British Columbia (BC) could eliminate cervical cancer within the next 20 years if the province shifts from cytology to human papillomavirus (HPV)–based screening before the end of the decade, data suggested. To achieve this goal, the province will also need to reach historically underscreened, equity-seeking populations (ie, Black, indigenous, immigrant, LGBTQ, and disabled patients, and those with sexual trauma) through mailed self-screening HPV tests.

The adoption of both these strategies is essential, according to a modeling study that was published on June 3 in CMAJ, especially because the true impact of HPV vaccination has yet to be fully realized.

“In BC, we have a school-based program to increase vaccine coverage in boys and girls starting in grade 6,” study author Reka Pataky, PhD, a senior research health economist at the Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control and BC Cancer in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, told this news organization. Dr. Pataky noted that this immunization program was launched in 2008 and that some of the initial cohorts haven›t yet reached the average age of diagnosis, which is between 30 and 59 years.

Three’s a Charm

The investigators undertook a modeling study to determine when and how BC might achieve the elimination of cervical cancer following a transition to HPV-based screening. Elimination was defined as an annual age-standardized incidence rate of < 4.0 per 100,000 women.

Modeling scenarios were developed using the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer’s priority targets, which include increasing HPV vaccination through school-based coverage from 70% to 90%, increasing the probability of ever receiving a screening test from 90% to 95%, increasing the rate of on-time screening from 70% to 90%, and improving follow-up to 95% for colposcopy (currently 88%) and HPV testing (currently 80%). Modeling simulated HPV transmission and the natural history of cervical cancer in the Canadian population and relied upon two reference scenarios: One using BC’s cytology-based screening at the time of analysis, and the other an HPV base-case scenario.

The researchers found that with the status quo (ie, cytology-based screening and no change to vaccination or screening participation rates), BC would not eliminate cervical cancer until 2045. Implementation of HPV-based screening at the current 70% participation rate would achieve elimination in 2034 and prevent 942 cases compared with cytology screening. Increasing the proportion of patients who were ever screened or increasing vaccination coverage would result in cervical cancer elimination by 2033. The time line would be shortened even further (to 2031) through a combination of three strategies (ie, improving recruitment, on-time screening, and follow-up compliance).

Low Incidence, Strained System

The incidence of cervical cancer in Canada is relatively low, accounting for 1.3% of all new female cancers and 1.1% of all female cancer deaths.

“The reason that we have such low rates is because we have organized screening programs,” explained Rachel Kupets, MD, associate professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Toronto and Sunnybrook Hospital, Toronto. She was not involved in the study.

“We’re starting to see what happens when the system gets strained with lower participation rates. I am starting to see a lot more women with invasive cervical cancer. They’re younger, and their cancers are less curable and less treatable,” she said.

Difficulties with access, interest, and education have contributed to low cervical screening rates among equity-seeking populations, according to Dr. Pataky and Dr. Kupets.

“Self-screening is another tool that can incrementally benefit those folks who wouldn’t otherwise undergo screening or don’t want an invasive test,” said Dr. Kupets. It can also play an increasing role, while current access to primary care services in Canada is at an all-time low. Community outreach through centers, mobile coaches, and nursing stations might help ensure participation by at-risk populations. These measures also could boost follow-up for and education about positive results, said Dr. Kupets.

In a related editorial, Shannon Charlebois, MD, medical editor of CMAJ, and Sarah Kean, MD, assistant professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, emphasized the need for mailed HPV self-screening kits to be paid for and integrated into provincial cervical cancer screening programs across Canada to support earlier cervical cancer detection and lower invasive cancer rates.

Dr. Pataky concurred. “There have been discussions about making the big transition from traditional cytology to implementing HPV self-screening,” she said. “We have really effective tools for preventing cervical cancer, and it’s important to not lose sight of that goal.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Pataky and Dr. Kupets reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

British Columbia (BC) could eliminate cervical cancer within the next 20 years if the province shifts from cytology to human papillomavirus (HPV)–based screening before the end of the decade, data suggested. To achieve this goal, the province will also need to reach historically underscreened, equity-seeking populations (ie, Black, indigenous, immigrant, LGBTQ, and disabled patients, and those with sexual trauma) through mailed self-screening HPV tests.

