Nearly 80% of men with metastatic prostate cancer died from their malignancy, according to a retrospective cohort study involving 26,000-plus American men diagnosed with advanced disease in roughly the last 20 years.

The findings fill an information gap because, remarkably, “data are lacking” on causes of death among men whose prostate cancer has spread to other sites, say lead author Ahmed Elmehrath, MD, of Cairo University, Egypt, and colleagues.

“It was an important realization by our team that prostate cancer was the cause of death in 78% of patients,” said senior author Omar Alhalabi, MD, of University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, in an email.

“Most patients with metastatic prostate cancer die from it, rather than other possible causes of death,” confirm Samuel Merriel, MSc, Tanimola Martins, PhD, and Sarah Bailey, PhD, University of Exeter, United Kingdom, in an accompanying editorial. The study was published last month in JAMA Network Open.

The findings represent the near opposite of a commonly held – and comforting – belief about early-stage disease: “You die with prostate cancer, not from it.”

That old saying is articulated in various ways, such as this from the Prostate Cancer Foundation: “We can confirm that there are those prostate cancers a man may die with and not of, while others are very aggressive.” The American Cancer Society says this: “Prostate cancer can be a serious disease, but most men diagnosed with prostate cancer do not die from it.”

However, these commonplace comments do not cover metastatic disease, which is what the authors of the new study decided to focus on.  

The team used data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER) database to gather a sample of 26,168 U.S. men who received a diagnosis of metastatic prostate cancer from January 2000 to December 2016. They then analyzed the data in 2020 and found that 16,732 men (64%) had died during the follow-up period.

The majority of these deaths (77.8%) were from prostate cancer, 5.5% were from other cancers, and 16.7% were from noncancer causes, including cardiovascular diseases, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and cerebrovascular diseases.

Senior author Dr. Alhalabi acknowledged a limitation in these findings – that the SEER database relies on causes of death extracted from death certificates. “Death certificates have limited granularity in terms of the details they can contain about the cause of death and also have reporting bias,” he said.

Most of the prostate cancer deaths (59%) occurred within 2 years. The 5-year overall survival rate in the study group was 26%.

The deadliness of metastatic disease “reinforces the need for innovations to promote early-stage diagnosis,” comment the editorialists. Striking a hopeful note, they also say that “new tests for prostate cancer detection may reduce the proportion of patients who receive a diagnosis at a late stage.”
 

Death from other causes

The mean age at metastatic prostate cancer diagnosis in the study was roughly 71 years. Most of the cohort was White (74.5%) and had a diagnosis of stage M1b metastatic prostate cancer (72.7%), which means the cancer had spread to the bones.

Among men in the cohort, the rates of death from septicemia, suicide, accidents, COPD, and cerebrovascular diseases were significantly increased compared with the general U.S. male population, the team observes.

Thus, the study authors were concerned with not only with death from metastatic prostate cancer but death from other causes.

That concern is rooted in the established fact that there is now improved survival among patients with prostate cancer in the U.S., including among men with advanced disease. “Patients tend to live long enough after a prostate cancer diagnosis for non–cancer-related comorbidities to be associated with their overall survival,” they write.

The editorialists agree: Prostate cancer “has a high long-term survival rate compared with almost all other cancer types and signals the need for greater holistic care for patients.”

As noted above, cardiovascular diseases were the most common cause of nonprostate cancer–related deaths in the new study.

As in the management of other cancers, there is concern among clinicians and researchers about the cardiotoxic effects of prostate cancer treatments.

The study authors point to a 2017 analysis that showed that men with prostate cancer and no prior cardiac disease had greater risk of heart failure after taking androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), a common treatment used when the disease recurs after definitive treatment. Another study suggested an association between cardiotoxic effects of ADT and myocardial infarction regardless of medical history in general.

The authors of the current study say that such findings highlight “the importance of multidisciplinary care for such patients and the role of primary care physicians in optimizing cardiovascular risk prevention and providing early referrals to cardiologists.”

Further, the team says that tailoring “ADT to each patient’s needs may be associated with improved survival, especially for patients with factors associated with cardiovascular disease.”

Who should lead the way in multidisciplinary care? “The answer probably is case-by-case,” said Dr. Alhalabi, adding that it might depend on the presence of underlying morbidities such as cardiovascular disease and COPD.

“It is also important for the oncologist (‘the gatekeeper’) to try to mitigate the potential metabolic effects of hormonal deprivation therapy such as weight gain, decreased muscle mass, hyperlipidemia, etc.,” he added.

The study had no specific funding. The study authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Nearly 80% of men with metastatic prostate cancer died from their malignancy, according to a retrospective cohort study involving 26,000-plus American men diagnosed with advanced disease in roughly the last 20 years.

The findings fill an information gap because, remarkably, “data are lacking” on causes of death among men whose prostate cancer has spread to other sites, say lead author Ahmed Elmehrath, MD, of Cairo University, Egypt, and colleagues.

“It was an important realization by our team that prostate cancer was the cause of death in 78% of patients,” said senior author Omar Alhalabi, MD, of University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, in an email.

“Most patients with metastatic prostate cancer die from it, rather than other possible causes of death,” confirm Samuel Merriel, MSc, Tanimola Martins, PhD, and Sarah Bailey, PhD, University of Exeter, United Kingdom, in an accompanying editorial. The study was published last month in JAMA Network Open.

The findings represent the near opposite of a commonly held – and comforting – belief about early-stage disease: “You die with prostate cancer, not from it.”

That old saying is articulated in various ways, such as this from the Prostate Cancer Foundation: “We can confirm that there are those prostate cancers a man may die with and not of, while others are very aggressive.” The American Cancer Society says this: “Prostate cancer can be a serious disease, but most men diagnosed with prostate cancer do not die from it.”

However, these commonplace comments do not cover metastatic disease, which is what the authors of the new study decided to focus on.  

The team used data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER) database to gather a sample of 26,168 U.S. men who received a diagnosis of metastatic prostate cancer from January 2000 to December 2016. They then analyzed the data in 2020 and found that 16,732 men (64%) had died during the follow-up period.

The majority of these deaths (77.8%) were from prostate cancer, 5.5% were from other cancers, and 16.7% were from noncancer causes, including cardiovascular diseases, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and cerebrovascular diseases.

Senior author Dr. Alhalabi acknowledged a limitation in these findings – that the SEER database relies on causes of death extracted from death certificates. “Death certificates have limited granularity in terms of the details they can contain about the cause of death and also have reporting bias,” he said.

Most of the prostate cancer deaths (59%) occurred within 2 years. The 5-year overall survival rate in the study group was 26%.

The deadliness of metastatic disease “reinforces the need for innovations to promote early-stage diagnosis,” comment the editorialists. Striking a hopeful note, they also say that “new tests for prostate cancer detection may reduce the proportion of patients who receive a diagnosis at a late stage.”
 

Death from other causes

The mean age at metastatic prostate cancer diagnosis in the study was roughly 71 years. Most of the cohort was White (74.5%) and had a diagnosis of stage M1b metastatic prostate cancer (72.7%), which means the cancer had spread to the bones.

Among men in the cohort, the rates of death from septicemia, suicide, accidents, COPD, and cerebrovascular diseases were significantly increased compared with the general U.S. male population, the team observes.

Thus, the study authors were concerned with not only with death from metastatic prostate cancer but death from other causes.

That concern is rooted in the established fact that there is now improved survival among patients with prostate cancer in the U.S., including among men with advanced disease. “Patients tend to live long enough after a prostate cancer diagnosis for non–cancer-related comorbidities to be associated with their overall survival,” they write.

The editorialists agree: Prostate cancer “has a high long-term survival rate compared with almost all other cancer types and signals the need for greater holistic care for patients.”

As noted above, cardiovascular diseases were the most common cause of nonprostate cancer–related deaths in the new study.

As in the management of other cancers, there is concern among clinicians and researchers about the cardiotoxic effects of prostate cancer treatments.

The study authors point to a 2017 analysis that showed that men with prostate cancer and no prior cardiac disease had greater risk of heart failure after taking androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), a common treatment used when the disease recurs after definitive treatment. Another study suggested an association between cardiotoxic effects of ADT and myocardial infarction regardless of medical history in general.

The authors of the current study say that such findings highlight “the importance of multidisciplinary care for such patients and the role of primary care physicians in optimizing cardiovascular risk prevention and providing early referrals to cardiologists.”

Further, the team says that tailoring “ADT to each patient’s needs may be associated with improved survival, especially for patients with factors associated with cardiovascular disease.”

Who should lead the way in multidisciplinary care? “The answer probably is case-by-case,” said Dr. Alhalabi, adding that it might depend on the presence of underlying morbidities such as cardiovascular disease and COPD.

“It is also important for the oncologist (‘the gatekeeper’) to try to mitigate the potential metabolic effects of hormonal deprivation therapy such as weight gain, decreased muscle mass, hyperlipidemia, etc.,” he added.

The study had no specific funding. The study authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Nearly 80% of men with metastatic prostate cancer died from their malignancy, according to a retrospective cohort study involving 26,000-plus American men diagnosed with advanced disease in roughly the last 20 years.

The findings fill an information gap because, remarkably, “data are lacking” on causes of death among men whose prostate cancer has spread to other sites, say lead author Ahmed Elmehrath, MD, of Cairo University, Egypt, and colleagues.

“It was an important realization by our team that prostate cancer was the cause of death in 78% of patients,” said senior author Omar Alhalabi, MD, of University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, in an email.

“Most patients with metastatic prostate cancer die from it, rather than other possible causes of death,” confirm Samuel Merriel, MSc, Tanimola Martins, PhD, and Sarah Bailey, PhD, University of Exeter, United Kingdom, in an accompanying editorial. The study was published last month in JAMA Network Open.

The findings represent the near opposite of a commonly held – and comforting – belief about early-stage disease: “You die with prostate cancer, not from it.”

That old saying is articulated in various ways, such as this from the Prostate Cancer Foundation: “We can confirm that there are those prostate cancers a man may die with and not of, while others are very aggressive.” The American Cancer Society says this: “Prostate cancer can be a serious disease, but most men diagnosed with prostate cancer do not die from it.”

However, these commonplace comments do not cover metastatic disease, which is what the authors of the new study decided to focus on.  

The team used data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER) database to gather a sample of 26,168 U.S. men who received a diagnosis of metastatic prostate cancer from January 2000 to December 2016. They then analyzed the data in 2020 and found that 16,732 men (64%) had died during the follow-up period.

The majority of these deaths (77.8%) were from prostate cancer, 5.5% were from other cancers, and 16.7% were from noncancer causes, including cardiovascular diseases, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and cerebrovascular diseases.

Senior author Dr. Alhalabi acknowledged a limitation in these findings – that the SEER database relies on causes of death extracted from death certificates. “Death certificates have limited granularity in terms of the details they can contain about the cause of death and also have reporting bias,” he said.

Most of the prostate cancer deaths (59%) occurred within 2 years. The 5-year overall survival rate in the study group was 26%.

The deadliness of metastatic disease “reinforces the need for innovations to promote early-stage diagnosis,” comment the editorialists. Striking a hopeful note, they also say that “new tests for prostate cancer detection may reduce the proportion of patients who receive a diagnosis at a late stage.”
 

Death from other causes

The mean age at metastatic prostate cancer diagnosis in the study was roughly 71 years. Most of the cohort was White (74.5%) and had a diagnosis of stage M1b metastatic prostate cancer (72.7%), which means the cancer had spread to the bones.

Among men in the cohort, the rates of death from septicemia, suicide, accidents, COPD, and cerebrovascular diseases were significantly increased compared with the general U.S. male population, the team observes.

Thus, the study authors were concerned with not only with death from metastatic prostate cancer but death from other causes.

That concern is rooted in the established fact that there is now improved survival among patients with prostate cancer in the U.S., including among men with advanced disease. “Patients tend to live long enough after a prostate cancer diagnosis for non–cancer-related comorbidities to be associated with their overall survival,” they write.

The editorialists agree: Prostate cancer “has a high long-term survival rate compared with almost all other cancer types and signals the need for greater holistic care for patients.”

As noted above, cardiovascular diseases were the most common cause of nonprostate cancer–related deaths in the new study.

As in the management of other cancers, there is concern among clinicians and researchers about the cardiotoxic effects of prostate cancer treatments.

The study authors point to a 2017 analysis that showed that men with prostate cancer and no prior cardiac disease had greater risk of heart failure after taking androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), a common treatment used when the disease recurs after definitive treatment. Another study suggested an association between cardiotoxic effects of ADT and myocardial infarction regardless of medical history in general.

The authors of the current study say that such findings highlight “the importance of multidisciplinary care for such patients and the role of primary care physicians in optimizing cardiovascular risk prevention and providing early referrals to cardiologists.”

Further, the team says that tailoring “ADT to each patient’s needs may be associated with improved survival, especially for patients with factors associated with cardiovascular disease.”

Who should lead the way in multidisciplinary care? “The answer probably is case-by-case,” said Dr. Alhalabi, adding that it might depend on the presence of underlying morbidities such as cardiovascular disease and COPD.

“It is also important for the oncologist (‘the gatekeeper’) to try to mitigate the potential metabolic effects of hormonal deprivation therapy such as weight gain, decreased muscle mass, hyperlipidemia, etc.,” he added.

The study had no specific funding. The study authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The decades-long search for a safe, effective adjuvant therapy for patients with resected kidney cancer at high risk of recurrence appears to have taken a big step in the right direction, according to expert opinion.

The high hopes have been generated by results from the randomized, phase 3 KEYNOTE-564 trial, showing that monotherapy with pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) was associated with significantly longer disease-free survival (DFS) after nephrectomy than placebo (77.3% vs. 68.1%, respectively). Median follow-up was 24 months.

The results come from the trial’s first interim analysis of data from 994 patients with clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) at high risk of recurrence.

For the pembrolizumab group, the estimated percentage alive at 24 months was 96.6%, compared with 93.5% in the placebo group (hazard ratio for death, 0.54), said Toni Choueiri, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, and colleagues.

However, grade 3 or higher adverse events (any cause) occurred at almost twice the rate in the pembrolizumab versus the placebo group (32.4% vs. 17.7%). The new study was published online Aug. 18, 2021, in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The study results were first presented at the 2021 American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting and described as likely to be practice changing in this setting, as reported by this news organization.

Currently, this patient population has “no options for adjuvant therapy to reduce the risk of recurrence that have high levels of supporting evidence,” observed the authors.

That’s about to change, as the trial results “herald the dawn of a new era in the treatment of renal cell carcinoma,” Rana McKay, MD, University of California San Diego Health, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

Multiple studies have investigated potential adjuvant therapies in RCC since the 1980s, she observed.

“For the first time, we now have an effective adjuvant immunotherapy option for patients with resected renal cell carcinoma at high risk of recurrence,” Dr. McKay said in an interview.

To date, the lack of clinically beneficial adjuvant therapy options in RCC has been “humbling,” Dr. Choueiri said in an interview. “We hope we can push the envelope further and get more patients with RCC some good options that make them live longer and better.”

Although the standard of care for patients diagnosed with locoregional RCC is partial or total nephrectomy, nearly half of patients eventually experience disease recurrence following surgery, Dr. Choueiri noted.

“No standard, globally approved adjuvant therapy options are currently available for this population,” he said. Clinical guidelines recommend patients at high risk of disease recurrence after surgery be entered into a clinical trial or undergo active surveillance.

Researchers will continue to follow the results for overall survival, a secondary endpoint. “The very early look suggests encouraging results [in overall survival] with an HR of 0.54,” Dr. Choueiri noted.

In the meantime, the prolongation of DFS represents a clear clinical benefit, said Dr. McKay, “given the magnitude of the increase” and “the limited incidence of toxic effects.”

KEYNOTE-564 will alter the adjuvant treatment landscape for RCC as a positive phase 3 trial of adjuvant immunotherapy for the disease, she added.

A number of earlier studies have investigated the use of adjuvant vascular endothelial growth factor–targeting agents in RCC. Only the 2016 Sunitinib Treatment of Renal Adjuvant Cancer (S-TRAC) trial showed improved DFS with sunitinib, compared with placebo (6.8 vs. 5.6 years). Subsequently, sunitinib was approved for adjuvant use in the United States. However, the S-TRAC trial also showed that sunitinib therapy was associated with an increased incidence of toxic effects and lower quality of life scores, and researchers did not observe any benefit in overall survival.

“Despite regulatory approval in the U.S., sunitinib is not approved for adjuvant use by the European Medicines Agency and has limited utilization in clinical practice given the low benefit-risk ratio,” Dr. McKay pointed out.
 

