra Chair in Neuropsychopharmacology, Imperial College London, United Kingdom. “Such case reports are biologically credible given the adaptogenic nature of the endocannabinoid system.”

He noted that a “case report itself is not sufficient to give any form of proof that one thing caused the other -- we need trials for that. There are some controlled trials already started and more are required to properly explore the potential of medical cannabis in a range of cancers.”

Another expert, Edzard Ernst, MD, PhD, professor emeritus of complementary medicine, University of Exeter, United Kingdom, pointed out that in animal models, cannabinoids have reduced the size of prostate cancer tumors. “Previous case reports have yielded encouraging findings also in human cancers,” he noted. He too said that further study is needed.

“Case reports cannot be considered to be reliable evidence, and there are currently no data from rigorous clinical trials to suggest that cannabis products will alter the natural history of any cancer,”Dr. Ernst said.

Patient declined recommended treatment

The patient initially presented with a persistent cough that did not resolve with antibiotic therapy. She has a history of mild chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, osteoarthritis, and hypertension. She is a current smoker with a 68 pack-year history of smoking. She has no history of alcohol consumption and is taking several prescription medications.

After an initial CT scan, she underwent a CT-guided lung biopsy and was diagnosed with NSCLC (TNM stage T2bN0Mx). Further analysis of the tumor tissue showed that it was negative for ALK and EGFR mutations. PDL1 was expressed by <1% of the tumor cells. No distant metastases were detected.

A subsequent CT scan revealed that the main tumor in her right middle lobe had shrunk from 41 mm to 33 mm. There were new bilateral upper lobe nodules, one in the left apex, which measured 4 mm, and one in right apex, which measured 6 mm.

The patient was referred to cardiothoracic surgeons for a possible lobectomy, but the patient declined to have surgery. She was then referred to the oncologists. She underwent repeat CT and positron-emission tomography (PET) scans, which showed that her cancer had continued to shrink. On CT, there was an 11-mm reduction, and on PET, an 18-mm reduction. The left apical nodule had resolved, and the right upper lobe nodule was reduced in size.

The patient was offered stereotactic ablative radiotherapy, but she declined this treatment. Because she had refused all standard therapies, a decision was made to “watch and wait.” The patient underwent regular CT surveillance.

Over the course of 2.5 years, the tumor continued to regress. By February 2021, it had shrunk to 10 mm, which represents an overall reduction of 76% in maximum axial diameter. The average rate of reduction was 2.4% per month throughout the monitoring period.

“This case was brought to the attention of the local lung MDT [multidisciplinary team] in February 2019 when the serial imaging showed a reduction in tumor size despite having received no conventional treatment for her lung cancer,” write the authors.

The patient was contacted to discuss her results. She revealed that she was using CBD oil and that she had started taking it in August 2018. No changes had been made in her prescription medications, diet, and lifestyle, and she continued to smoke a pack of cigarettes every week.

“I was not very interested in traditional cancer treatments,” the patient said, “as I was worried about the risks of surgery, and I saw my late husband suffer through the side effects of radiotherapy. My relative suggested that I should try ‘cannabidiol (CBD) oil’ to treat my cancer, and I have been taking it regularly ever since. I am ‘over the moon’ with my cancer shrinking, which I believe was caused by the ‘CBD oil’. I am tolerating it very well and I intend to take this treatment indefinitely.”

The source of the CBD oil was outside the United Kingdom. The main active ingredients, according to her supplier, were Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), at 19.5%, CBD, at 20.05%, and tetrahydrocannabinolic acid, at 23.8%.

“The product used by this patient reportedly contained high levels of THC (the intoxicating component of cannabis) and was sourced from outside the U.K.,” commented Tom Freeman, PhD, senior lecturer and director of the Addiction and Mental Health Group, University of Bath, United Kingdom. “This type of product is very different to most CBD oils, which predominantly contain CBD. Unlike prescribed medicines, CBD wellness products lack assurance of quality, safety, or efficacy and should not be used for medicinal purposes.”

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Nutt chairs the scientific committee of the charity Drug Science, which receives unrestricted educational grants from some medical cannabis companies. Dr. Ernst and Dr. Freeman have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A case report describes the dramatic shrinkage of a tumor to a quarter of its original size in a patient with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who had declined conventional treatment, continued smoking, and who later revealed that she was ingesting cannabidiol (CBD) oil.

The patient was an 80-year-old woman.

At diagnosis, the tumor measured 41 mm, and there was no evidence of local or further spread. Hence, it was suitable for a standard treatment regimen of surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy, note the authors.

The patient declined conventional treatment. She underwent monitoring with regular CT scans every 3–6 months.

After 2.5 years, the CT scans showed that the tumor had shrunk to 10 mm.

The patient then disclosed that she had been ingesting CBD oil, which had been suggested to her by a family member. It was taken orally about two to three times a day.

Details of the case were published on October 14 in BMJ Case Reports.

“We are aware of the limitations of this case report,” write the authors, led by Kah Ling Liew, MD, of Watford General Hospital, Watford, United Kingdom.