The adoption of both these strategies is essential, according to a modeling study that was published on June 3 in CMAJ, especially because the true impact of HPV vaccination has yet to be fully realized.

“In BC, we have a school-based program to increase vaccine coverage in boys and girls starting in grade 6,” study author Reka Pataky, PhD, a senior research health economist at the Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control and BC Cancer in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, told this news organization. Dr. Pataky noted that this immunization program was launched in 2008 and that some of the initial cohorts haven›t yet reached the average age of diagnosis, which is between 30 and 59 years.

Three’s a Charm

The investigators undertook a modeling study to determine when and how BC might achieve the elimination of cervical cancer following a transition to HPV-based screening. Elimination was defined as an annual age-standardized incidence rate of < 4.0 per 100,000 women.

Modeling scenarios were developed using the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer’s priority targets, which include increasing HPV vaccination through school-based coverage from 70% to 90%, increasing the probability of ever receiving a screening test from 90% to 95%, increasing the rate of on-time screening from 70% to 90%, and improving follow-up to 95% for colposcopy (currently 88%) and HPV testing (currently 80%). Modeling simulated HPV transmission and the natural history of cervical cancer in the Canadian population and relied upon two reference scenarios: One using BC’s cytology-based screening at the time of analysis, and the other an HPV base-case scenario.

The researchers found that with the status quo (ie, cytology-based screening and no change to vaccination or screening participation rates), BC would not eliminate cervical cancer until 2045. Implementation of HPV-based screening at the current 70% participation rate would achieve elimination in 2034 and prevent 942 cases compared with cytology screening. Increasing the proportion of patients who were ever screened or increasing vaccination coverage would result in cervical cancer elimination by 2033. The time line would be shortened even further (to 2031) through a combination of three strategies (ie, improving recruitment, on-time screening, and follow-up compliance).

Low Incidence, Strained System

The incidence of cervical cancer in Canada is relatively low, accounting for 1.3% of all new female cancers and 1.1% of all female cancer deaths.

“The reason that we have such low rates is because we have organized screening programs,” explained Rachel Kupets, MD, associate professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Toronto and Sunnybrook Hospital, Toronto. She was not involved in the study.

“We’re starting to see what happens when the system gets strained with lower participation rates. I am starting to see a lot more women with invasive cervical cancer. They’re younger, and their cancers are less curable and less treatable,” she said.

Difficulties with access, interest, and education have contributed to low cervical screening rates among equity-seeking populations, according to Dr. Pataky and Dr. Kupets.

“Self-screening is another tool that can incrementally benefit those folks who wouldn’t otherwise undergo screening or don’t want an invasive test,” said Dr. Kupets. It can also play an increasing role, while current access to primary care services in Canada is at an all-time low. Community outreach through centers, mobile coaches, and nursing stations might help ensure participation by at-risk populations. These measures also could boost follow-up for and education about positive results, said Dr. Kupets.

In a related editorial, Shannon Charlebois, MD, medical editor of CMAJ, and Sarah Kean, MD, assistant professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, emphasized the need for mailed HPV self-screening kits to be paid for and integrated into provincial cervical cancer screening programs across Canada to support earlier cervical cancer detection and lower invasive cancer rates.

Dr. Pataky concurred. “There have been discussions about making the big transition from traditional cytology to implementing HPV self-screening,” she said. “We have really effective tools for preventing cervical cancer, and it’s important to not lose sight of that goal.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Pataky and Dr. Kupets reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

British Columbia (BC) could eliminate cervical cancer within the next 20 years if the province shifts from cytology to human papillomavirus (HPV)–based screening before the end of the decade, data suggested. To achieve this goal, the province will also need to reach historically underscreened, equity-seeking populations (ie, Black, indigenous, immigrant, LGBTQ, and disabled patients, and those with sexual trauma) through mailed self-screening HPV tests.