Study details

KEYNOTE-564 involved 996 patients with clear-cell RCC at high risk for recurrence after nephrectomy, with or without metastasectomy. They were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive a 200-mg dose of adjuvant pembrolizumab or placebo given intravenously once every 3 weeks for up to 17 cycles for approximately 1 year.

The vast majority of patients enrolled in the study had localized disease with no evidence of metastases (M0) and intermediate to high or high risk of disease recurrence after partial or complete nephrectomy. However, 5.8% of patients in both the pembrolizumab and placebo groups had M1 NED (metastatic stage 1, no evidence of disease) status after nephrectomy and resection of metastatic lesions. These patients were also at intermediate to high or high risk of recurrence.

The benefit of pembrolizumab, compared with placebo, was maintained in this subgroup, said the investigators. “At this point, we continue to look at the data, but we know that there was a benefit for DFS in the population we included,” said Dr. Choueiri. “When we looked at several subgroups such as PD-L1 status, geography, gender, performance status, M0/M1, all HRs were less than 1 suggesting benefit from pembrolizumab over placebo.”

“Subset analyses by stage are going to be important to determine which group of patients will derive the most benefit,” asserted Dr. McKay. “While those with M1 NED appear to derive benefit with HR for DFS of 0.29, those with M1 NED comprise a small percentage of patient enrolled in the trial.”

Studies exploring tissue- and blood-based biomarkers, including circulating tumor DNA, will be key to identify patients at highest risk for recurrence or adjuvant treatment, Dr. McKay emphasized. “The adoption of adjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors brings along new questions regarding patient selection, therapeutic use in patients with non–clear-cell renal cell carcinoma, and systemic treatment after recurrence during or after the receipt of adjuvant therapy.”

KEYNOTE-564 was funded by Merck. Multiple study authors including Dr. Choueiri have financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry, including Merck.

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

The decades-long search for a safe, effective adjuvant therapy for patients with resected kidney cancer at high risk of recurrence appears to have taken a big step in the right direction, according to expert opinion.

The high hopes have been generated by results from the randomized, phase 3 KEYNOTE-564 trial, showing that monotherapy with pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) was associated with significantly longer disease-free survival (DFS) after nephrectomy than placebo (77.3% vs. 68.1%, respectively). Median follow-up was 24 months.

The results come from the trial’s first interim analysis of data from 994 patients with clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) at high risk of recurrence.

For the pembrolizumab group, the estimated percentage alive at 24 months was 96.6%, compared with 93.5% in the placebo group (hazard ratio for death, 0.54), said Toni Choueiri, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, and colleagues.

However, grade 3 or higher adverse events (any cause) occurred at almost twice the rate in the pembrolizumab versus the placebo group (32.4% vs. 17.7%). The new study was published online Aug. 18, 2021, in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The study results were first presented at the 2021 American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting and described as likely to be practice changing in this setting, as reported by this news organization.

Currently, this patient population has “no options for adjuvant therapy to reduce the risk of recurrence that have high levels of supporting evidence,” observed the authors.

That’s about to change, as the trial results “herald the dawn of a new era in the treatment of renal cell carcinoma,” Rana McKay, MD, University of California San Diego Health, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

Multiple studies have investigated potential adjuvant therapies in RCC since the 1980s, she observed.

“For the first time, we now have an effective adjuvant immunotherapy option for patients with resected renal cell carcinoma at high risk of recurrence,” Dr. McKay said in an interview.

To date, the lack of clinically beneficial adjuvant therapy options in RCC has been “humbling,” Dr. Choueiri said in an interview. “We hope we can push the envelope further and get more patients with RCC some good options that make them live longer and better.”

Although the standard of care for patients diagnosed with locoregional RCC is partial or total nephrectomy, nearly half of patients eventually experience disease recurrence following surgery, Dr. Choueiri noted.

“No standard, globally approved adjuvant therapy options are currently available for this population,” he said. Clinical guidelines recommend patients at high risk of disease recurrence after surgery be entered into a clinical trial or undergo active surveillance.

Researchers will continue to follow the results for overall survival, a secondary endpoint. “The very early look suggests encouraging results [in overall survival] with an HR of 0.54,” Dr. Choueiri noted.

In the meantime, the prolongation of DFS represents a clear clinical benefit, said Dr. McKay, “given the magnitude of the increase” and “the limited incidence of toxic effects.”

KEYNOTE-564 will alter the adjuvant treatment landscape for RCC as a positive phase 3 trial of adjuvant immunotherapy for the disease, she added.

A number of earlier studies have investigated the use of adjuvant vascular endothelial growth factor–targeting agents in RCC. Only the 2016 Sunitinib Treatment of Renal Adjuvant Cancer (S-TRAC) trial showed improved DFS with sunitinib, compared with placebo (6.8 vs. 5.6 years). Subsequently, sunitinib was approved for adjuvant use in the United States. However, the S-TRAC trial also showed that sunitinib therapy was associated with an increased incidence of toxic effects and lower quality of life scores, and researchers did not observe any benefit in overall survival.

“Despite regulatory approval in the U.S., sunitinib is not approved for adjuvant use by the European Medicines Agency and has limited utilization in clinical practice given the low benefit-risk ratio,” Dr. McKay pointed out.
 

Study details

KEYNOTE-564 involved 996 patients with clear-cell RCC at high risk for recurrence after nephrectomy, with or without metastasectomy. They were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive a 200-mg dose of adjuvant pembrolizumab or placebo given intravenously once every 3 weeks for up to 17 cycles for approximately 1 year.

The vast majority of patients enrolled in the study had localized disease with no evidence of metastases (M0) and intermediate to high or high risk of disease recurrence after partial or complete nephrectomy. However, 5.8% of patients in both the pembrolizumab and placebo groups had M1 NED (metastatic stage 1, no evidence of disease) status after nephrectomy and resection of metastatic lesions. These patients were also at intermediate to high or high risk of recurrence.

The benefit of pembrolizumab, compared with placebo, was maintained in this subgroup, said the investigators. “At this point, we continue to look at the data, but we know that there was a benefit for DFS in the population we included,” said Dr. Choueiri. “When we looked at several subgroups such as PD-L1 status, geography, gender, performance status, M0/M1, all HRs were less than 1 suggesting benefit from pembrolizumab over placebo.”

“Subset analyses by stage are going to be important to determine which group of patients will derive the most benefit,” asserted Dr. McKay. “While those with M1 NED appear to derive benefit with HR for DFS of 0.29, those with M1 NED comprise a small percentage of patient enrolled in the trial.”

Studies exploring tissue- and blood-based biomarkers, including circulating tumor DNA, will be key to identify patients at highest risk for recurrence or adjuvant treatment, Dr. McKay emphasized. “The adoption of adjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors brings along new questions regarding patient selection, therapeutic use in patients with non–clear-cell renal cell carcinoma, and systemic treatment after recurrence during or after the receipt of adjuvant therapy.”

KEYNOTE-564 was funded by Merck. Multiple study authors including Dr. Choueiri have financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry, including Merck.

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

The decades-long search for a safe, effective adjuvant therapy for patients with resected kidney cancer at high risk of recurrence appears to have taken a big step in the right direction, according to expert opinion.

The high hopes have been generated by results from the randomized, phase 3 KEYNOTE-564 trial, showing that monotherapy with pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) was associated with significantly longer disease-free survival (DFS) after nephrectomy than placebo (77.3% vs. 68.1%, respectively). Median follow-up was 24 months.

The results come from the trial’s first interim analysis of data from 994 patients with clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) at high risk of recurrence.

For the pembrolizumab group, the estimated percentage alive at 24 months was 96.6%, compared with 93.5% in the placebo group (hazard ratio for death, 0.54), said Toni Choueiri, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, and colleagues.

However, grade 3 or higher adverse events (any cause) occurred at almost twice the rate in the pembrolizumab versus the placebo group (32.4% vs. 17.7%). The new study was published online Aug. 18, 2021, in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The study results were first presented at the 2021 American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting and described as likely to be practice changing in this setting, as reported by this news organization.

Currently, this patient population has “no options for adjuvant therapy to reduce the risk of recurrence that have high levels of supporting evidence,” observed the authors.

That’s about to change, as the trial results “herald the dawn of a new era in the treatment of renal cell carcinoma,” Rana McKay, MD, University of California San Diego Health, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

Multiple studies have investigated potential adjuvant therapies in RCC since the 1980s, she observed.

“For the first time, we now have an effective adjuvant immunotherapy option for patients with resected renal cell carcinoma at high risk of recurrence,” Dr. McKay said in an interview.

To date, the lack of clinically beneficial adjuvant therapy options in RCC has been “humbling,” Dr. Choueiri said in an interview. “We hope we can push the envelope further and get more patients with RCC some good options that make them live longer and better.”

Although the standard of care for patients diagnosed with locoregional RCC is partial or total nephrectomy, nearly half of patients eventually experience disease recurrence following surgery, Dr. Choueiri noted.

“No standard, globally approved adjuvant therapy options are currently available for this population,” he said. Clinical guidelines recommend patients at high risk of disease recurrence after surgery be entered into a clinical trial or undergo active surveillance.

Researchers will continue to follow the results for overall survival, a secondary endpoint. “The very early look suggests encouraging results [in overall survival] with an HR of 0.54,” Dr. Choueiri noted.

In the meantime, the prolongation of DFS represents a clear clinical benefit, said Dr. McKay, “given the magnitude of the increase” and “the limited incidence of toxic effects.”

KEYNOTE-564 will alter the adjuvant treatment landscape for RCC as a positive phase 3 trial of adjuvant immunotherapy for the disease, she added.

A number of earlier studies have investigated the use of adjuvant vascular endothelial growth factor–targeting agents in RCC. Only the 2016 Sunitinib Treatment of Renal Adjuvant Cancer (S-TRAC) trial showed improved DFS with sunitinib, compared with placebo (6.8 vs. 5.6 years). Subsequently, sunitinib was approved for adjuvant use in the United States. However, the S-TRAC trial also showed that sunitinib therapy was associated with an increased incidence of toxic effects and lower quality of life scores, and researchers did not observe any benefit in overall survival.

“Despite regulatory approval in the U.S., sunitinib is not approved for adjuvant use by the European Medicines Agency and has limited utilization in clinical practice given the low benefit-risk ratio,” Dr. McKay pointed out.
 

Study details

KEYNOTE-564 involved 996 patients with clear-cell RCC at high risk for recurrence after nephrectomy, with or without metastasectomy. They were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive a 200-mg dose of adjuvant pembrolizumab or placebo given intravenously once every 3 weeks for up to 17 cycles for approximately 1 year.

The vast majority of patients enrolled in the study had localized disease with no evidence of metastases (M0) and intermediate to high or high risk of disease recurrence after partial or complete nephrectomy. However, 5.8% of patients in both the pembrolizumab and placebo groups had M1 NED (metastatic stage 1, no evidence of disease) status after nephrectomy and resection of metastatic lesions. These patients were also at intermediate to high or high risk of recurrence.

The benefit of pembrolizumab, compared with placebo, was maintained in this subgroup, said the investigators. “At this point, we continue to look at the data, but we know that there was a benefit for DFS in the population we included,” said Dr. Choueiri. “When we looked at several subgroups such as PD-L1 status, geography, gender, performance status, M0/M1, all HRs were less than 1 suggesting benefit from pembrolizumab over placebo.”

“Subset analyses by stage are going to be important to determine which group of patients will derive the most benefit,” asserted Dr. McKay. “While those with M1 NED appear to derive benefit with HR for DFS of 0.29, those with M1 NED comprise a small percentage of patient enrolled in the trial.”

Studies exploring tissue- and blood-based biomarkers, including circulating tumor DNA, will be key to identify patients at highest risk for recurrence or adjuvant treatment, Dr. McKay emphasized. “The adoption of adjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors brings along new questions regarding patient selection, therapeutic use in patients with non–clear-cell renal cell carcinoma, and systemic treatment after recurrence during or after the receipt of adjuvant therapy.”

KEYNOTE-564 was funded by Merck. Multiple study authors including Dr. Choueiri have financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry, including Merck.

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

A large, real-world test of face masks in Bangladesh shows that masks work to reduce community spread of COVID-19. It also shows that surgical masks are more effective than cloth face coverings.

OsakaWayne Studios/Moment

The study, which was published ahead of peer review, demonstrates the power of careful investigation and offers a host of lessons about mask wearing that will be important worldwide. One key finding of the study, for example, is that wearing a mask doesn’t lead people to abandon social distancing, something public health officials had feared might happen if masks gave people a false sense of security.

“What we really were able to achieve is to demonstrate that masks are effective against COVID-19, even under a rigorous and systematic evaluation that was done in the throes of the pandemic,” said Ashley Styczynski, MD, who was an infectious disease fellow at Stanford (Calif.) University when she collaborated on the study with other colleagues at Stanford, Yale, and Innovations for Poverty Action, a large research and policy nonprofit organization that currently works in 22 countries.

“And so, I think people who have been holding out on wearing masks because [they] felt like there wasn’t enough evidence for it, we’re hoping this will really help bridge that gap for them,” she said.

It included more than 600 unions – or local governmental districts in Bangladesh – and roughly 340,000 people.

Half of the districts were given cloth or surgical face masks along with continual reminders to wear them properly; the other half were tracked with no intervention. Blood tests of people who developed symptoms during the study verified their infections.

Compared to villages that didn’t mask, those in which masks of any type were worn had about 9% fewer symptomatic cases of COVID-19. The finding was statistically significant and was unlikely to have occurred by chance alone.

“Somebody could read this study and say, ‘OK, you reduced COVID-19 by 9%. Big deal.’ And what I would respond to that would be that, if anything, we think that that is a substantial underestimate,” Dr. Styczynski said.

One reason they think they underestimated the effectiveness of masks is that they tested only people who were having symptoms, so people who had only very mild or asymptomatic infections were missed.

Another reason is that, among people who had symptoms, only one-third agreed to undergo a blood test. The effect may have been bigger had participation been universal.

Local transmission may have played a role, too. Rates of COVID-19 in Bangladesh were relatively low during the study. Most infections were caused by the B.1.1.7, or Alpha, variant.

Since then, Delta has taken over. Delta is thought to be more transmissible, and some studies have suggested that people infected with Delta shed more viral particles. Masks may be more effective when more virus is circulating.

The investigators also found important differences by age and by the type of mask. Villages in which surgical masks were worn had 11% fewer COVID-19 cases than villages in which masks were not worn. In villages in which cloth masks were worn, on the other hand, infections were reduced by only 5%.

The cloth masks were substantial. Each had three layers – two layers of fabric with an outer layer of polypropylene. On testing, the filtration efficiency of the cloth masks was only about 37%, compared with 95% for the three-layer surgical masks, which were also made of polypropylene.

Masks were most effective for older individuals. People aged 50-60 years who wore surgical masks were 23% less likely to test positive for COVID, compared with their peers who didn’t wear masks. For people older than 60, the reduction in risk was greater – 35%.
 

Rigorous research

The study took place over a period of 8 weeks in each district. The interventions were rolled out in waves, with the first starting in November 2020 and the last in January 2021.

Investigators gave each household free cloth or surgical face masks and showed families a video about proper mask wearing with promotional messages from the prime minister, a head imam, and a national cricket star. They also handed out free masks.

Previous studies have shown that people aren’t always truthful about wearing masks in public. In Kenya, for example, 88% of people answering a phone survey said that they wore masks regularly, but researchers determined that only 10% of them actually did so.

Investigators in the Bangladesh study didn’t just ask people if they’d worn masks, they stationed themselves in public markets, mosques, tea stalls, and on roads that were the main entrances to the villages and took notes.

They also tested various ways to educate people and to remind them to wear masks. They found that four factors were effective at promoting the wearing of masks, and they gave them an acronym – NORM.

• N for no-cost masks.
• O for offering information through the video and local leaders.
• R for regular reminders to people by investigators who stand in public markets and offer masks or encourage anyone who wasn’t wearing one or wasn’t wearing it correctly.
• M for modeling, in which local leaders, such as imams, wear masks and remind their followers to wear them.

These four measures tripled the wearing of masks in the intervention communities, from a baseline level of 13% to 42%. People continued to wear their masks properly for about 2 weeks after the study ended, indicating that they’d gotten used to wearing them.

Dr. Styczynski said that nothing else – not text message reminders, or signs posted in public places, or local incentives – moved the needle on mask wearing.
 

Saved lives and money

The study found that the strategy was cost effective, too. Giving masks to a large population and getting people to use them costs about $10,000 per life saved from COVID, on par with the cost of deploying mosquito nets to save people from malaria, Dr. Styczynski said.

“I think that what we’ve been able to show is that this is a really important tool to be used globally, especially as countries have delays in getting access to vaccines and rolling them out,” she said.

Dr. Styczynski said masks will continue to be important even in countries such as the United States, where vaccines aren’t stopping transmission 100% and there are still large portions of the population who are unvaccinated, such as children.