“Although there appears to be a relationship between the intake of ‘CBD oil’ and the observed tumour regression, we are unable to conclusively confirm that the tumour regression is due to the patient taking ‘CBD oil,’ ” they comment.

The team also notes that there are similar case reports in the medical literature.

Both points were emphasized by experts reacting to the publication via the UK Science Media Center.

“This is one of many such promising single case reports of medical cannabis self-treatment for various cancers,” said David Nutt, DM, FRCP, FRCPsych, the Edmond J. Safra Chair in Neuropsychopharmacology, Imperial College London, United Kingdom. “Such case reports are biologically credible given the adaptogenic nature of the endocannabinoid system.”

He noted that a “case report itself is not sufficient to give any form of proof that one thing caused the other -- we need trials for that. There are some controlled trials already started and more are required to properly explore the potential of medical cannabis in a range of cancers.”

Another expert, Edzard Ernst, MD, PhD, professor emeritus of complementary medicine, University of Exeter, United Kingdom, pointed out that in animal models, cannabinoids have reduced the size of prostate cancer tumors. “Previous case reports have yielded encouraging findings also in human cancers,” he noted. He too said that further study is needed.

“Case reports cannot be considered to be reliable evidence, and there are currently no data from rigorous clinical trials to suggest that cannabis products will alter the natural history of any cancer,”Dr. Ernst said.

Patient declined recommended treatment

The patient initially presented with a persistent cough that did not resolve with antibiotic therapy. She has a history of mild chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, osteoarthritis, and hypertension. She is a current smoker with a 68 pack-year history of smoking. She has no history of alcohol consumption and is taking several prescription medications.

After an initial CT scan, she underwent a CT-guided lung biopsy and was diagnosed with NSCLC (TNM stage T2bN0Mx). Further analysis of the tumor tissue showed that it was negative for ALK and EGFR mutations. PDL1 was expressed by <1% of the tumor cells. No distant metastases were detected.

A subsequent CT scan revealed that the main tumor in her right middle lobe had shrunk from 41 mm to 33 mm. There were new bilateral upper lobe nodules, one in the left apex, which measured 4 mm, and one in right apex, which measured 6 mm.

The patient was referred to cardiothoracic surgeons for a possible lobectomy, but the patient declined to have surgery. She was then referred to the oncologists. She underwent repeat CT and positron-emission tomography (PET) scans, which showed that her cancer had continued to shrink. On CT, there was an 11-mm reduction, and on PET, an 18-mm reduction. The left apical nodule had resolved, and the right upper lobe nodule was reduced in size.

The patient was offered stereotactic ablative radiotherapy, but she declined this treatment. Because she had refused all standard therapies, a decision was made to “watch and wait.” The patient underwent regular CT surveillance.

Over the course of 2.5 years, the tumor continued to regress. By February 2021, it had shrunk to 10 mm, which represents an overall reduction of 76% in maximum axial diameter. The average rate of reduction was 2.4% per month throughout the monitoring period.

“This case was brought to the attention of the local lung MDT [multidisciplinary team] in February 2019 when the serial imaging showed a reduction in tumor size despite having received no conventional treatment for her lung cancer,” write the authors.

The patient was contacted to discuss her results. She revealed that she was using CBD oil and that she had started taking it in August 2018. No changes had been made in her prescription medications, diet, and lifestyle, and she continued to smoke a pack of cigarettes every week.

“I was not very interested in traditional cancer treatments,” the patient said, “as I was worried about the risks of surgery, and I saw my late husband suffer through the side effects of radiotherapy. My relative suggested that I should try ‘cannabidiol (CBD) oil’ to treat my cancer, and I have been taking it regularly ever since. I am ‘over the moon’ with my cancer shrinking, which I believe was caused by the ‘CBD oil’. I am tolerating it very well and I intend to take this treatment indefinitely.”

The source of the CBD oil was outside the United Kingdom. The main active ingredients, according to her supplier, were Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), at 19.5%, CBD, at 20.05%, and tetrahydrocannabinolic acid, at 23.8%.

“The product used by this patient reportedly contained high levels of THC (the intoxicating component of cannabis) and was sourced from outside the U.K.,” commented Tom Freeman, PhD, senior lecturer and director of the Addiction and Mental Health Group, University of Bath, United Kingdom. “This type of product is very different to most CBD oils, which predominantly contain CBD. Unlike prescribed medicines, CBD wellness products lack assurance of quality, safety, or efficacy and should not be used for medicinal purposes.”

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Nutt chairs the scientific committee of the charity Drug Science, which receives unrestricted educational grants from some medical cannabis companies. Dr. Ernst and Dr. Freeman have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A case report describes the dramatic shrinkage of a tumor to a quarter of its original size in a patient with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who had declined conventional treatment, continued smoking, and who later revealed that she was ingesting cannabidiol (CBD) oil.

The patient was an 80-year-old woman.

At diagnosis, the tumor measured 41 mm, and there was no evidence of local or further spread. Hence, it was suitable for a standard treatment regimen of surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy, note the authors.

The patient declined conventional treatment. She underwent monitoring with regular CT scans every 3–6 months.