The adoption of both these strategies is essential, according to a modeling study that was published on June 3 in CMAJ, especially because the true impact of HPV vaccination has yet to be fully realized.

“In BC, we have a school-based program to increase vaccine coverage in boys and girls starting in grade 6,” study author Reka Pataky, PhD, a senior research health economist at the Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control and BC Cancer in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, told this news organization. Dr. Pataky noted that this immunization program was launched in 2008 and that some of the initial cohorts haven›t yet reached the average age of diagnosis, which is between 30 and 59 years.

Three’s a Charm

The investigators undertook a modeling study to determine when and how BC might achieve the elimination of cervical cancer following a transition to HPV-based screening. Elimination was defined as an annual age-standardized incidence rate of < 4.0 per 100,000 women.

Modeling scenarios were developed using the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer’s priority targets, which include increasing HPV vaccination through school-based coverage from 70% to 90%, increasing the probability of ever receiving a screening test from 90% to 95%, increasing the rate of on-time screening from 70% to 90%, and improving follow-up to 95% for colposcopy (currently 88%) and HPV testing (currently 80%). Modeling simulated HPV transmission and the natural history of cervical cancer in the Canadian population and relied upon two reference scenarios: One using BC’s cytology-based screening at the time of analysis, and the other an HPV base-case scenario.

The researchers found that with the status quo (ie, cytology-based screening and no change to vaccination or screening participation rates), BC would not eliminate cervical cancer until 2045. Implementation of HPV-based screening at the current 70% participation rate would achieve elimination in 2034 and prevent 942 cases compared with cytology screening. Increasing the proportion of patients who were ever screened or increasing vaccination coverage would result in cervical cancer elimination by 2033. The time line would be shortened even further (to 2031) through a combination of three strategies (ie, improving recruitment, on-time screening, and follow-up compliance).

Low Incidence, Strained System

The incidence of cervical cancer in Canada is relatively low, accounting for 1.3% of all new female cancers and 1.1% of all female cancer deaths.

“The reason that we have such low rates is because we have organized screening programs,” explained Rachel Kupets, MD, associate professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Toronto and Sunnybrook Hospital, Toronto. She was not involved in the study.

“We’re starting to see what happens when the system gets strained with lower participation rates. I am starting to see a lot more women with invasive cervical cancer. They’re younger, and their cancers are less curable and less treatable,” she said.

Difficulties with access, interest, and education have contributed to low cervical screening rates among equity-seeking populations, according to Dr. Pataky and Dr. Kupets.

“Self-screening is another tool that can incrementally benefit those folks who wouldn’t otherwise undergo screening or don’t want an invasive test,” said Dr. Kupets. It can also play an increasing role, while current access to primary care services in Canada is at an all-time low. Community outreach through centers, mobile coaches, and nursing stations might help ensure participation by at-risk populations. These measures also could boost follow-up for and education about positive results, said Dr. Kupets.

In a related editorial, Shannon Charlebois, MD, medical editor of CMAJ, and Sarah Kean, MD, assistant professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, emphasized the need for mailed HPV self-screening kits to be paid for and integrated into provincial cervical cancer screening programs across Canada to support earlier cervical cancer detection and lower invasive cancer rates.

Dr. Pataky concurred. “There have been discussions about making the big transition from traditional cytology to implementing HPV self-screening,” she said. “We have really effective tools for preventing cervical cancer, and it’s important to not lose sight of that goal.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Pataky and Dr. Kupets reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Two decades after the landmark Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) changed the way clinicians thought about hormone therapy and cancer, new findings suggest this national health study is "the gift that keeps on giving."

Follow-up from two of the WHI’s randomized trials have found that estrogen alone in women with prior hysterectomy significantly increased ovarian cancer incidence and mortality in postmenopausal women. Estrogen and progesterone together, meanwhile, did not increase ovarian cancer risk, and significantly reduced the risk of endometrial cancer. Rowan T. Chlebowski, MD, PhD, of The Lundquist Institute in Torrance, California, presented these results from the latest WHI findings, at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Chicago.