“If we want to reduce COVID-19 here, it’s really important that we consider the ongoing utility of masks, in addition to vaccines, and not really thinking of them as one or the other,” she said.

The study was funded by a grant from GiveWell.org. The funder had no role in the study design, interpretation, or the decision to publish.

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

A large, real-world test of face masks in Bangladesh shows that masks work to reduce community spread of COVID-19. It also shows that surgical masks are more effective than cloth face coverings.

OsakaWayne Studios/Moment

The study, which was published ahead of peer review, demonstrates the power of careful investigation and offers a host of lessons about mask wearing that will be important worldwide. One key finding of the study, for example, is that wearing a mask doesn’t lead people to abandon social distancing, something public health officials had feared might happen if masks gave people a false sense of security.

“What we really were able to achieve is to demonstrate that masks are effective against COVID-19, even under a rigorous and systematic evaluation that was done in the throes of the pandemic,” said Ashley Styczynski, MD, who was an infectious disease fellow at Stanford (Calif.) University when she collaborated on the study with other colleagues at Stanford, Yale, and Innovations for Poverty Action, a large research and policy nonprofit organization that currently works in 22 countries.

“And so, I think people who have been holding out on wearing masks because [they] felt like there wasn’t enough evidence for it, we’re hoping this will really help bridge that gap for them,” she said.

It included more than 600 unions – or local governmental districts in Bangladesh – and roughly 340,000 people.

Half of the districts were given cloth or surgical face masks along with continual reminders to wear them properly; the other half were tracked with no intervention. Blood tests of people who developed symptoms during the study verified their infections.

Compared to villages that didn’t mask, those in which masks of any type were worn had about 9% fewer symptomatic cases of COVID-19. The finding was statistically significant and was unlikely to have occurred by chance alone.

“Somebody could read this study and say, ‘OK, you reduced COVID-19 by 9%. Big deal.’ And what I would respond to that would be that, if anything, we think that that is a substantial underestimate,” Dr. Styczynski said.

One reason they think they underestimated the effectiveness of masks is that they tested only people who were having symptoms, so people who had only very mild or asymptomatic infections were missed.

Another reason is that, among people who had symptoms, only one-third agreed to undergo a blood test. The effect may have been bigger had participation been universal.

Local transmission may have played a role, too. Rates of COVID-19 in Bangladesh were relatively low during the study. Most infections were caused by the B.1.1.7, or Alpha, variant.

Since then, Delta has taken over. Delta is thought to be more transmissible, and some studies have suggested that people infected with Delta shed more viral particles. Masks may be more effective when more virus is circulating.

The investigators also found important differences by age and by the type of mask. Villages in which surgical masks were worn had 11% fewer COVID-19 cases than villages in which masks were not worn. In villages in which cloth masks were worn, on the other hand, infections were reduced by only 5%.

The cloth masks were substantial. Each had three layers – two layers of fabric with an outer layer of polypropylene. On testing, the filtration efficiency of the cloth masks was only about 37%, compared with 95% for the three-layer surgical masks, which were also made of polypropylene.

Masks were most effective for older individuals. People aged 50-60 years who wore surgical masks were 23% less likely to test positive for COVID, compared with their peers who didn’t wear masks. For people older than 60, the reduction in risk was greater – 35%.
 

Rigorous research

The study took place over a period of 8 weeks in each district. The interventions were rolled out in waves, with the first starting in November 2020 and the last in January 2021.

Investigators gave each household free cloth or surgical face masks and showed families a video about proper mask wearing with promotional messages from the prime minister, a head imam, and a national cricket star. They also handed out free masks.

Previous studies have shown that people aren’t always truthful about wearing masks in public. In Kenya, for example, 88% of people answering a phone survey said that they wore masks regularly, but researchers determined that only 10% of them actually did so.

Investigators in the Bangladesh study didn’t just ask people if they’d worn masks, they stationed themselves in public markets, mosques, tea stalls, and on roads that were the main entrances to the villages and took notes.

They also tested various ways to educate people and to remind them to wear masks. They found that four factors were effective at promoting the wearing of masks, and they gave them an acronym – NORM.

• N for no-cost masks.
• O for offering information through the video and local leaders.
• R for regular reminders to people by investigators who stand in public markets and offer masks or encourage anyone who wasn’t wearing one or wasn’t wearing it correctly.
• M for modeling, in which local leaders, such as imams, wear masks and remind their followers to wear them.

These four measures tripled the wearing of masks in the intervention communities, from a baseline level of 13% to 42%. People continued to wear their masks properly for about 2 weeks after the study ended, indicating that they’d gotten used to wearing them.

Dr. Styczynski said that nothing else – not text message reminders, or signs posted in public places, or local incentives – moved the needle on mask wearing.
 

Saved lives and money

The study found that the strategy was cost effective, too. Giving masks to a large population and getting people to use them costs about $10,000 per life saved from COVID, on par with the cost of deploying mosquito nets to save people from malaria, Dr. Styczynski said.

“I think that what we’ve been able to show is that this is a really important tool to be used globally, especially as countries have delays in getting access to vaccines and rolling them out,” she said.

Dr. Styczynski said masks will continue to be important even in countries such as the United States, where vaccines aren’t stopping transmission 100% and there are still large portions of the population who are unvaccinated, such as children.

“If we want to reduce COVID-19 here, it’s really important that we consider the ongoing utility of masks, in addition to vaccines, and not really thinking of them as one or the other,” she said.

The study was funded by a grant from GiveWell.org. The funder had no role in the study design, interpretation, or the decision to publish.

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

A large, real-world test of face masks in Bangladesh shows that masks work to reduce community spread of COVID-19. It also shows that surgical masks are more effective than cloth face coverings.

OsakaWayne Studios/Moment

The study, which was published ahead of peer review, demonstrates the power of careful investigation and offers a host of lessons about mask wearing that will be important worldwide. One key finding of the study, for example, is that wearing a mask doesn’t lead people to abandon social distancing, something public health officials had feared might happen if masks gave people a false sense of security.

“What we really were able to achieve is to demonstrate that masks are effective against COVID-19, even under a rigorous and systematic evaluation that was done in the throes of the pandemic,” said Ashley Styczynski, MD, who was an infectious disease fellow at Stanford (Calif.) University when she collaborated on the study with other colleagues at Stanford, Yale, and Innovations for Poverty Action, a large research and policy nonprofit organization that currently works in 22 countries.

“And so, I think people who have been holding out on wearing masks because [they] felt like there wasn’t enough evidence for it, we’re hoping this will really help bridge that gap for them,” she said.

It included more than 600 unions – or local governmental districts in Bangladesh – and roughly 340,000 people.

Half of the districts were given cloth or surgical face masks along with continual reminders to wear them properly; the other half were tracked with no intervention. Blood tests of people who developed symptoms during the study verified their infections.

Compared to villages that didn’t mask, those in which masks of any type were worn had about 9% fewer symptomatic cases of COVID-19. The finding was statistically significant and was unlikely to have occurred by chance alone.

“Somebody could read this study and say, ‘OK, you reduced COVID-19 by 9%. Big deal.’ And what I would respond to that would be that, if anything, we think that that is a substantial underestimate,” Dr. Styczynski said.

One reason they think they underestimated the effectiveness of masks is that they tested only people who were having symptoms, so people who had only very mild or asymptomatic infections were missed.

Another reason is that, among people who had symptoms, only one-third agreed to undergo a blood test. The effect may have been bigger had participation been universal.

Local transmission may have played a role, too. Rates of COVID-19 in Bangladesh were relatively low during the study. Most infections were caused by the B.1.1.7, or Alpha, variant.

Since then, Delta has taken over. Delta is thought to be more transmissible, and some studies have suggested that people infected with Delta shed more viral particles. Masks may be more effective when more virus is circulating.

The investigators also found important differences by age and by the type of mask. Villages in which surgical masks were worn had 11% fewer COVID-19 cases than villages in which masks were not worn. In villages in which cloth masks were worn, on the other hand, infections were reduced by only 5%.

The cloth masks were substantial. Each had three layers – two layers of fabric with an outer layer of polypropylene. On testing, the filtration efficiency of the cloth masks was only about 37%, compared with 95% for the three-layer surgical masks, which were also made of polypropylene.

Masks were most effective for older individuals. People aged 50-60 years who wore surgical masks were 23% less likely to test positive for COVID, compared with their peers who didn’t wear masks. For people older than 60, the reduction in risk was greater – 35%.
 

Rigorous research

The study took place over a period of 8 weeks in each district. The interventions were rolled out in waves, with the first starting in November 2020 and the last in January 2021.

Investigators gave each household free cloth or surgical face masks and showed families a video about proper mask wearing with promotional messages from the prime minister, a head imam, and a national cricket star. They also handed out free masks.

Previous studies have shown that people aren’t always truthful about wearing masks in public. In Kenya, for example, 88% of people answering a phone survey said that they wore masks regularly, but researchers determined that only 10% of them actually did so.

Investigators in the Bangladesh study didn’t just ask people if they’d worn masks, they stationed themselves in public markets, mosques, tea stalls, and on roads that were the main entrances to the villages and took notes.

They also tested various ways to educate people and to remind them to wear masks. They found that four factors were effective at promoting the wearing of masks, and they gave them an acronym – NORM.

• N for no-cost masks.
• O for offering information through the video and local leaders.
• R for regular reminders to people by investigators who stand in public markets and offer masks or encourage anyone who wasn’t wearing one or wasn’t wearing it correctly.
• M for modeling, in which local leaders, such as imams, wear masks and remind their followers to wear them.

These four measures tripled the wearing of masks in the intervention communities, from a baseline level of 13% to 42%. People continued to wear their masks properly for about 2 weeks after the study ended, indicating that they’d gotten used to wearing them.

Dr. Styczynski said that nothing else – not text message reminders, or signs posted in public places, or local incentives – moved the needle on mask wearing.
 

Saved lives and money

The study found that the strategy was cost effective, too. Giving masks to a large population and getting people to use them costs about $10,000 per life saved from COVID, on par with the cost of deploying mosquito nets to save people from malaria, Dr. Styczynski said.

“I think that what we’ve been able to show is that this is a really important tool to be used globally, especially as countries have delays in getting access to vaccines and rolling them out,” she said.

Dr. Styczynski said masks will continue to be important even in countries such as the United States, where vaccines aren’t stopping transmission 100% and there are still large portions of the population who are unvaccinated, such as children.

“If we want to reduce COVID-19 here, it’s really important that we consider the ongoing utility of masks, in addition to vaccines, and not really thinking of them as one or the other,” she said.

The study was funded by a grant from GiveWell.org. The funder had no role in the study design, interpretation, or the decision to publish.

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

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is an incredibly common chronic skin disease, affecting up to 25% of children and 7% of adults in the United States.^1,2 Despite the prevalence of this disease and its impact on patient quality of life, research and scholarly work in AD has been limited until recent years. A PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the term atopic dermatitis showed that there were fewer than 500 articles published in 2000 and 965 in 2010; with our more recent acceleration in research, there were 2168 articles published in 2020 and more than 1300 published in just the first half of 2021 (through June). This new research includes insights into the pathogenesis of AD and study of the disease impact and comorbidities as well as an extensive amount of drug development and clinical trial work for new topical and systemic therapies.

New Agents to Treat AD

The 2016 approval of crisaborole,³ a phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor, followed by the approval of dupilumab, an IL-4 and IL-13 pathway inhibitor and the first biologic agent approved for AD,⁴ ushered in a new age of therapy. We currently are awaiting the incorporation of a new set of topical nonsteroidal agents, oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, and new biologic agents for AD, several of which have completed phase 3 trials and extended safety evaluations. How these new drugs will impact our standard treatment across the spectrum of care for AD is not yet known.

The emergence of new systemic therapies is timely, as the most used systemic medications previously were oral corticosteroids, despite their use being advised against in standard practice guidelines. Other agents such as methotrexate, cyclosporine, azathioprine, and mycophenolate are discussed in the literature and AD treatment guidelines as being potentially useful, though absence of US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval and the need for frequent laboratory monitoring, as well as drug-specific side effects and an increased risk of infection, limit their use in the United States, especially in pediatric and adolescent populations.⁵

The approval of dupilumab as a systemic therapy—initially for adults and subsequently for teenagers (12–17 years of age) and then children (6–11 years of age)—has markedly influenced the standard of care for moderate to severe AD. This agent has been shown to have a considerable impact on disease severity and quality of life, with a good safety profile and the added benefit of not requiring continuous (or any) laboratory monitoring.^6-8 Ongoing studies of dupilumab in children (ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers NCT02612454, NCT03346434), including those younger than 1 year,⁹ raise the question of how commonly this medication might be incorporated into care across the entire age spectrum of patients with AD. What standards will there be for assessment of severity, disease impact, and persistence to warrant use in younger ages? Will early treatment with novel systemic agents change the overall course of the disease and minimize the development of comorbidities? The answers to these questions remain to be seen.

JAK Inhibitors for AD
Additional novel therapeutics currently are undergoing studies for treatment of AD, most notably the oral JAK inhibitors upadacitinib,¹⁰ baricitinib,¹¹ and abrocitinib.¹² Each of these agents has completed phase 3 trials for AD. Two of these agents—upadacitinib and baricitinib—have prior FDA approval for use in other disease states. Of note, baricitinib is already approved for treatment of moderate to severe AD in adults in more than 40 countries¹³; however, the use of these agents in other diseases brings about concerns of malignancy, severe infection, and thrombosis. In the clinical trials for AD, many of these events have not been seen, but the number of patients treated is limited, and longer-term safety assessment is important.^10,11

How will the oral JAK inhibitors be incorporated into care compared to biologic agents such as dupilumab? Tolerance and more serious potential adverse events are concerns, with nausea, headaches, and acneform eruptions being associated with some of the medications, in addition to potential issues with herpes simplex and zoster infections. However, oral JAK inhibitors have the benefit of not requiring injections, something that many patients may prefer, and data show that these drugs generally are associated with a rapid reduction in pruritus and, depending on the drug, very quick and profound effects on objective signs of AD.^10-12 Two head-to-head studies have been completed comparing dupilumab to oral JAK inhibitors in adults: the JADE COMPARE trial examining dupilumab vs abrocitinib¹² and the Heads UP trial comparing dupilumab vs upadacitinib.¹⁴ Compared to dupilumab, higher-dose abrocitinib showed more rapid responses, superiority in itch response, and similarity or superiority in other outcomes depending on the time point of the evaluation. Adverse event profiles differed; for example, abrocitinib was associated with more nausea, acneform eruptions, and herpes zoster, while dupilumab had higher rates of conjunctivitis.¹² Upadacitinib, which was only studied at higher dosing (30 mg daily), showed superiority to dupilumab in itch response and in improvement in AD severity in multiple outcome measures; however, there were increases in serious infections, eczema herpeticum, herpes zoster, and laboratory-related adverse events.¹⁴ Dupilumab has the advantage of studies of extended use along with real-world experience, generally with excellent safety and tolerance other than injection-site reactions and conjunctivitis.⁸ Biologics targeting IL-13—tralokinumab and lebrikizumab—also are to be added to our armamentarium.^15,16 The addition of these agents and JAK inhibitors as new systemic treatment options points to the quickly evolving future of AD treatment for patients with extensive disease.

New topical therapies in development provide even more treatment options. New nonsteroidal topicals include topical JAK inhibitors such as ruxolitinib¹⁷; tapinarof,¹⁸ an aryl hydrocarbon receptor modulator; and phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitors. These agents may be useful either as monotherapy, as studied, potentially without the regional limitations associated with stronger topical corticosteroids, but also should be useful in clinical practice as part of therapeutic regimens with other topical steroid and nonsteroidal agents.

The Microbiome and AD

In addition, research looking at topical microbes as specific interventions that may mediate the microbiome and inflammation of AD are intriguing. A recent phase 1 trial from the University of California San Diego¹⁹ indicated that topical bacteriotherapy directed at decreasing Staphylococcus aureus may provide an impact in AD. Observations by Kong et al²⁰ showed that gram-negative microbiome differences are seen in AD patients compared to unaffected individuals, which has fueled studies showing that Roseomonas mucosa, a gram-negative skin commensal, when applied as a topical live biotherapeutic agent has improved disease severity in children and adults with AD.²¹ Although further studies are underway, these initial data suggest a role for microbiome-modifying therapies as AD treatment.