After 2.5 years, the CT scans showed that the tumor had shrunk to 10 mm.

The patient then disclosed that she had been ingesting CBD oil, which had been suggested to her by a family member. It was taken orally about two to three times a day.

Details of the case were published on October 14 in BMJ Case Reports.

“We are aware of the limitations of this case report,” write the authors, led by Kah Ling Liew, MD, of Watford General Hospital, Watford, United Kingdom.

“Although there appears to be a relationship between the intake of ‘CBD oil’ and the observed tumour regression, we are unable to conclusively confirm that the tumour regression is due to the patient taking ‘CBD oil,’ ” they comment.

The team also notes that there are similar case reports in the medical literature.

Both points were emphasized by experts reacting to the publication via the UK Science Media Center.

“This is one of many such promising single case reports of medical cannabis self-treatment for various cancers,” said David Nutt, DM, FRCP, FRCPsych, the Edmond J. Safra Chair in Neuropsychopharmacology, Imperial College London, United Kingdom. “Such case reports are biologically credible given the adaptogenic nature of the endocannabinoid system.”

He noted that a “case report itself is not sufficient to give any form of proof that one thing caused the other -- we need trials for that. There are some controlled trials already started and more are required to properly explore the potential of medical cannabis in a range of cancers.”

Another expert, Edzard Ernst, MD, PhD, professor emeritus of complementary medicine, University of Exeter, United Kingdom, pointed out that in animal models, cannabinoids have reduced the size of prostate cancer tumors. “Previous case reports have yielded encouraging findings also in human cancers,” he noted. He too said that further study is needed.

“Case reports cannot be considered to be reliable evidence, and there are currently no data from rigorous clinical trials to suggest that cannabis products will alter the natural history of any cancer,”Dr. Ernst said.

Patient declined recommended treatment

The patient initially presented with a persistent cough that did not resolve with antibiotic therapy. She has a history of mild chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, osteoarthritis, and hypertension. She is a current smoker with a 68 pack-year history of smoking. She has no history of alcohol consumption and is taking several prescription medications.

After an initial CT scan, she underwent a CT-guided lung biopsy and was diagnosed with NSCLC (TNM stage T2bN0Mx). Further analysis of the tumor tissue showed that it was negative for ALK and EGFR mutations. PDL1 was expressed by <1% of the tumor cells. No distant metastases were detected.

A subsequent CT scan revealed that the main tumor in her right middle lobe had shrunk from 41 mm to 33 mm. There were new bilateral upper lobe nodules, one in the left apex, which measured 4 mm, and one in right apex, which measured 6 mm.

The patient was referred to cardiothoracic surgeons for a possible lobectomy, but the patient declined to have surgery. She was then referred to the oncologists. She underwent repeat CT and positron-emission tomography (PET) scans, which showed that her cancer had continued to shrink. On CT, there was an 11-mm reduction, and on PET, an 18-mm reduction. The left apical nodule had resolved, and the right upper lobe nodule was reduced in size.

The patient was offered stereotactic ablative radiotherapy, but she declined this treatment. Because she had refused all standard therapies, a decision was made to “watch and wait.” The patient underwent regular CT surveillance.

Over the course of 2.5 years, the tumor continued to regress. By February 2021, it had shrunk to 10 mm, which represents an overall reduction of 76% in maximum axial diameter. The average rate of reduction was 2.4% per month throughout the monitoring period.

“This case was brought to the attention of the local lung MDT [multidisciplinary team] in February 2019 when the serial imaging showed a reduction in tumor size despite having received no conventional treatment for her lung cancer,” write the authors.

The patient was contacted to discuss her results. She revealed that she was using CBD oil and that she had started taking it in August 2018. No changes had been made in her prescription medications, diet, and lifestyle, and she continued to smoke a pack of cigarettes every week.

“I was not very interested in traditional cancer treatments,” the patient said, “as I was worried about the risks of surgery, and I saw my late husband suffer through the side effects of radiotherapy. My relative suggested that I should try ‘cannabidiol (CBD) oil’ to treat my cancer, and I have been taking it regularly ever since. I am ‘over the moon’ with my cancer shrinking, which I believe was caused by the ‘CBD oil’. I am tolerating it very well and I intend to take this treatment indefinitely.”

The source of the CBD oil was outside the United Kingdom. The main active ingredients, according to her supplier, were Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), at 19.5%, CBD, at 20.05%, and tetrahydrocannabinolic acid, at 23.8%.

“The product used by this patient reportedly contained high levels of THC (the intoxicating component of cannabis) and was sourced from outside the U.K.,” commented Tom Freeman, PhD, senior lecturer and director of the Addiction and Mental Health Group, University of Bath, United Kingdom. “This type of product is very different to most CBD oils, which predominantly contain CBD. Unlike prescribed medicines, CBD wellness products lack assurance of quality, safety, or efficacy and should not be used for medicinal purposes.”

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Nutt chairs the scientific committee of the charity Drug Science, which receives unrestricted educational grants from some medical cannabis companies. Dr. Ernst and Dr. Freeman have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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