Dr. Chlebowski and his colleagues conducted an analysis from two randomized, placebo-controlled trials, which between 1993 and 1998 enrolled nearly 28,000 postmenopausal women aged 50-79 years without prior cancer from 40 centers across the United States. (The full WHI effort involved a total cohort of 161,000 patients, and included an observational study and two other non-drug trials.)

In one of the hormone therapy trials, 17,000 women with a uterus at baseline were randomized to combined equine estrogen plus medroxyprogesterone acetate, or placebo. In the other trial, about 11,000 women with prior hysterectomy were randomized to daily estrogen alone or placebo. Both trials were stopped early: the estrogen-only trial due to an increased stroke risk, and the combined therapy trial due to findings of increased breast cancer and cardiovascular risk.

Mean exposure to hormone therapy was 5.6 years for the combined therapy trial and 7.2 years for estrogen alone trial.
 

Ovarian Cancer Incidence Doubles with Estrogen

At 20 years’ follow up, with mortality information available for nearly the full cohort, Dr. Chlebowski and his colleagues could determine that ovarian cancer incidence doubled among women who had taken estrogen alone (hazard ratio = 2.04; 95% CI 1.14-3.65; P = .01), a difference that reached statistical significance at 12 years’ follow up. Ovarian cancer mortality was also significantly increased (HR = 2.79 95% CI 1.30-5.99, P = .006). Absolute numbers were small, however, with 35 cases of ovarian cancer compared with 17 in the placebo group.

Combined therapy recipients saw no increased risk for ovarian cancer and significantly lower endometrial cancer incidence (106 cases vs. 140 HR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.56-0.92; P = .01).

Conjugated equine estrogen, Dr. Chlebowski said during his presentation at the meeting, “was introduced in US clinical practice in 1943 and used for over half a century, yet the question about hormone therapy’s influence on endometrial and ovarian cancer remains unsettled. Endometrial cancer and ovarian cancer are the fourth and fifth leading causes of cancer deaths in women ... and there’s some discordant findings from observational studies.”

Care of Ovarian Cancer Survivors Should Change

The new findings should prompt practice and guideline changes regarding the use of estrogen alone in ovarian cancer survivors, Dr. Chlebowski said.

In an interview, oncologist Eleonora Teplinsky, MD, of Valley-Mount Sinai Comprehensive Cancer Care in Paramus, New Jersey, said that apart from this subgroup of ovarian cancer survivors, the findings would not likely have much impact on how clinicians and patients approach hormone replacement therapy today.

“Twenty years ago the Women’s Health Initiative showed that hormone replacement therapy increases breast cancer risk, and everyone stopped taking HRT. And now people pushing back on it and saying wait a second – it was the estrogen plus progesterone that increased breast cancer, not estrogen alone. And now we’ve got these newer [estrogen] formulations.

“Yes, there’s a little bit of an increased risk [for ovarian cancer]. Patients should be aware. They should know the symptoms of ovarian cancer. But if they have indications and have been recommended HRT, this is not something that we would advise them against because of this very slightly increased risk,” Dr. Teplinsky said.

Oncologist Allison Kurian, MD of Stanford University in Stanford, California, who specializes in breast cancer, also noted that the duration of hormone treatment, treatment timing relative to age of menopause onset, and commonly used estrogen preparations had indeed changed since the time the WHI trials were conducted, making it harder to generalize the findings to current practice. Nonetheless, she argued, they still have real significance.

“WHI is an incredibly complex but also incredibly valuable resource,” said Dr. Kurian, who has conducted studies using WHI data. “The first big results came out in 2002, and we’re still learning from it. These are randomized trials, which offer the strongest form of scientific evidence that exists. So whenever we see results from this study, we have to take note of them,” she said.

Because the WHI trials had shown combined therapy, not estrogen alone, to be associated with breast cancer risk, clinicians have felt reassured over the years about using estrogen alone.