Chronic Hand Eczema

Chronic hand eczema (CHE), which has considerable overlap with AD in many patients, especially children and adolescents,^22-24 is another area of interesting research. This high-prevalence condition is associated with allergic and irritant contact dermatitis^24-26—conditions that are both considered alternative diagnoses for and exacerbators of AD²⁷—and is a disease process currently being targeted for new therapies. Delgocitinib (NCT04872101, NCT04871711), the novel JAK inhibitor ARQ-252 (NCT04378569), among other topical agents, as well as systemic therapeutics such as gusacitinib (NCT03728504), are in active trials for CHE. Given CHE’s impact on quality of life²⁸ and its overlap with AD, investigation into this disorder can help drive future AD research as well as lead to better knowledge and treatment of CHE.

Final Thoughts

Despite the promising results of these myriad new therapies in AD, there are many factors that influence how and when we use these drugs, including their approval status, FDA labeling, and the ability of patients to access and afford treatment. Additionally, continued study is needed to evaluate the long-term safety and extended efficacy of newer drugs, such as the oral JAK inhibitors. Despite these hurdles, the current landscape of research and development is rapidly evolving. Compared to the many years when only one main group of therapies was a reasonable option for patients, the future of AD treatment looks bright.

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is an incredibly common chronic skin disease, affecting up to 25% of children and 7% of adults in the United States.^1,2 Despite the prevalence of this disease and its impact on patient quality of life, research and scholarly work in AD has been limited until recent years. A PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the term atopic dermatitis showed that there were fewer than 500 articles published in 2000 and 965 in 2010; with our more recent acceleration in research, there were 2168 articles published in 2020 and more than 1300 published in just the first half of 2021 (through June). This new research includes insights into the pathogenesis of AD and study of the disease impact and comorbidities as well as an extensive amount of drug development and clinical trial work for new topical and systemic therapies.

New Agents to Treat AD

The 2016 approval of crisaborole,³ a phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor, followed by the approval of dupilumab, an IL-4 and IL-13 pathway inhibitor and the first biologic agent approved for AD,⁴ ushered in a new age of therapy. We currently are awaiting the incorporation of a new set of topical nonsteroidal agents, oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, and new biologic agents for AD, several of which have completed phase 3 trials and extended safety evaluations. How these new drugs will impact our standard treatment across the spectrum of care for AD is not yet known.

The emergence of new systemic therapies is timely, as the most used systemic medications previously were oral corticosteroids, despite their use being advised against in standard practice guidelines. Other agents such as methotrexate, cyclosporine, azathioprine, and mycophenolate are discussed in the literature and AD treatment guidelines as being potentially useful, though absence of US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval and the need for frequent laboratory monitoring, as well as drug-specific side effects and an increased risk of infection, limit their use in the United States, especially in pediatric and adolescent populations.⁵

The approval of dupilumab as a systemic therapy—initially for adults and subsequently for teenagers (12–17 years of age) and then children (6–11 years of age)—has markedly influenced the standard of care for moderate to severe AD. This agent has been shown to have a considerable impact on disease severity and quality of life, with a good safety profile and the added benefit of not requiring continuous (or any) laboratory monitoring.^6-8 Ongoing studies of dupilumab in children (ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers NCT02612454, NCT03346434), including those younger than 1 year,⁹ raise the question of how commonly this medication might be incorporated into care across the entire age spectrum of patients with AD. What standards will there be for assessment of severity, disease impact, and persistence to warrant use in younger ages? Will early treatment with novel systemic agents change the overall course of the disease and minimize the development of comorbidities? The answers to these questions remain to be seen.

JAK Inhibitors for AD
Additional novel therapeutics currently are undergoing studies for treatment of AD, most notably the oral JAK inhibitors upadacitinib,¹⁰ baricitinib,¹¹ and abrocitinib.¹² Each of these agents has completed phase 3 trials for AD. Two of these agents—upadacitinib and baricitinib—have prior FDA approval for use in other disease states. Of note, baricitinib is already approved for treatment of moderate to severe AD in adults in more than 40 countries¹³; however, the use of these agents in other diseases brings about concerns of malignancy, severe infection, and thrombosis. In the clinical trials for AD, many of these events have not been seen, but the number of patients treated is limited, and longer-term safety assessment is important.^10,11

How will the oral JAK inhibitors be incorporated into care compared to biologic agents such as dupilumab? Tolerance and more serious potential adverse events are concerns, with nausea, headaches, and acneform eruptions being associated with some of the medications, in addition to potential issues with herpes simplex and zoster infections. However, oral JAK inhibitors have the benefit of not requiring injections, something that many patients may prefer, and data show that these drugs generally are associated with a rapid reduction in pruritus and, depending on the drug, very quick and profound effects on objective signs of AD.^10-12 Two head-to-head studies have been completed comparing dupilumab to oral JAK inhibitors in adults: the JADE COMPARE trial examining dupilumab vs abrocitinib¹² and the Heads UP trial comparing dupilumab vs upadacitinib.¹⁴ Compared to dupilumab, higher-dose abrocitinib showed more rapid responses, superiority in itch response, and similarity or superiority in other outcomes depending on the time point of the evaluation. Adverse event profiles differed; for example, abrocitinib was associated with more nausea, acneform eruptions, and herpes zoster, while dupilumab had higher rates of conjunctivitis.¹² Upadacitinib, which was only studied at higher dosing (30 mg daily), showed superiority to dupilumab in itch response and in improvement in AD severity in multiple outcome measures; however, there were increases in serious infections, eczema herpeticum, herpes zoster, and laboratory-related adverse events.¹⁴ Dupilumab has the advantage of studies of extended use along with real-world experience, generally with excellent safety and tolerance other than injection-site reactions and conjunctivitis.⁸ Biologics targeting IL-13—tralokinumab and lebrikizumab—also are to be added to our armamentarium.^15,16 The addition of these agents and JAK inhibitors as new systemic treatment options points to the quickly evolving future of AD treatment for patients with extensive disease.

New topical therapies in development provide even more treatment options. New nonsteroidal topicals include topical JAK inhibitors such as ruxolitinib¹⁷; tapinarof,¹⁸ an aryl hydrocarbon receptor modulator; and phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitors. These agents may be useful either as monotherapy, as studied, potentially without the regional limitations associated with stronger topical corticosteroids, but also should be useful in clinical practice as part of therapeutic regimens with other topical steroid and nonsteroidal agents.

The Microbiome and AD

In addition, research looking at topical microbes as specific interventions that may mediate the microbiome and inflammation of AD are intriguing. A recent phase 1 trial from the University of California San Diego¹⁹ indicated that topical bacteriotherapy directed at decreasing Staphylococcus aureus may provide an impact in AD. Observations by Kong et al²⁰ showed that gram-negative microbiome differences are seen in AD patients compared to unaffected individuals, which has fueled studies showing that Roseomonas mucosa, a gram-negative skin commensal, when applied as a topical live biotherapeutic agent has improved disease severity in children and adults with AD.²¹ Although further studies are underway, these initial data suggest a role for microbiome-modifying therapies as AD treatment.

Chronic Hand Eczema

Chronic hand eczema (CHE), which has considerable overlap with AD in many patients, especially children and adolescents,^22-24 is another area of interesting research. This high-prevalence condition is associated with allergic and irritant contact dermatitis^24-26—conditions that are both considered alternative diagnoses for and exacerbators of AD²⁷—and is a disease process currently being targeted for new therapies. Delgocitinib (NCT04872101, NCT04871711), the novel JAK inhibitor ARQ-252 (NCT04378569), among other topical agents, as well as systemic therapeutics such as gusacitinib (NCT03728504), are in active trials for CHE. Given CHE’s impact on quality of life²⁸ and its overlap with AD, investigation into this disorder can help drive future AD research as well as lead to better knowledge and treatment of CHE.

Final Thoughts

Despite the promising results of these myriad new therapies in AD, there are many factors that influence how and when we use these drugs, including their approval status, FDA labeling, and the ability of patients to access and afford treatment. Additionally, continued study is needed to evaluate the long-term safety and extended efficacy of newer drugs, such as the oral JAK inhibitors. Despite these hurdles, the current landscape of research and development is rapidly evolving. Compared to the many years when only one main group of therapies was a reasonable option for patients, the future of AD treatment looks bright.

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is an incredibly common chronic skin disease, affecting up to 25% of children and 7% of adults in the United States.^1,2 Despite the prevalence of this disease and its impact on patient quality of life, research and scholarly work in AD has been limited until recent years. A PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the term atopic dermatitis showed that there were fewer than 500 articles published in 2000 and 965 in 2010; with our more recent acceleration in research, there were 2168 articles published in 2020 and more than 1300 published in just the first half of 2021 (through June). This new research includes insights into the pathogenesis of AD and study of the disease impact and comorbidities as well as an extensive amount of drug development and clinical trial work for new topical and systemic therapies.

New Agents to Treat AD

The 2016 approval of crisaborole,³ a phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor, followed by the approval of dupilumab, an IL-4 and IL-13 pathway inhibitor and the first biologic agent approved for AD,⁴ ushered in a new age of therapy. We currently are awaiting the incorporation of a new set of topical nonsteroidal agents, oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, and new biologic agents for AD, several of which have completed phase 3 trials and extended safety evaluations. How these new drugs will impact our standard treatment across the spectrum of care for AD is not yet known.

The emergence of new systemic therapies is timely, as the most used systemic medications previously were oral corticosteroids, despite their use being advised against in standard practice guidelines. Other agents such as methotrexate, cyclosporine, azathioprine, and mycophenolate are discussed in the literature and AD treatment guidelines as being potentially useful, though absence of US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval and the need for frequent laboratory monitoring, as well as drug-specific side effects and an increased risk of infection, limit their use in the United States, especially in pediatric and adolescent populations.⁵

The approval of dupilumab as a systemic therapy—initially for adults and subsequently for teenagers (12–17 years of age) and then children (6–11 years of age)—has markedly influenced the standard of care for moderate to severe AD. This agent has been shown to have a considerable impact on disease severity and quality of life, with a good safety profile and the added benefit of not requiring continuous (or any) laboratory monitoring.^6-8 Ongoing studies of dupilumab in children (ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers NCT02612454, NCT03346434), including those younger than 1 year,⁹ raise the question of how commonly this medication might be incorporated into care across the entire age spectrum of patients with AD. What standards will there be for assessment of severity, disease impact, and persistence to warrant use in younger ages? Will early treatment with novel systemic agents change the overall course of the disease and minimize the development of comorbidities? The answers to these questions remain to be seen.

JAK Inhibitors for AD
Additional novel therapeutics currently are undergoing studies for treatment of AD, most notably the oral JAK inhibitors upadacitinib,¹⁰ baricitinib,¹¹ and abrocitinib.¹² Each of these agents has completed phase 3 trials for AD. Two of these agents—upadacitinib and baricitinib—have prior FDA approval for use in other disease states. Of note, baricitinib is already approved for treatment of moderate to severe AD in adults in more than 40 countries¹³; however, the use of these agents in other diseases brings about concerns of malignancy, severe infection, and thrombosis. In the clinical trials for AD, many of these events have not been seen, but the number of patients treated is limited, and longer-term safety assessment is important.^10,11

How will the oral JAK inhibitors be incorporated into care compared to biologic agents such as dupilumab? Tolerance and more serious potential adverse events are concerns, with nausea, headaches, and acneform eruptions being associated with some of the medications, in addition to potential issues with herpes simplex and zoster infections. However, oral JAK inhibitors have the benefit of not requiring injections, something that many patients may prefer, and data show that these drugs generally are associated with a rapid reduction in pruritus and, depending on the drug, very quick and profound effects on objective signs of AD.^10-12 Two head-to-head studies have been completed comparing dupilumab to oral JAK inhibitors in adults: the JADE COMPARE trial examining dupilumab vs abrocitinib¹² and the Heads UP trial comparing dupilumab vs upadacitinib.¹⁴ Compared to dupilumab, higher-dose abrocitinib showed more rapid responses, superiority in itch response, and similarity or superiority in other outcomes depending on the time point of the evaluation. Adverse event profiles differed; for example, abrocitinib was associated with more nausea, acneform eruptions, and herpes zoster, while dupilumab had higher rates of conjunctivitis.¹² Upadacitinib, which was only studied at higher dosing (30 mg daily), showed superiority to dupilumab in itch response and in improvement in AD severity in multiple outcome measures; however, there were increases in serious infections, eczema herpeticum, herpes zoster, and laboratory-related adverse events.¹⁴ Dupilumab has the advantage of studies of extended use along with real-world experience, generally with excellent safety and tolerance other than injection-site reactions and conjunctivitis.⁸ Biologics targeting IL-13—tralokinumab and lebrikizumab—also are to be added to our armamentarium.^15,16 The addition of these agents and JAK inhibitors as new systemic treatment options points to the quickly evolving future of AD treatment for patients with extensive disease.

New topical therapies in development provide even more treatment options. New nonsteroidal topicals include topical JAK inhibitors such as ruxolitinib¹⁷; tapinarof,¹⁸ an aryl hydrocarbon receptor modulator; and phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitors. These agents may be useful either as monotherapy, as studied, potentially without the regional limitations associated with stronger topical corticosteroids, but also should be useful in clinical practice as part of therapeutic regimens with other topical steroid and nonsteroidal agents.

The Microbiome and AD

In addition, research looking at topical microbes as specific interventions that may mediate the microbiome and inflammation of AD are intriguing. A recent phase 1 trial from the University of California San Diego¹⁹ indicated that topical bacteriotherapy directed at decreasing Staphylococcus aureus may provide an impact in AD. Observations by Kong et al²⁰ showed that gram-negative microbiome differences are seen in AD patients compared to unaffected individuals, which has fueled studies showing that Roseomonas mucosa, a gram-negative skin commensal, when applied as a topical live biotherapeutic agent has improved disease severity in children and adults with AD.²¹ Although further studies are underway, these initial data suggest a role for microbiome-modifying therapies as AD treatment.

Chronic Hand Eczema

Chronic hand eczema (CHE), which has considerable overlap with AD in many patients, especially children and adolescents,^22-24 is another area of interesting research. This high-prevalence condition is associated with allergic and irritant contact dermatitis^24-26—conditions that are both considered alternative diagnoses for and exacerbators of AD²⁷—and is a disease process currently being targeted for new therapies. Delgocitinib (NCT04872101, NCT04871711), the novel JAK inhibitor ARQ-252 (NCT04378569), among other topical agents, as well as systemic therapeutics such as gusacitinib (NCT03728504), are in active trials for CHE. Given CHE’s impact on quality of life²⁸ and its overlap with AD, investigation into this disorder can help drive future AD research as well as lead to better knowledge and treatment of CHE.

Final Thoughts

Despite the promising results of these myriad new therapies in AD, there are many factors that influence how and when we use these drugs, including their approval status, FDA labeling, and the ability of patients to access and afford treatment. Additionally, continued study is needed to evaluate the long-term safety and extended efficacy of newer drugs, such as the oral JAK inhibitors. Despite these hurdles, the current landscape of research and development is rapidly evolving. Compared to the many years when only one main group of therapies was a reasonable option for patients, the future of AD treatment looks bright.

Several health care-associated infections in U.S. hospitals spiked in 2020 compared to the previous year, according to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention analysis published Sept. 2 in Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology. Soaring hospitalization rates, sicker patients who required more frequent and intense care, and staffing and supply shortages caused by the COVID-19 pandemic are thought to have contributed to this increase.

This is the first increase in health care–associated infections since 2015.

These findings “are a reflection of the enormous stress that COVID has placed on our health care system,” Arjun Srinivasan, MD (Capt, USPHS), the associate director of the CDC’s Health care-Associated Infection Prevention Programs, Atlanta, told this news organization. He was not an author of the article, but he supervised the research. “We don’t want anyone to read this report and think that it represents a failure of the individual provider or a failure of health care providers in this country in their care of COVID patients,” he said. He noted that health care professionals have provided “tremendously good care to patients under extremely difficult circumstances.”

“People don’t fail – systems fail – and that’s what happened here,” he said. “Our systems that we need to have in place to prevent health care–associated infection simply were not as strong as they needed to be to survive this challenge.”

In the study, researchers used data reported to the National Healthcare Safety Network, the CDC’s tracking system for health care–associated infections. The team compared national standard infection ratios – calculated by dividing the number of reported infections by the number of predicted infections – between 2019 and 2020 for six routinely tracked events:

• Central line–associated bloodstream infections.
• Catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs).
• Ventilator-associated events (VAEs).
• Infections associated with colon surgery and abdominal hysterectomy.
• Clostridioides difficile infections.
• Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections.

Infections were estimated using regression models created with baseline data from 2015.

“The new report highlights the need for health care facilities to strengthen their infection prevention programs and support them with adequate resources so that they can handle emerging threats to public health, while at the same time ensuring that gains made in combating HAIs [health care–associated infections] are not lost,” said the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology in a statement.