“You can’t give it to a person unless they have their uterus removed, because we know it will cause uterine cancer if the uterus is in place. But if the uterus is removed, the feeling was that you can give estrogen alone. I think the new piece that is going to get everyone’s attention is this signal for ovarian cancer.”

Something else the new findings show, Dr. Kurian said, is that WHI is “the gift that keeps on giving,” even after decades. “Some of the participants had a relatively short-term exposure to HRT. They took a medication for just a little while. But you didn’t see the effects until you followed people 12 years. So we’re now going to be a little more worried about ovarian cancer in this setting than we used to be. And that’s going to be something we’re all going to keep an eye on and think twice about in terms of talking to patients.”

These results help demonstrate what happens when a society invests in science on a national scale, Dr. Kurian said. “Here we have a really long-term, incredibly informative study that keeps generating knowledge to help women.”

When the WHI began, it “really was the first time that people decided it was important to systematically study women at midlife. It was a remarkable thing then that society got mobilized to do this, and we’re still seeing the benefits.”

Dr. Chlebowski disclosed receiving consulting or advisory fees from Pfizer. Dr. Teplinsky and Dr. Kurian disclosed no financial conflicts of interest.

Two decades after the landmark Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) changed the way clinicians thought about hormone therapy and cancer, new findings suggest this national health study is "the gift that keeps on giving."

Follow-up from two of the WHI’s randomized trials have found that estrogen alone in women with prior hysterectomy significantly increased ovarian cancer incidence and mortality in postmenopausal women. Estrogen and progesterone together, meanwhile, did not increase ovarian cancer risk, and significantly reduced the risk of endometrial cancer. Rowan T. Chlebowski, MD, PhD, of The Lundquist Institute in Torrance, California, presented these results from the latest WHI findings, at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Chicago.

Dr. Chlebowski and his colleagues conducted an analysis from two randomized, placebo-controlled trials, which between 1993 and 1998 enrolled nearly 28,000 postmenopausal women aged 50-79 years without prior cancer from 40 centers across the United States. (The full WHI effort involved a total cohort of 161,000 patients, and included an observational study and two other non-drug trials.)

In one of the hormone therapy trials, 17,000 women with a uterus at baseline were randomized to combined equine estrogen plus medroxyprogesterone acetate, or placebo. In the other trial, about 11,000 women with prior hysterectomy were randomized to daily estrogen alone or placebo. Both trials were stopped early: the estrogen-only trial due to an increased stroke risk, and the combined therapy trial due to findings of increased breast cancer and cardiovascular risk.

Mean exposure to hormone therapy was 5.6 years for the combined therapy trial and 7.2 years for estrogen alone trial.
 

Ovarian Cancer Incidence Doubles with Estrogen

At 20 years’ follow up, with mortality information available for nearly the full cohort, Dr. Chlebowski and his colleagues could determine that ovarian cancer incidence doubled among women who had taken estrogen alone (hazard ratio = 2.04; 95% CI 1.14-3.65; P = .01), a difference that reached statistical significance at 12 years’ follow up. Ovarian cancer mortality was also significantly increased (HR = 2.79 95% CI 1.30-5.99, P = .006). Absolute numbers were small, however, with 35 cases of ovarian cancer compared with 17 in the placebo group.

Combined therapy recipients saw no increased risk for ovarian cancer and significantly lower endometrial cancer incidence (106 cases vs. 140 HR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.56-0.92; P = .01).

Conjugated equine estrogen, Dr. Chlebowski said during his presentation at the meeting, “was introduced in US clinical practice in 1943 and used for over half a century, yet the question about hormone therapy’s influence on endometrial and ovarian cancer remains unsettled. Endometrial cancer and ovarian cancer are the fourth and fifth leading causes of cancer deaths in women ... and there’s some discordant findings from observational studies.”

Care of Ovarian Cancer Survivors Should Change

The new findings should prompt practice and guideline changes regarding the use of estrogen alone in ovarian cancer survivors, Dr. Chlebowski said.

In an interview, oncologist Eleonora Teplinsky, MD, of Valley-Mount Sinai Comprehensive Cancer Care in Paramus, New Jersey, said that apart from this subgroup of ovarian cancer survivors, the findings would not likely have much impact on how clinicians and patients approach hormone replacement therapy today.