The analysis revealed significant national increases in central line–associated bloodstream infections, CAUTIs, VAEs, and MRSA infections in 2020 compared to 2019. Among all infection types, the greatest increase was in central-line infections, which were 46% to 47% higher in the third quarter and fourth quarter (Q4) of 2020 relative to the same periods the previous year. VAEs rose by 45%, MRSA infections increased by 34%, and CAUTIs increased by 19% in Q4 of 2020 compared to 2019.

The influx of sicker patients in hospitals throughout 2020 led to more frequent and longer use of medical devices such as catheters and ventilators. The use of these devices increases risk for infection, David P. Calfee, MD, chief medical epidemiologist at the New York–Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center, said in an interview. He is an editor of Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology and was not involved with the study. Shortages in personal protective equipment and crowded intensive care units could also have affected how care was delivered, he said. These factors could have led to “reductions in the ability to provide some of the types of care that are needed to optimally reduce the risk of infection.”

There was either no change or decreases in infections associated with colon surgery or abdominal hysterectomy, likely because there were fewer elective surgeries performed, said Dr. Srinivasan. C. difficile–associated infections also decreased throughout 2020 compared to the previous year. Common practices to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in hospitals, such as environmental cleaning, use of personal protective equipment, and patient isolation, likely helped to curb the spread of C. difficile. Although these mitigating procedures do help protect against MRSA infection, many other factors, notably, the use of medical devices such as ventilators and catheters, can increase the risk for MRSA infection, Dr. Srinivasan added.

Although more research is needed to identify the reasons for these spikes in infection, the findings help quantify the scope of these increases across the United States, Dr. Calfee said. The data allow hospitals and health care professionals to “look back at what we did and then think forward in terms of what we can do different in the future,” he added, “so that these stresses to the system have less of an impact on how we are able to provide care.”

Dr. Srinivasan and Dr. Calfee report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Several health care-associated infections in U.S. hospitals spiked in 2020 compared to the previous year, according to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention analysis published Sept. 2 in Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology. Soaring hospitalization rates, sicker patients who required more frequent and intense care, and staffing and supply shortages caused by the COVID-19 pandemic are thought to have contributed to this increase.

This is the first increase in health care–associated infections since 2015.

These findings “are a reflection of the enormous stress that COVID has placed on our health care system,” Arjun Srinivasan, MD (Capt, USPHS), the associate director of the CDC’s Health care-Associated Infection Prevention Programs, Atlanta, told this news organization. He was not an author of the article, but he supervised the research. “We don’t want anyone to read this report and think that it represents a failure of the individual provider or a failure of health care providers in this country in their care of COVID patients,” he said. He noted that health care professionals have provided “tremendously good care to patients under extremely difficult circumstances.”

“People don’t fail – systems fail – and that’s what happened here,” he said. “Our systems that we need to have in place to prevent health care–associated infection simply were not as strong as they needed to be to survive this challenge.”

In the study, researchers used data reported to the National Healthcare Safety Network, the CDC’s tracking system for health care–associated infections. The team compared national standard infection ratios – calculated by dividing the number of reported infections by the number of predicted infections – between 2019 and 2020 for six routinely tracked events:

• Central line–associated bloodstream infections.
• Catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs).
• Ventilator-associated events (VAEs).
• Infections associated with colon surgery and abdominal hysterectomy.
• Clostridioides difficile infections.
• Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections.

Infections were estimated using regression models created with baseline data from 2015.

“The new report highlights the need for health care facilities to strengthen their infection prevention programs and support them with adequate resources so that they can handle emerging threats to public health, while at the same time ensuring that gains made in combating HAIs [health care–associated infections] are not lost,” said the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology in a statement.

The analysis revealed significant national increases in central line–associated bloodstream infections, CAUTIs, VAEs, and MRSA infections in 2020 compared to 2019. Among all infection types, the greatest increase was in central-line infections, which were 46% to 47% higher in the third quarter and fourth quarter (Q4) of 2020 relative to the same periods the previous year. VAEs rose by 45%, MRSA infections increased by 34%, and CAUTIs increased by 19% in Q4 of 2020 compared to 2019.

The influx of sicker patients in hospitals throughout 2020 led to more frequent and longer use of medical devices such as catheters and ventilators. The use of these devices increases risk for infection, David P. Calfee, MD, chief medical epidemiologist at the New York–Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center, said in an interview. He is an editor of Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology and was not involved with the study. Shortages in personal protective equipment and crowded intensive care units could also have affected how care was delivered, he said. These factors could have led to “reductions in the ability to provide some of the types of care that are needed to optimally reduce the risk of infection.”

There was either no change or decreases in infections associated with colon surgery or abdominal hysterectomy, likely because there were fewer elective surgeries performed, said Dr. Srinivasan. C. difficile–associated infections also decreased throughout 2020 compared to the previous year. Common practices to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in hospitals, such as environmental cleaning, use of personal protective equipment, and patient isolation, likely helped to curb the spread of C. difficile. Although these mitigating procedures do help protect against MRSA infection, many other factors, notably, the use of medical devices such as ventilators and catheters, can increase the risk for MRSA infection, Dr. Srinivasan added.

Although more research is needed to identify the reasons for these spikes in infection, the findings help quantify the scope of these increases across the United States, Dr. Calfee said. The data allow hospitals and health care professionals to “look back at what we did and then think forward in terms of what we can do different in the future,” he added, “so that these stresses to the system have less of an impact on how we are able to provide care.”

Dr. Srinivasan and Dr. Calfee report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Several health care-associated infections in U.S. hospitals spiked in 2020 compared to the previous year, according to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention analysis published Sept. 2 in Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology. Soaring hospitalization rates, sicker patients who required more frequent and intense care, and staffing and supply shortages caused by the COVID-19 pandemic are thought to have contributed to this increase.

This is the first increase in health care–associated infections since 2015.

These findings “are a reflection of the enormous stress that COVID has placed on our health care system,” Arjun Srinivasan, MD (Capt, USPHS), the associate director of the CDC’s Health care-Associated Infection Prevention Programs, Atlanta, told this news organization. He was not an author of the article, but he supervised the research. “We don’t want anyone to read this report and think that it represents a failure of the individual provider or a failure of health care providers in this country in their care of COVID patients,” he said. He noted that health care professionals have provided “tremendously good care to patients under extremely difficult circumstances.”

“People don’t fail – systems fail – and that’s what happened here,” he said. “Our systems that we need to have in place to prevent health care–associated infection simply were not as strong as they needed to be to survive this challenge.”

In the study, researchers used data reported to the National Healthcare Safety Network, the CDC’s tracking system for health care–associated infections. The team compared national standard infection ratios – calculated by dividing the number of reported infections by the number of predicted infections – between 2019 and 2020 for six routinely tracked events:

• Central line–associated bloodstream infections.
• Catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs).
• Ventilator-associated events (VAEs).
• Infections associated with colon surgery and abdominal hysterectomy.
• Clostridioides difficile infections.
• Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections.

Infections were estimated using regression models created with baseline data from 2015.

“The new report highlights the need for health care facilities to strengthen their infection prevention programs and support them with adequate resources so that they can handle emerging threats to public health, while at the same time ensuring that gains made in combating HAIs [health care–associated infections] are not lost,” said the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology in a statement.

The analysis revealed significant national increases in central line–associated bloodstream infections, CAUTIs, VAEs, and MRSA infections in 2020 compared to 2019. Among all infection types, the greatest increase was in central-line infections, which were 46% to 47% higher in the third quarter and fourth quarter (Q4) of 2020 relative to the same periods the previous year. VAEs rose by 45%, MRSA infections increased by 34%, and CAUTIs increased by 19% in Q4 of 2020 compared to 2019.

The influx of sicker patients in hospitals throughout 2020 led to more frequent and longer use of medical devices such as catheters and ventilators. The use of these devices increases risk for infection, David P. Calfee, MD, chief medical epidemiologist at the New York–Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center, said in an interview. He is an editor of Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology and was not involved with the study. Shortages in personal protective equipment and crowded intensive care units could also have affected how care was delivered, he said. These factors could have led to “reductions in the ability to provide some of the types of care that are needed to optimally reduce the risk of infection.”

There was either no change or decreases in infections associated with colon surgery or abdominal hysterectomy, likely because there were fewer elective surgeries performed, said Dr. Srinivasan. C. difficile–associated infections also decreased throughout 2020 compared to the previous year. Common practices to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in hospitals, such as environmental cleaning, use of personal protective equipment, and patient isolation, likely helped to curb the spread of C. difficile. Although these mitigating procedures do help protect against MRSA infection, many other factors, notably, the use of medical devices such as ventilators and catheters, can increase the risk for MRSA infection, Dr. Srinivasan added.

Although more research is needed to identify the reasons for these spikes in infection, the findings help quantify the scope of these increases across the United States, Dr. Calfee said. The data allow hospitals and health care professionals to “look back at what we did and then think forward in terms of what we can do different in the future,” he added, “so that these stresses to the system have less of an impact on how we are able to provide care.”

Dr. Srinivasan and Dr. Calfee report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Last year, Katherine Gill, MBChB, an HIV prevention researcher in Cape Town, South Africa, realized how jaded she’d become to vaccine research when the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine came back as 95% effective. In her career conducting HIV clinical trials, she had never seen anything like it. Even HIV prevention methods she had studied that had worked, such as the dapivirine ring, had an overall efficacy of 30%.

The COVID-19 success story started to soften her views toward another vaccine trial she was helping to conduct, a trial in HIV that used the same platform as Johnson & Johnson’s successful COVID-19 vaccine.

“When the COVID vaccine was cracked so quickly and seemingly quite easily, I did start to think, ‘Well, maybe … maybe this will work for HIV,’ “ she said in an interview.

That turned out to be false hope. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced that the trial Dr. Gill was helping to conduct, HVTN 705, was stopping early because it hadn’t generated enough of an immune response in participants to justify continuing. It was the second HIV vaccine to fail in the last year. It’s also the latest in what has been a litany of disappointments in the attempt to boost the human immune system to fight HIV without the need for ongoing HIV treatment.

In HVTN 705, known as the Imbokodo study (imbokodo is a Zulu word that’s part of a saying about women being strong as rocks), researchers used the platform made up of a common cold virus, adenovirus 26, to deliver a computer-generated mosaic of HIV antigens to participants’ immune systems. That mosaic of antigens is meant to goose the immune system into recognizing HIV if it were exposed to it.

When HIV enters the body, it infiltrates immune cells and replicates within them. To the rest of the immune system, those cells still register as just typical T-cells. The rest of the immune system can’t see that the virus is spreading through the very cells meant to protect the body from illness. That, plus the armor of sugary glycoproteins encasing the virus, has made HIV nearly impervious to vaccination.

Then, those so-called “prime” shots were followed by a second shot that targets glycoprotein 140, on the most common HIV subtype (or clade) in Africa, clade C. In the Imbokodo trial, a total of 2,637 women from five sub-Saharan African countries received shots at baseline, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year. Then researchers followed the women from month 7 to 2 years after their third dose, testing their blood to see if their immune systems had generated the immune response the vaccine was meant to induce – and whether such immune response was associated with lower rates of HIV.

When researchers looked at the first 2 years of data, they learned that the vaccine was safe. And they found a total of 114 new cases of HIV – 51 among women who received the vaccine and 63 among those who received a placebo. That’s a 25.2% efficacy rate – but it wasn’t statistically significant.

The results are frustrating, said Carl Dieffenbach, PhD, director of the AIDS division at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). NIAID is one of the funders of the study.

“This [trial] is a little more confounding, in that there is this low level of statistically insignificant difference between vaccine and placebo that starts somewhere around month 9 and then just kind of indolently is maintained over the next 15 months,” he said in an interview. “That’s kind of frustrating. Does it mean there’s a signal or is this just chance? Because that’s what statistics tell us, not to believe your last data point.”

What this means for the future direction of vaccine research is unclear. A sister study to Imbokodo, called Mosaico, recently finished enrolling participants. Mosaico uses the same adenovirus 26 platform, but it’s loaded with different antigens and targets a different glycoprotein for a different HIV subtype. If that trial shows success, it could mean that the platform is right, but the targets in the Imbokodo vaccine were wrong.

Dr. Dieffenbach said that before NIAID decides what to do with Mosaico they’ve asked researchers to analyze the data on the people who did respond, to see if those people have some specific variant of HIV or some other biomarker that could be used to form the next iteration of an HIV vaccine candidate. Only after that will they make a decision about Mosaico.

But he added that it does make him wonder if vaccine approaches that rely on nonneutralizing antibodies like this one have a ceiling of effectiveness that’s just too low to alter the course of the epidemic.

“I think we’ve discovered that there’s not a floor to [these nonneutralizing approaches], but there probably is a ceiling,” he said. “I don’t know if we’re going to get better than” a 25%-29% efficacy rate with those approaches.

The Imbokodo findings reminded Mitchell Warren, executive director of the global HIV prevention nonprofit, AVAC, of the data released in January from the Antibody Mediated Prevention (AMP) trial. That trial pitted the broadly neutralizing antibody (bNAb) VCR01 against HIV – and mostly, it lost.

VCR01 worked only on HIV variants that 30% of participants had. But in those 30%, it was 75% effective at preventing HIV. Now you have Imbokodo, with its potential 25% activity against HIV, something that may have been a fluke. This, to Mr. Warren, requires a rethinking of the whole HIV vaccine enterprise while “doubling, tripling, quadrupling down” on the HIV prevention methods we know work, such as preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP).

Dr. Dieffenbach agreed. To clinicians, Dr. Dieffenbach said the message of this HIV vaccine trial is flush with urgency: “Get your HIV-negative, at-risk people on PrEP tomorrow.”

There are now two pills approved for HIV prevention, both of which have been found to be up to 99% effective when taken consistently. A third option, injectable cabotegravir (Vocabria), has been submitted to the Food and Drug Administration for approval. The federal Ready, Set, PrEP program makes the pill available for free for those who qualify, and recently the Biden administration reaffirmed that, under the Affordable Care Act, insurance companies should cover all costs associated with PrEP, including lab work and exam visits.

But for the 157 women who participated in the trial at Dr. Gill’s site in Masiphumelele, on the southwestern tip of South Africa, the trial was personal, said Jason Naidoo, community liaison officer at the Desmond Tutu HIV Foundation, which conducted a portion of the study. These were women whose parents, siblings, or children were living with HIV or had died from AIDS-defining illnesses, he said. Their lives were chaotic, traveling at a moment’s notice to hometowns on the Eastern Cape, an 11-hour car ride away – longer by bus – for traditional prayers, funerals, and other important events.

Mr. Naidoo remembers arranging buses for the women to return for scheduled clinic visits, leaving the Eastern Cape in the afternoon and arriving in Masiphumelele in the early morning hours, just to keep the clinic appointment. Then, they’d turn around and return east.

They did this for 3 years, he said.

“The fact that these participants have stuck to this and been dedicated amidst all of the chaos talks about their commitment to actually having a vaccine for HIV,” he said. “They know their own risk profile as young Black women in South Africa, and they understand the need for an intervention for the future generations.

“So you can understand the emotion and the sense of sadness, the disappointment – the incredible [dis]belief that this [the failure of the vaccine] could have happened, because the expectations are so, so high.”

For Dr. Gill, who is lead investigator for Imbokodo in Masiphumelele, the weariness toward vaccines is back. Another trial is underway for an HIV vaccine with a platform that was successful in COVID-19 – using messenger RNA (mRNA), like the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines did.

“I think we need to be careful,” she said, “thinking that the mRNA vaccines are going to crack it.”

Dr. Dieffenbach, Dr. Gill, and Mr. Naidoo have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The study was funded by Janssen, a Johnson & Johnson company, with NIAID and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

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

Last year, Katherine Gill, MBChB, an HIV prevention researcher in Cape Town, South Africa, realized how jaded she’d become to vaccine research when the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine came back as 95% effective. In her career conducting HIV clinical trials, she had never seen anything like it. Even HIV prevention methods she had studied that had worked, such as the dapivirine ring, had an overall efficacy of 30%.

The COVID-19 success story started to soften her views toward another vaccine trial she was helping to conduct, a trial in HIV that used the same platform as Johnson & Johnson’s successful COVID-19 vaccine.

“When the COVID vaccine was cracked so quickly and seemingly quite easily, I did start to think, ‘Well, maybe … maybe this will work for HIV,’ “ she said in an interview.

That turned out to be false hope. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced that the trial Dr. Gill was helping to conduct, HVTN 705, was stopping early because it hadn’t generated enough of an immune response in participants to justify continuing. It was the second HIV vaccine to fail in the last year. It’s also the latest in what has been a litany of disappointments in the attempt to boost the human immune system to fight HIV without the need for ongoing HIV treatment.

In HVTN 705, known as the Imbokodo study (imbokodo is a Zulu word that’s part of a saying about women being strong as rocks), researchers used the platform made up of a common cold virus, adenovirus 26, to deliver a computer-generated mosaic of HIV antigens to participants’ immune systems. That mosaic of antigens is meant to goose the immune system into recognizing HIV if it were exposed to it.

When HIV enters the body, it infiltrates immune cells and replicates within them. To the rest of the immune system, those cells still register as just typical T-cells. The rest of the immune system can’t see that the virus is spreading through the very cells meant to protect the body from illness. That, plus the armor of sugary glycoproteins encasing the virus, has made HIV nearly impervious to vaccination.

Then, those so-called “prime” shots were followed by a second shot that targets glycoprotein 140, on the most common HIV subtype (or clade) in Africa, clade C. In the Imbokodo trial, a total of 2,637 women from five sub-Saharan African countries received shots at baseline, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year. Then researchers followed the women from month 7 to 2 years after their third dose, testing their blood to see if their immune systems had generated the immune response the vaccine was meant to induce – and whether such immune response was associated with lower rates of HIV.

When researchers looked at the first 2 years of data, they learned that the vaccine was safe. And they found a total of 114 new cases of HIV – 51 among women who received the vaccine and 63 among those who received a placebo. That’s a 25.2% efficacy rate – but it wasn’t statistically significant.

The results are frustrating, said Carl Dieffenbach, PhD, director of the AIDS division at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). NIAID is one of the funders of the study.

“This [trial] is a little more confounding, in that there is this low level of statistically insignificant difference between vaccine and placebo that starts somewhere around month 9 and then just kind of indolently is maintained over the next 15 months,” he said in an interview. “That’s kind of frustrating. Does it mean there’s a signal or is this just chance? Because that’s what statistics tell us, not to believe your last data point.”

What this means for the future direction of vaccine research is unclear. A sister study to Imbokodo, called Mosaico, recently finished enrolling participants. Mosaico uses the same adenovirus 26 platform, but it’s loaded with different antigens and targets a different glycoprotein for a different HIV subtype. If that trial shows success, it could mean that the platform is right, but the targets in the Imbokodo vaccine were wrong.

Dr. Dieffenbach said that before NIAID decides what to do with Mosaico they’ve asked researchers to analyze the data on the people who did respond, to see if those people have some specific variant of HIV or some other biomarker that could be used to form the next iteration of an HIV vaccine candidate. Only after that will they make a decision about Mosaico.

But he added that it does make him wonder if vaccine approaches that rely on nonneutralizing antibodies like this one have a ceiling of effectiveness that’s just too low to alter the course of the epidemic.

“I think we’ve discovered that there’s not a floor to [these nonneutralizing approaches], but there probably is a ceiling,” he said. “I don’t know if we’re going to get better than” a 25%-29% efficacy rate with those approaches.

The Imbokodo findings reminded Mitchell Warren, executive director of the global HIV prevention nonprofit, AVAC, of the data released in January from the Antibody Mediated Prevention (AMP) trial. That trial pitted the broadly neutralizing antibody (bNAb) VCR01 against HIV – and mostly, it lost.

VCR01 worked only on HIV variants that 30% of participants had. But in those 30%, it was 75% effective at preventing HIV. Now you have Imbokodo, with its potential 25% activity against HIV, something that may have been a fluke. This, to Mr. Warren, requires a rethinking of the whole HIV vaccine enterprise while “doubling, tripling, quadrupling down” on the HIV prevention methods we know work, such as preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP).

Dr. Dieffenbach agreed. To clinicians, Dr. Dieffenbach said the message of this HIV vaccine trial is flush with urgency: “Get your HIV-negative, at-risk people on PrEP tomorrow.”

There are now two pills approved for HIV prevention, both of which have been found to be up to 99% effective when taken consistently. A third option, injectable cabotegravir (Vocabria), has been submitted to the Food and Drug Administration for approval. The federal Ready, Set, PrEP program makes the pill available for free for those who qualify, and recently the Biden administration reaffirmed that, under the Affordable Care Act, insurance companies should cover all costs associated with PrEP, including lab work and exam visits.

But for the 157 women who participated in the trial at Dr. Gill’s site in Masiphumelele, on the southwestern tip of South Africa, the trial was personal, said Jason Naidoo, community liaison officer at the Desmond Tutu HIV Foundation, which conducted a portion of the study. These were women whose parents, siblings, or children were living with HIV or had died from AIDS-defining illnesses, he said. Their lives were chaotic, traveling at a moment’s notice to hometowns on the Eastern Cape, an 11-hour car ride away – longer by bus – for traditional prayers, funerals, and other important events.

Mr. Naidoo remembers arranging buses for the women to return for scheduled clinic visits, leaving the Eastern Cape in the afternoon and arriving in Masiphumelele in the early morning hours, just to keep the clinic appointment. Then, they’d turn around and return east.

They did this for 3 years, he said.

“The fact that these participants have stuck to this and been dedicated amidst all of the chaos talks about their commitment to actually having a vaccine for HIV,” he said. “They know their own risk profile as young Black women in South Africa, and they understand the need for an intervention for the future generations.

“So you can understand the emotion and the sense of sadness, the disappointment – the incredible [dis]belief that this [the failure of the vaccine] could have happened, because the expectations are so, so high.”

For Dr. Gill, who is lead investigator for Imbokodo in Masiphumelele, the weariness toward vaccines is back. Another trial is underway for an HIV vaccine with a platform that was successful in COVID-19 – using messenger RNA (mRNA), like the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines did.

“I think we need to be careful,” she said, “thinking that the mRNA vaccines are going to crack it.”

Dr. Dieffenbach, Dr. Gill, and Mr. Naidoo have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The study was funded by Janssen, a Johnson & Johnson company, with NIAID and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

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

Last year, Katherine Gill, MBChB, an HIV prevention researcher in Cape Town, South Africa, realized how jaded she’d become to vaccine research when the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine came back as 95% effective. In her career conducting HIV clinical trials, she had never seen anything like it. Even HIV prevention methods she had studied that had worked, such as the dapivirine ring, had an overall efficacy of 30%.

The COVID-19 success story started to soften her views toward another vaccine trial she was helping to conduct, a trial in HIV that used the same platform as Johnson & Johnson’s successful COVID-19 vaccine.

“When the COVID vaccine was cracked so quickly and seemingly quite easily, I did start to think, ‘Well, maybe … maybe this will work for HIV,’ “ she said in an interview.

That turned out to be false hope. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced that the trial Dr. Gill was helping to conduct, HVTN 705, was stopping early because it hadn’t generated enough of an immune response in participants to justify continuing. It was the second HIV vaccine to fail in the last year. It’s also the latest in what has been a litany of disappointments in the attempt to boost the human immune system to fight HIV without the need for ongoing HIV treatment.

In HVTN 705, known as the Imbokodo study (imbokodo is a Zulu word that’s part of a saying about women being strong as rocks), researchers used the platform made up of a common cold virus, adenovirus 26, to deliver a computer-generated mosaic of HIV antigens to participants’ immune systems. That mosaic of antigens is meant to goose the immune system into recognizing HIV if it were exposed to it.

When HIV enters the body, it infiltrates immune cells and replicates within them. To the rest of the immune system, those cells still register as just typical T-cells. The rest of the immune system can’t see that the virus is spreading through the very cells meant to protect the body from illness. That, plus the armor of sugary glycoproteins encasing the virus, has made HIV nearly impervious to vaccination.

Then, those so-called “prime” shots were followed by a second shot that targets glycoprotein 140, on the most common HIV subtype (or clade) in Africa, clade C. In the Imbokodo trial, a total of 2,637 women from five sub-Saharan African countries received shots at baseline, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year. Then researchers followed the women from month 7 to 2 years after their third dose, testing their blood to see if their immune systems had generated the immune response the vaccine was meant to induce – and whether such immune response was associated with lower rates of HIV.

When researchers looked at the first 2 years of data, they learned that the vaccine was safe. And they found a total of 114 new cases of HIV – 51 among women who received the vaccine and 63 among those who received a placebo. That’s a 25.2% efficacy rate – but it wasn’t statistically significant.

The results are frustrating, said Carl Dieffenbach, PhD, director of the AIDS division at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). NIAID is one of the funders of the study.

“This [trial] is a little more confounding, in that there is this low level of statistically insignificant difference between vaccine and placebo that starts somewhere around month 9 and then just kind of indolently is maintained over the next 15 months,” he said in an interview. “That’s kind of frustrating. Does it mean there’s a signal or is this just chance? Because that’s what statistics tell us, not to believe your last data point.”

What this means for the future direction of vaccine research is unclear. A sister study to Imbokodo, called Mosaico, recently finished enrolling participants. Mosaico uses the same adenovirus 26 platform, but it’s loaded with different antigens and targets a different glycoprotein for a different HIV subtype. If that trial shows success, it could mean that the platform is right, but the targets in the Imbokodo vaccine were wrong.

Dr. Dieffenbach said that before NIAID decides what to do with Mosaico they’ve asked researchers to analyze the data on the people who did respond, to see if those people have some specific variant of HIV or some other biomarker that could be used to form the next iteration of an HIV vaccine candidate. Only after that will they make a decision about Mosaico.

But he added that it does make him wonder if vaccine approaches that rely on nonneutralizing antibodies like this one have a ceiling of effectiveness that’s just too low to alter the course of the epidemic.

“I think we’ve discovered that there’s not a floor to [these nonneutralizing approaches], but there probably is a ceiling,” he said. “I don’t know if we’re going to get better than” a 25%-29% efficacy rate with those approaches.

The Imbokodo findings reminded Mitchell Warren, executive director of the global HIV prevention nonprofit, AVAC, of the data released in January from the Antibody Mediated Prevention (AMP) trial. That trial pitted the broadly neutralizing antibody (bNAb) VCR01 against HIV – and mostly, it lost.

VCR01 worked only on HIV variants that 30% of participants had. But in those 30%, it was 75% effective at preventing HIV. Now you have Imbokodo, with its potential 25% activity against HIV, something that may have been a fluke. This, to Mr. Warren, requires a rethinking of the whole HIV vaccine enterprise while “doubling, tripling, quadrupling down” on the HIV prevention methods we know work, such as preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP).

Dr. Dieffenbach agreed. To clinicians, Dr. Dieffenbach said the message of this HIV vaccine trial is flush with urgency: “Get your HIV-negative, at-risk people on PrEP tomorrow.”

There are now two pills approved for HIV prevention, both of which have been found to be up to 99% effective when taken consistently. A third option, injectable cabotegravir (Vocabria), has been submitted to the Food and Drug Administration for approval. The federal Ready, Set, PrEP program makes the pill available for free for those who qualify, and recently the Biden administration reaffirmed that, under the Affordable Care Act, insurance companies should cover all costs associated with PrEP, including lab work and exam visits.

But for the 157 women who participated in the trial at Dr. Gill’s site in Masiphumelele, on the southwestern tip of South Africa, the trial was personal, said Jason Naidoo, community liaison officer at the Desmond Tutu HIV Foundation, which conducted a portion of the study. These were women whose parents, siblings, or children were living with HIV or had died from AIDS-defining illnesses, he said. Their lives were chaotic, traveling at a moment’s notice to hometowns on the Eastern Cape, an 11-hour car ride away – longer by bus – for traditional prayers, funerals, and other important events.

Mr. Naidoo remembers arranging buses for the women to return for scheduled clinic visits, leaving the Eastern Cape in the afternoon and arriving in Masiphumelele in the early morning hours, just to keep the clinic appointment. Then, they’d turn around and return east.

They did this for 3 years, he said.

“The fact that these participants have stuck to this and been dedicated amidst all of the chaos talks about their commitment to actually having a vaccine for HIV,” he said. “They know their own risk profile as young Black women in South Africa, and they understand the need for an intervention for the future generations.

“So you can understand the emotion and the sense of sadness, the disappointment – the incredible [dis]belief that this [the failure of the vaccine] could have happened, because the expectations are so, so high.”

For Dr. Gill, who is lead investigator for Imbokodo in Masiphumelele, the weariness toward vaccines is back. Another trial is underway for an HIV vaccine with a platform that was successful in COVID-19 – using messenger RNA (mRNA), like the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines did.

“I think we need to be careful,” she said, “thinking that the mRNA vaccines are going to crack it.”

Dr. Dieffenbach, Dr. Gill, and Mr. Naidoo have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The study was funded by Janssen, a Johnson & Johnson company, with NIAID and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

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

In a small study, intravenous administration of the beta-blocker metoprolol to critically ill COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) safely blunted lung inflammation associated with the disease.

Metoprolol administration also resulted in better oxygenation and fewer days on intensive mechanical ventilation and in the ICU, compared with no treatment.

These data suggest that metoprolol repurposing for the treatment of ARDS in COVID-19 patients is a safe and inexpensive strategy with the potential to improve outcomes, the researchers said.

“Metoprolol repurposing for the treatment of ARDS associated with COVID-19 is a safe and cheap intervention that can help to alleviate the massive personal and health care burden associated with the pandemic,” they concluded.

The results, from the MADRID-COVID pilot trial from Agustin Clemente-Moragon, BSc, Centro National de Investigaciones Cardiovasculares, Madrid, and colleagues, were published online Aug. 30, 2021, in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

In previous work, the researchers showed that metoprolol, but not other clinically available intravenous beta-blockers, abrogates neutrophil-driven exacerbated inflammation, neutrophil-platelet interaction, and formation of neutrophil extracellular traps in a mouse model of acute lung injury.

These results prompted the current pilot trial in 20 patients, ages 18-80 years, with COVID-19–associated ARDS.

Randomization was stratified by age (59 and younger vs. 60 and older), history of hypertension (yes or no), and circulating neutrophil counts (<6,000 vs. ≥6,000). Bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) fluid and blood samples were obtained from patients at randomization and 24 hours after the third metoprolol dose in the treatment group, and on day 4 in controls.

Because of the cardiovascular effects of metoprolol, patients were monitored invasively and by echocardiography, the authors noted.

As expected, metoprolol significantly reduced heart rate (P < .01) and systolic blood pressure (P < .05), although both remained within the physiological range. Echocardiography showed no deterioration of cardiac function after metoprolol treatment.

To assess the ability of metoprolol to address neutrophil-mediated exacerbated lung inflammation, the researchers analyzed leukocyte populations in BAL samples by flow cytometry at baseline and on day 4.

At baseline, the metoprolol and control groups showed no differences in BAL neutrophil content. But on day 4, after 3 days of treatment with metoprolol, neutrophil content was significantly lower in the metoprolol group (median, 14.3 neutrophils/mcL) than in the control group (median, 397 neutrophils/mcL).

Metoprolol-treated patients also had lower total inflammatory-cell content and lower monocyte/macrophage content. Lymphocytes did not differ between the groups.

The investigators also explored the impact of metoprolol on the chemokine, monocyte chemoattractant protein–1 (MCP-1), as it has been shown to promote pulmonary fibrosis in late-stage ARDS.

They found that MCP-1 was significantly attenuated after 3 days of metoprolol treatment. At baseline, the median MCP-1 level was 298 pg/mL; on day 4 after metoprolol, it was 203 pg/mL (P = .009).

MCP-1 levels remained unchanged in control patients.
 

An elegant study

In an accompanying editorial, Mourad H. Senussi, MD, assistant professor at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, wrote: “Although the study has a small sample size, we commend the authors, who attempt to shed light on the important pathophysiological underpinnings that help establish biological plausibility for this inexpensive, safe, and widely available medication.”

In an interview with this news organization, Dr. Senussi added that metoprolol is not itself something primarily used to treat COVID-19 per se. “Rather, the drug blunts the sympathetic-host response. There is a fine balance between that sympathetic surge that is helpful to the body, and then a sympathetic surge that if left unchecked, can lead to significant damage. And so, I think this study really shows that medications like metoprolol can help blunt that initial sympathetic effect.”

A larger study is “absolutely” warranted, he added, “this is a drug that is readily available, safe, and inexpensive. The study design here was simple and most importantly, showed biological plausibility.”

Dr. Senussi also noted that, although the benefit was noted in COVID-19 patients, the study sets the groundwork for further research in the use of beta-blockade in the critically ill. “Further studies are needed to elucidate and identify where along the inflammatory spectrum these critically ill patients lie, which patients would benefit from beta-blockers, and at what time point during their hospital stay.”

The MADRID-COVID authors and Dr. Senussi disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In a small study, intravenous administration of the beta-blocker metoprolol to critically ill COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) safely blunted lung inflammation associated with the disease.

Metoprolol administration also resulted in better oxygenation and fewer days on intensive mechanical ventilation and in the ICU, compared with no treatment.

These data suggest that metoprolol repurposing for the treatment of ARDS in COVID-19 patients is a safe and inexpensive strategy with the potential to improve outcomes, the researchers said.

“Metoprolol repurposing for the treatment of ARDS associated with COVID-19 is a safe and cheap intervention that can help to alleviate the massive personal and health care burden associated with the pandemic,” they concluded.

The results, from the MADRID-COVID pilot trial from Agustin Clemente-Moragon, BSc, Centro National de Investigaciones Cardiovasculares, Madrid, and colleagues, were published online Aug. 30, 2021, in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

In previous work, the researchers showed that metoprolol, but not other clinically available intravenous beta-blockers, abrogates neutrophil-driven exacerbated inflammation, neutrophil-platelet interaction, and formation of neutrophil extracellular traps in a mouse model of acute lung injury.

These results prompted the current pilot trial in 20 patients, ages 18-80 years, with COVID-19–associated ARDS.

Randomization was stratified by age (59 and younger vs. 60 and older), history of hypertension (yes or no), and circulating neutrophil counts (<6,000 vs. ≥6,000). Bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) fluid and blood samples were obtained from patients at randomization and 24 hours after the third metoprolol dose in the treatment group, and on day 4 in controls.

Because of the cardiovascular effects of metoprolol, patients were monitored invasively and by echocardiography, the authors noted.

As expected, metoprolol significantly reduced heart rate (P < .01) and systolic blood pressure (P < .05), although both remained within the physiological range. Echocardiography showed no deterioration of cardiac function after metoprolol treatment.

To assess the ability of metoprolol to address neutrophil-mediated exacerbated lung inflammation, the researchers analyzed leukocyte populations in BAL samples by flow cytometry at baseline and on day 4.

At baseline, the metoprolol and control groups showed no differences in BAL neutrophil content. But on day 4, after 3 days of treatment with metoprolol, neutrophil content was significantly lower in the metoprolol group (median, 14.3 neutrophils/mcL) than in the control group (median, 397 neutrophils/mcL).

Metoprolol-treated patients also had lower total inflammatory-cell content and lower monocyte/macrophage content. Lymphocytes did not differ between the groups.

The investigators also explored the impact of metoprolol on the chemokine, monocyte chemoattractant protein–1 (MCP-1), as it has been shown to promote pulmonary fibrosis in late-stage ARDS.

They found that MCP-1 was significantly attenuated after 3 days of metoprolol treatment. At baseline, the median MCP-1 level was 298 pg/mL; on day 4 after metoprolol, it was 203 pg/mL (P = .009).

MCP-1 levels remained unchanged in control patients.
 

An elegant study

In an accompanying editorial, Mourad H. Senussi, MD, assistant professor at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, wrote: “Although the study has a small sample size, we commend the authors, who attempt to shed light on the important pathophysiological underpinnings that help establish biological plausibility for this inexpensive, safe, and widely available medication.”

In an interview with this news organization, Dr. Senussi added that metoprolol is not itself something primarily used to treat COVID-19 per se. “Rather, the drug blunts the sympathetic-host response. There is a fine balance between that sympathetic surge that is helpful to the body, and then a sympathetic surge that if left unchecked, can lead to significant damage. And so, I think this study really shows that medications like metoprolol can help blunt that initial sympathetic effect.”

A larger study is “absolutely” warranted, he added, “this is a drug that is readily available, safe, and inexpensive. The study design here was simple and most importantly, showed biological plausibility.”

Dr. Senussi also noted that, although the benefit was noted in COVID-19 patients, the study sets the groundwork for further research in the use of beta-blockade in the critically ill. “Further studies are needed to elucidate and identify where along the inflammatory spectrum these critically ill patients lie, which patients would benefit from beta-blockers, and at what time point during their hospital stay.”

The MADRID-COVID authors and Dr. Senussi disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In a small study, intravenous administration of the beta-blocker metoprolol to critically ill COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) safely blunted lung inflammation associated with the disease.

Metoprolol administration also resulted in better oxygenation and fewer days on intensive mechanical ventilation and in the ICU, compared with no treatment.

These data suggest that metoprolol repurposing for the treatment of ARDS in COVID-19 patients is a safe and inexpensive strategy with the potential to improve outcomes, the researchers said.

“Metoprolol repurposing for the treatment of ARDS associated with COVID-19 is a safe and cheap intervention that can help to alleviate the massive personal and health care burden associated with the pandemic,” they concluded.

The results, from the MADRID-COVID pilot trial from Agustin Clemente-Moragon, BSc, Centro National de Investigaciones Cardiovasculares, Madrid, and colleagues, were published online Aug. 30, 2021, in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

In previous work, the researchers showed that metoprolol, but not other clinically available intravenous beta-blockers, abrogates neutrophil-driven exacerbated inflammation, neutrophil-platelet interaction, and formation of neutrophil extracellular traps in a mouse model of acute lung injury.

These results prompted the current pilot trial in 20 patients, ages 18-80 years, with COVID-19–associated ARDS.

Randomization was stratified by age (59 and younger vs. 60 and older), history of hypertension (yes or no), and circulating neutrophil counts (<6,000 vs. ≥6,000). Bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) fluid and blood samples were obtained from patients at randomization and 24 hours after the third metoprolol dose in the treatment group, and on day 4 in controls.

Because of the cardiovascular effects of metoprolol, patients were monitored invasively and by echocardiography, the authors noted.

As expected, metoprolol significantly reduced heart rate (P < .01) and systolic blood pressure (P < .05), although both remained within the physiological range. Echocardiography showed no deterioration of cardiac function after metoprolol treatment.

To assess the ability of metoprolol to address neutrophil-mediated exacerbated lung inflammation, the researchers analyzed leukocyte populations in BAL samples by flow cytometry at baseline and on day 4.

At baseline, the metoprolol and control groups showed no differences in BAL neutrophil content. But on day 4, after 3 days of treatment with metoprolol, neutrophil content was significantly lower in the metoprolol group (median, 14.3 neutrophils/mcL) than in the control group (median, 397 neutrophils/mcL).

Metoprolol-treated patients also had lower total inflammatory-cell content and lower monocyte/macrophage content. Lymphocytes did not differ between the groups.

The investigators also explored the impact of metoprolol on the chemokine, monocyte chemoattractant protein–1 (MCP-1), as it has been shown to promote pulmonary fibrosis in late-stage ARDS.

They found that MCP-1 was significantly attenuated after 3 days of metoprolol treatment. At baseline, the median MCP-1 level was 298 pg/mL; on day 4 after metoprolol, it was 203 pg/mL (P = .009).

MCP-1 levels remained unchanged in control patients.
 

An elegant study

In an accompanying editorial, Mourad H. Senussi, MD, assistant professor at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, wrote: “Although the study has a small sample size, we commend the authors, who attempt to shed light on the important pathophysiological underpinnings that help establish biological plausibility for this inexpensive, safe, and widely available medication.”

In an interview with this news organization, Dr. Senussi added that metoprolol is not itself something primarily used to treat COVID-19 per se. “Rather, the drug blunts the sympathetic-host response. There is a fine balance between that sympathetic surge that is helpful to the body, and then a sympathetic surge that if left unchecked, can lead to significant damage. And so, I think this study really shows that medications like metoprolol can help blunt that initial sympathetic effect.”

A larger study is “absolutely” warranted, he added, “this is a drug that is readily available, safe, and inexpensive. The study design here was simple and most importantly, showed biological plausibility.”

Dr. Senussi also noted that, although the benefit was noted in COVID-19 patients, the study sets the groundwork for further research in the use of beta-blockade in the critically ill. “Further studies are needed to elucidate and identify where along the inflammatory spectrum these critically ill patients lie, which patients would benefit from beta-blockers, and at what time point during their hospital stay.”

The MADRID-COVID authors and Dr. Senussi disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Latin American countries have a high rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection and some of the highest COVID-19 deaths worldwide. Brazil, Colombia, Argentina, and Mexico have reported the highest number of confirmed cases. More recently has been reported that in series form US and Europe the mortality of COVID-19 has not been as high as reported in other hematological conditions and the response to vaccination also has bene described as high. In a recent report, Pagnano et al. (Leuk Lymphoma. 2021) has recently reported the clinical evolution and outcome of COVID-19 in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia in Latin America. In an observational multicenter study with a total of 92 patients with COVID-19 between March and December 2020 with 26% of whom were severe or critical. Eighty-one patients recovered (88%), and 11 (11.9%) died from COVID-19. Almost half of them had at least one comorbidity. Patients with a major molecular response presented superior overall survival compared to patients with no major molecular response (91 vs. 61%, respectively; P = 0.004). Patients in treatment-free remission and receiving tyrosine kinase inhibitors showed higher survival rates (100 and 89%) than patients who underwent hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and those who did not receive tyrosine kinase inhibitors (50 and 33%).

Currently the most common reason for TKI discontinuation is intolerance. Ma et al (Leuk Res. 2021) reports the long-term outcomes associated with switch to an alternative TKI after first-line therapy with a 2GTKI. Of 232 patients who initiated a 2GTKI during the study period, 76 (33 %) switched to an alternative TKI. Reasons for switching included intolerance (79 %) and resistance (21 %). Among the 60 patients who switched due to intolerance, 53 (88 %) were able to achieve or maintain a major molecular response (MMR) with 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) 90.5 % (95 % CI 90.4–90.6 %). However, amongst the 16 patients who switched due to resistance, 8 patients (50 %) were able to achieve MMR with 5-year PFS 80.4 % (95 % CI 80.2–80.6 %). Most patients who switched due to intolerance remained on their second-line TKI. Patients who switch for intolerance continue to enjoy excellent long term clinical outcomes.

Latin American countries have a high rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection and some of the highest COVID-19 deaths worldwide. Brazil, Colombia, Argentina, and Mexico have reported the highest number of confirmed cases. More recently has been reported that in series form US and Europe the mortality of COVID-19 has not been as high as reported in other hematological conditions and the response to vaccination also has bene described as high. In a recent report, Pagnano et al. (Leuk Lymphoma. 2021) has recently reported the clinical evolution and outcome of COVID-19 in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia in Latin America. In an observational multicenter study with a total of 92 patients with COVID-19 between March and December 2020 with 26% of whom were severe or critical. Eighty-one patients recovered (88%), and 11 (11.9%) died from COVID-19. Almost half of them had at least one comorbidity. Patients with a major molecular response presented superior overall survival compared to patients with no major molecular response (91 vs. 61%, respectively; P = 0.004). Patients in treatment-free remission and receiving tyrosine kinase inhibitors showed higher survival rates (100 and 89%) than patients who underwent hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and those who did not receive tyrosine kinase inhibitors (50 and 33%).

Currently the most common reason for TKI discontinuation is intolerance. Ma et al (Leuk Res. 2021) reports the long-term outcomes associated with switch to an alternative TKI after first-line therapy with a 2GTKI. Of 232 patients who initiated a 2GTKI during the study period, 76 (33 %) switched to an alternative TKI. Reasons for switching included intolerance (79 %) and resistance (21 %). Among the 60 patients who switched due to intolerance, 53 (88 %) were able to achieve or maintain a major molecular response (MMR) with 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) 90.5 % (95 % CI 90.4–90.6 %). However, amongst the 16 patients who switched due to resistance, 8 patients (50 %) were able to achieve MMR with 5-year PFS 80.4 % (95 % CI 80.2–80.6 %). Most patients who switched due to intolerance remained on their second-line TKI. Patients who switch for intolerance continue to enjoy excellent long term clinical outcomes.

Latin American countries have a high rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection and some of the highest COVID-19 deaths worldwide. Brazil, Colombia, Argentina, and Mexico have reported the highest number of confirmed cases. More recently has been reported that in series form US and Europe the mortality of COVID-19 has not been as high as reported in other hematological conditions and the response to vaccination also has bene described as high. In a recent report, Pagnano et al. (Leuk Lymphoma. 2021) has recently reported the clinical evolution and outcome of COVID-19 in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia in Latin America. In an observational multicenter study with a total of 92 patients with COVID-19 between March and December 2020 with 26% of whom were severe or critical. Eighty-one patients recovered (88%), and 11 (11.9%) died from COVID-19. Almost half of them had at least one comorbidity. Patients with a major molecular response presented superior overall survival compared to patients with no major molecular response (91 vs. 61%, respectively; P = 0.004). Patients in treatment-free remission and receiving tyrosine kinase inhibitors showed higher survival rates (100 and 89%) than patients who underwent hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and those who did not receive tyrosine kinase inhibitors (50 and 33%).

Currently the most common reason for TKI discontinuation is intolerance. Ma et al (Leuk Res. 2021) reports the long-term outcomes associated with switch to an alternative TKI after first-line therapy with a 2GTKI. Of 232 patients who initiated a 2GTKI during the study period, 76 (33 %) switched to an alternative TKI. Reasons for switching included intolerance (79 %) and resistance (21 %). Among the 60 patients who switched due to intolerance, 53 (88 %) were able to achieve or maintain a major molecular response (MMR) with 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) 90.5 % (95 % CI 90.4–90.6 %). However, amongst the 16 patients who switched due to resistance, 8 patients (50 %) were able to achieve MMR with 5-year PFS 80.4 % (95 % CI 80.2–80.6 %). Most patients who switched due to intolerance remained on their second-line TKI. Patients who switch for intolerance continue to enjoy excellent long term clinical outcomes.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved zanubrutinib (Brukinsa) capsules for use in the treatment of adult patients with Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia (WM), a rare non-Hodgkin lymphoma, according to an approval letter from the agency to BeiGene, the drug’s maker.

The FDA stipulated that the company conduct an additional clinical trial (rather than an observational study) to assess the “known serious risk of second primary malignancies” associated with use of zanubrutinib. The study should further characterize the clinical benefit and safety of zanubrutinib for the treatment of patients with newly diagnosed WM with MYD88 mutation, the agency said.

The drug, which is a small-molecule inhibitor of Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK), previously received accelerated approval for use in patients with mantle cell lymphoma who have received one prior therapy. It is also being studied for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

The new approval is primarily based on results from ASPEN, a randomized, active control, open-label trial that compared zanubrutinib and ibrutinib.

The ASPEN trial provided “compelling evidence” that zanubrutinib is a highly active BTK inhibitor in WM and that it showed improved tolerability across a number of clinically important side effects in comparison with the first-generation BTK inhibitor ibrutinib, said study investigator Steven Treon, MD, PhD, director of the Bing Center for Waldenström’s Macroglobulinemia Research at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston. “The approval of [zanubrutinib] provides an important new option for targeted therapy in Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia,” he added in a company press statement.

The recommended dosage is 160 mg orally twice daily or 320 mg orally once; the drug should be swallowed whole with water with or without food.

In ASPEN, all patients had MYD88 mutation WM. Patients in cohort 1 (n = 201) were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive zanubrutinib 160 mg twice daily or ibrutinib 420 mg once daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. A total of 82% of patients had relapsed/refractory disease.

The major efficacy outcome was the response rate, defined as partial response or better (i.e., partial response, very good partial response, and complete response), as determined on the basis of standard consensus response criteria from the International Workshop on Waldenström’s Macroglobulinemia (IWWM-6) criteria.

The drugs had nearly identical response rates (roughly 77%). There were no complete responses with either drug. However, zanubrutinib had twice the rate of very good partial responses compared with ibrutinib (15.7% vs. 7.1%). In addition, on the basis of modified IWWM-6 criteria, the very good partial response rate was 28% with zanubrutinib, compared to 19% with ibrutinib.

An additional efficacy outcome measure was duration of response, which was measured by the percentage of patients who were event free at 12 months. Zanubrutinib bested ibrutinib in this measure (94.4% vs. 87.9%).

The safety of zanubrutinib was also investigated in the ASPEN trial. Among patients who received zanubrutinib, 93% were exposed for 6 months or longer, and 89% were exposed for longer than 1 year. In cohort 1, serious adverse reactions occurred in 44% of patients who received zanubrutinib. Serious adverse reactions that occurred in > 2% of patients included influenza (3%), pneumonia (4%), neutropenia and decreased neutrophil count (3%), hemorrhage (4%), pyrexia (3%), and febrile neutropenia (3%).

In the FDA’s prescribing information for the drug, which includes approved indications and pooled safety data, the most common adverse reactions for zanubrutinib (≥ 20%) are listed as decreased neutrophil count, upper respiratory tract infection, decreased platelet count, rash, hemorrhage, musculoskeletal pain, decreased hemoglobin, bruising, diarrhea, pneumonia, and cough.
 

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved zanubrutinib (Brukinsa) capsules for use in the treatment of adult patients with Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia (WM), a rare non-Hodgkin lymphoma, according to an approval letter from the agency to BeiGene, the drug’s maker.

The FDA stipulated that the company conduct an additional clinical trial (rather than an observational study) to assess the “known serious risk of second primary malignancies” associated with use of zanubrutinib. The study should further characterize the clinical benefit and safety of zanubrutinib for the treatment of patients with newly diagnosed WM with MYD88 mutation, the agency said.

The drug, which is a small-molecule inhibitor of Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK), previously received accelerated approval for use in patients with mantle cell lymphoma who have received one prior therapy. It is also being studied for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

The new approval is primarily based on results from ASPEN, a randomized, active control, open-label trial that compared zanubrutinib and ibrutinib.

The ASPEN trial provided “compelling evidence” that zanubrutinib is a highly active BTK inhibitor in WM and that it showed improved tolerability across a number of clinically important side effects in comparison with the first-generation BTK inhibitor ibrutinib, said study investigator Steven Treon, MD, PhD, director of the Bing Center for Waldenström’s Macroglobulinemia Research at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston. “The approval of [zanubrutinib] provides an important new option for targeted therapy in Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia,” he added in a company press statement.

The recommended dosage is 160 mg orally twice daily or 320 mg orally once; the drug should be swallowed whole with water with or without food.

In ASPEN, all patients had MYD88 mutation WM. Patients in cohort 1 (n = 201) were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive zanubrutinib 160 mg twice daily or ibrutinib 420 mg once daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. A total of 82% of patients had relapsed/refractory disease.

The major efficacy outcome was the response rate, defined as partial response or better (i.e., partial response, very good partial response, and complete response), as determined on the basis of standard consensus response criteria from the International Workshop on Waldenström’s Macroglobulinemia (IWWM-6) criteria.

The drugs had nearly identical response rates (roughly 77%). There were no complete responses with either drug. However, zanubrutinib had twice the rate of very good partial responses compared with ibrutinib (15.7% vs. 7.1%). In addition, on the basis of modified IWWM-6 criteria, the very good partial response rate was 28% with zanubrutinib, compared to 19% with ibrutinib.

An additional efficacy outcome measure was duration of response, which was measured by the percentage of patients who were event free at 12 months. Zanubrutinib bested ibrutinib in this measure (94.4% vs. 87.9%).

The safety of zanubrutinib was also investigated in the ASPEN trial. Among patients who received zanubrutinib, 93% were exposed for 6 months or longer, and 89% were exposed for longer than 1 year. In cohort 1, serious adverse reactions occurred in 44% of patients who received zanubrutinib. Serious adverse reactions that occurred in > 2% of patients included influenza (3%), pneumonia (4%), neutropenia and decreased neutrophil count (3%), hemorrhage (4%), pyrexia (3%), and febrile neutropenia (3%).

In the FDA’s prescribing information for the drug, which includes approved indications and pooled safety data, the most common adverse reactions for zanubrutinib (≥ 20%) are listed as decreased neutrophil count, upper respiratory tract infection, decreased platelet count, rash, hemorrhage, musculoskeletal pain, decreased hemoglobin, bruising, diarrhea, pneumonia, and cough.
 

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved zanubrutinib (Brukinsa) capsules for use in the treatment of adult patients with Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia (WM), a rare non-Hodgkin lymphoma, according to an approval letter from the agency to BeiGene, the drug’s maker.

The FDA stipulated that the company conduct an additional clinical trial (rather than an observational study) to assess the “known serious risk of second primary malignancies” associated with use of zanubrutinib. The study should further characterize the clinical benefit and safety of zanubrutinib for the treatment of patients with newly diagnosed WM with MYD88 mutation, the agency said.

The drug, which is a small-molecule inhibitor of Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK), previously received accelerated approval for use in patients with mantle cell lymphoma who have received one prior therapy. It is also being studied for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

The new approval is primarily based on results from ASPEN, a randomized, active control, open-label trial that compared zanubrutinib and ibrutinib.

The ASPEN trial provided “compelling evidence” that zanubrutinib is a highly active BTK inhibitor in WM and that it showed improved tolerability across a number of clinically important side effects in comparison with the first-generation BTK inhibitor ibrutinib, said study investigator Steven Treon, MD, PhD, director of the Bing Center for Waldenström’s Macroglobulinemia Research at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston. “The approval of [zanubrutinib] provides an important new option for targeted therapy in Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia,” he added in a company press statement.

The recommended dosage is 160 mg orally twice daily or 320 mg orally once; the drug should be swallowed whole with water with or without food.

In ASPEN, all patients had MYD88 mutation WM. Patients in cohort 1 (n = 201) were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive zanubrutinib 160 mg twice daily or ibrutinib 420 mg once daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. A total of 82% of patients had relapsed/refractory disease.

The major efficacy outcome was the response rate, defined as partial response or better (i.e., partial response, very good partial response, and complete response), as determined on the basis of standard consensus response criteria from the International Workshop on Waldenström’s Macroglobulinemia (IWWM-6) criteria.

The drugs had nearly identical response rates (roughly 77%). There were no complete responses with either drug. However, zanubrutinib had twice the rate of very good partial responses compared with ibrutinib (15.7% vs. 7.1%). In addition, on the basis of modified IWWM-6 criteria, the very good partial response rate was 28% with zanubrutinib, compared to 19% with ibrutinib.

An additional efficacy outcome measure was duration of response, which was measured by the percentage of patients who were event free at 12 months. Zanubrutinib bested ibrutinib in this measure (94.4% vs. 87.9%).

The safety of zanubrutinib was also investigated in the ASPEN trial. Among patients who received zanubrutinib, 93% were exposed for 6 months or longer, and 89% were exposed for longer than 1 year. In cohort 1, serious adverse reactions occurred in 44% of patients who received zanubrutinib. Serious adverse reactions that occurred in > 2% of patients included influenza (3%), pneumonia (4%), neutropenia and decreased neutrophil count (3%), hemorrhage (4%), pyrexia (3%), and febrile neutropenia (3%).

In the FDA’s prescribing information for the drug, which includes approved indications and pooled safety data, the most common adverse reactions for zanubrutinib (≥ 20%) are listed as decreased neutrophil count, upper respiratory tract infection, decreased platelet count, rash, hemorrhage, musculoskeletal pain, decreased hemoglobin, bruising, diarrhea, pneumonia, and cough.
 

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

Experts at the National Comprehensive Cancer Network have now issued an updated recommendation for COVID-19 vaccination in people with cancer. The panel calls for these patients to be among the highest-priority group to be vaccinated against COVID-19 and to receive the newly approved third dose of vaccine.

The NCCN has recommended in February that all patients receiving active cancer treatment should receive a COVID-19 vaccine and should be prioritized for vaccination. In August, the FDA authorized a third dose of either the Pfizer or Moderna COVID-19 vaccines for people with compromised immune systems. Those eligible for a third dose include solid organ transplant recipients, those undergoing cancer treatments, and people with autoimmune diseases that suppress their immune systems

The new NCCN recommendations state that the following groups should be considered eligible for a third dose of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine immediately, based on the latest decisions from the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:

• Patients with solid tumors (either new or recurring) receiving treatment within 1 year of their initial vaccine dose, regardless of their type of cancer therapy.
• Patients with active hematologic malignancies regardless of whether they are currently receiving cancer therapy.
• Anyone who received a stem cell transplant (SCT) or engineered cellular therapy (for example, chimeric antigen receptor T cells), especially within the past 2 years.
• Any recipients of allogeneic SCT on immunosuppressive therapy or with a history of graft-versus-host disease regardless of the time of transplant.
• Anyone with an additional immunosuppressive condition (for example, HIV) or being treated with immunosuppressive agents unrelated to their cancer therapy.

Cancer patients at high risk of complications

As previously reported by this news organization, infection with COVID-19 in people with cancer can severely impact survival. One study published in 2020 found that patients with both COVID-19 infection and progressing cancer had a fivefold increase in the risk of 30-day mortality, compared with COVID-19–positive cancer patients who were in remission or had no evidence of cancer.

Another study found that cancer type, stage, and recent treatment could affect outcomes of COVID-19 in patients with cancer. Patients with hematologic malignancies and metastatic cancers had higher risks of developing severe or critical COVID-19 symptoms, being admitted to the ICU, requiring ventilation, and dying. Conversely, those with nonmetastatic disease had outcomes that were comparable with persons without cancer and a COVID-19 infection. This study also found that having undergone recent surgery or receiving immunotherapy also put patients at a higher risk of poor outcomes, although patients with cancer who were treated with radiotherapy had outcomes similar to those of noncancer COVID-19 patients.

“COVID-19 can be very dangerous, especially for people living with cancer, which is why we’re so grateful for safe and effective vaccines that are saving lives,” Robert W. Carlson, MD, CEO of NCCN, said in a statement.
 

Right timing and location

The current NCCN update also recommends that individuals wait at least 4 weeks between the second and third doses, and those who are infected with COVID-19 after being vaccinated should wait until they have documented clearance of the virus before receiving a third dose.

It also recommends that people who live in the same household with immunocompromised individuals should also get a third dose once it becomes available, and that it is best to have a third dose of the same type of vaccine as the first two doses. However, a different mRNA vaccine is also acceptable.

Immunocompromised individuals should try to receive their third dose in a health care delivery setting, as opposed to a pharmacy or public vaccination clinic if possible, as it would limit their risk of exposure to the general population.

Steve Pergam, MD, MPH, associate professor, vaccine and infectious disease division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, commented that it is still necessary to take precautions, even after getting the booster dose.

“That means, even after a third dose of vaccine, we still recommend immunocompromised people, such as those undergoing cancer treatment, continue to be cautious, wear masks, and avoid large group gatherings, particularly around those who are unvaccinated,” said Dr. Pergam, who is also coleader of the NCCN COVID-19 Vaccination Advisory Committee. “All of us should do our part to reduce the spread of COVID-19 and get vaccinated to protect those around us from preventable suffering.”

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

Experts at the National Comprehensive Cancer Network have now issued an updated recommendation for COVID-19 vaccination in people with cancer. The panel calls for these patients to be among the highest-priority group to be vaccinated against COVID-19 and to receive the newly approved third dose of vaccine.

The NCCN has recommended in February that all patients receiving active cancer treatment should receive a COVID-19 vaccine and should be prioritized for vaccination. In August, the FDA authorized a third dose of either the Pfizer or Moderna COVID-19 vaccines for people with compromised immune systems. Those eligible for a third dose include solid organ transplant recipients, those undergoing cancer treatments, and people with autoimmune diseases that suppress their immune systems

The new NCCN recommendations state that the following groups should be considered eligible for a third dose of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine immediately, based on the latest decisions from the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:

• Patients with solid tumors (either new or recurring) receiving treatment within 1 year of their initial vaccine dose, regardless of their type of cancer therapy.
• Patients with active hematologic malignancies regardless of whether they are currently receiving cancer therapy.
• Anyone who received a stem cell transplant (SCT) or engineered cellular therapy (for example, chimeric antigen receptor T cells), especially within the past 2 years.
• Any recipients of allogeneic SCT on immunosuppressive therapy or with a history of graft-versus-host disease regardless of the time of transplant.
• Anyone with an additional immunosuppressive condition (for example, HIV) or being treated with immunosuppressive agents unrelated to their cancer therapy.

Cancer patients at high risk of complications

As previously reported by this news organization, infection with COVID-19 in people with cancer can severely impact survival. One study published in 2020 found that patients with both COVID-19 infection and progressing cancer had a fivefold increase in the risk of 30-day mortality, compared with COVID-19–positive cancer patients who were in remission or had no evidence of cancer.

Another study found that cancer type, stage, and recent treatment could affect outcomes of COVID-19 in patients with cancer. Patients with hematologic malignancies and metastatic cancers had higher risks of developing severe or critical COVID-19 symptoms, being admitted to the ICU, requiring ventilation, and dying. Conversely, those with nonmetastatic disease had outcomes that were comparable with persons without cancer and a COVID-19 infection. This study also found that having undergone recent surgery or receiving immunotherapy also put patients at a higher risk of poor outcomes, although patients with cancer who were treated with radiotherapy had outcomes similar to those of noncancer COVID-19 patients.

“COVID-19 can be very dangerous, especially for people living with cancer, which is why we’re so grateful for safe and effective vaccines that are saving lives,” Robert W. Carlson, MD, CEO of NCCN, said in a statement.
 

Right timing and location

The current NCCN update also recommends that individuals wait at least 4 weeks between the second and third doses, and those who are infected with COVID-19 after being vaccinated should wait until they have documented clearance of the virus before receiving a third dose.

It also recommends that people who live in the same household with immunocompromised individuals should also get a third dose once it becomes available, and that it is best to have a third dose of the same type of vaccine as the first two doses. However, a different mRNA vaccine is also acceptable.

Immunocompromised individuals should try to receive their third dose in a health care delivery setting, as opposed to a pharmacy or public vaccination clinic if possible, as it would limit their risk of exposure to the general population.

Steve Pergam, MD, MPH, associate professor, vaccine and infectious disease division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, commented that it is still necessary to take precautions, even after getting the booster dose.

“That means, even after a third dose of vaccine, we still recommend immunocompromised people, such as those undergoing cancer treatment, continue to be cautious, wear masks, and avoid large group gatherings, particularly around those who are unvaccinated,” said Dr. Pergam, who is also coleader of the NCCN COVID-19 Vaccination Advisory Committee. “All of us should do our part to reduce the spread of COVID-19 and get vaccinated to protect those around us from preventable suffering.”

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

Experts at the National Comprehensive Cancer Network have now issued an updated recommendation for COVID-19 vaccination in people with cancer. The panel calls for these patients to be among the highest-priority group to be vaccinated against COVID-19 and to receive the newly approved third dose of vaccine.

The NCCN has recommended in February that all patients receiving active cancer treatment should receive a COVID-19 vaccine and should be prioritized for vaccination. In August, the FDA authorized a third dose of either the Pfizer or Moderna COVID-19 vaccines for people with compromised immune systems. Those eligible for a third dose include solid organ transplant recipients, those undergoing cancer treatments, and people with autoimmune diseases that suppress their immune systems

The new NCCN recommendations state that the following groups should be considered eligible for a third dose of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine immediately, based on the latest decisions from the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:

• Patients with solid tumors (either new or recurring) receiving treatment within 1 year of their initial vaccine dose, regardless of their type of cancer therapy.
• Patients with active hematologic malignancies regardless of whether they are currently receiving cancer therapy.
• Anyone who received a stem cell transplant (SCT) or engineered cellular therapy (for example, chimeric antigen receptor T cells), especially within the past 2 years.
• Any recipients of allogeneic SCT on immunosuppressive therapy or with a history of graft-versus-host disease regardless of the time of transplant.
• Anyone with an additional immunosuppressive condition (for example, HIV) or being treated with immunosuppressive agents unrelated to their cancer therapy.

Cancer patients at high risk of complications

As previously reported by this news organization, infection with COVID-19 in people with cancer can severely impact survival. One study published in 2020 found that patients with both COVID-19 infection and progressing cancer had a fivefold increase in the risk of 30-day mortality, compared with COVID-19–positive cancer patients who were in remission or had no evidence of cancer.

Another study found that cancer type, stage, and recent treatment could affect outcomes of COVID-19 in patients with cancer. Patients with hematologic malignancies and metastatic cancers had higher risks of developing severe or critical COVID-19 symptoms, being admitted to the ICU, requiring ventilation, and dying. Conversely, those with nonmetastatic disease had outcomes that were comparable with persons without cancer and a COVID-19 infection. This study also found that having undergone recent surgery or receiving immunotherapy also put patients at a higher risk of poor outcomes, although patients with cancer who were treated with radiotherapy had outcomes similar to those of noncancer COVID-19 patients.

“COVID-19 can be very dangerous, especially for people living with cancer, which is why we’re so grateful for safe and effective vaccines that are saving lives,” Robert W. Carlson, MD, CEO of NCCN, said in a statement.
 

Right timing and location

The current NCCN update also recommends that individuals wait at least 4 weeks between the second and third doses, and those who are infected with COVID-19 after being vaccinated should wait until they have documented clearance of the virus before receiving a third dose.

It also recommends that people who live in the same household with immunocompromised individuals should also get a third dose once it becomes available, and that it is best to have a third dose of the same type of vaccine as the first two doses. However, a different mRNA vaccine is also acceptable.

Immunocompromised individuals should try to receive their third dose in a health care delivery setting, as opposed to a pharmacy or public vaccination clinic if possible, as it would limit their risk of exposure to the general population.

Steve Pergam, MD, MPH, associate professor, vaccine and infectious disease division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, commented that it is still necessary to take precautions, even after getting the booster dose.

“That means, even after a third dose of vaccine, we still recommend immunocompromised people, such as those undergoing cancer treatment, continue to be cautious, wear masks, and avoid large group gatherings, particularly around those who are unvaccinated,” said Dr. Pergam, who is also coleader of the NCCN COVID-19 Vaccination Advisory Committee. “All of us should do our part to reduce the spread of COVID-19 and get vaccinated to protect those around us from preventable suffering.”

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