“Twenty years ago the Women’s Health Initiative showed that hormone replacement therapy increases breast cancer risk, and everyone stopped taking HRT. And now people pushing back on it and saying wait a second – it was the estrogen plus progesterone that increased breast cancer, not estrogen alone. And now we’ve got these newer [estrogen] formulations.

“Yes, there’s a little bit of an increased risk [for ovarian cancer]. Patients should be aware. They should know the symptoms of ovarian cancer. But if they have indications and have been recommended HRT, this is not something that we would advise them against because of this very slightly increased risk,” Dr. Teplinsky said.

Oncologist Allison Kurian, MD of Stanford University in Stanford, California, who specializes in breast cancer, also noted that the duration of hormone treatment, treatment timing relative to age of menopause onset, and commonly used estrogen preparations had indeed changed since the time the WHI trials were conducted, making it harder to generalize the findings to current practice. Nonetheless, she argued, they still have real significance.

“WHI is an incredibly complex but also incredibly valuable resource,” said Dr. Kurian, who has conducted studies using WHI data. “The first big results came out in 2002, and we’re still learning from it. These are randomized trials, which offer the strongest form of scientific evidence that exists. So whenever we see results from this study, we have to take note of them,” she said.

Because the WHI trials had shown combined therapy, not estrogen alone, to be associated with breast cancer risk, clinicians have felt reassured over the years about using estrogen alone.

“You can’t give it to a person unless they have their uterus removed, because we know it will cause uterine cancer if the uterus is in place. But if the uterus is removed, the feeling was that you can give estrogen alone. I think the new piece that is going to get everyone’s attention is this signal for ovarian cancer.”

Something else the new findings show, Dr. Kurian said, is that WHI is “the gift that keeps on giving,” even after decades. “Some of the participants had a relatively short-term exposure to HRT. They took a medication for just a little while. But you didn’t see the effects until you followed people 12 years. So we’re now going to be a little more worried about ovarian cancer in this setting than we used to be. And that’s going to be something we’re all going to keep an eye on and think twice about in terms of talking to patients.”

These results help demonstrate what happens when a society invests in science on a national scale, Dr. Kurian said. “Here we have a really long-term, incredibly informative study that keeps generating knowledge to help women.”

When the WHI began, it “really was the first time that people decided it was important to systematically study women at midlife. It was a remarkable thing then that society got mobilized to do this, and we’re still seeing the benefits.”

Dr. Chlebowski disclosed receiving consulting or advisory fees from Pfizer. Dr. Teplinsky and Dr. Kurian disclosed no financial conflicts of interest.

Two decades after the landmark Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) changed the way clinicians thought about hormone therapy and cancer, new findings suggest this national health study is "the gift that keeps on giving."

Follow-up from two of the WHI’s randomized trials have found that estrogen alone in women with prior hysterectomy significantly increased ovarian cancer incidence and mortality in postmenopausal women. Estrogen and progesterone together, meanwhile, did not increase ovarian cancer risk, and significantly reduced the risk of endometrial cancer. Rowan T. Chlebowski, MD, PhD, of The Lundquist Institute in Torrance, California, presented these results from the latest WHI findings, at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Chicago.

Dr. Chlebowski and his colleagues conducted an analysis from two randomized, placebo-controlled trials, which between 1993 and 1998 enrolled nearly 28,000 postmenopausal women aged 50-79 years without prior cancer from 40 centers across the United States. (The full WHI effort involved a total cohort of 161,000 patients, and included an observational study and two other non-drug trials.)

In one of the hormone therapy trials, 17,000 women with a uterus at baseline were randomized to combined equine estrogen plus medroxyprogesterone acetate, or placebo. In the other trial, about 11,000 women with prior hysterectomy were randomized to daily estrogen alone or placebo. Both trials were stopped early: the estrogen-only trial due to an increased stroke risk, and the combined therapy trial due to findings of increased breast cancer and cardiovascular risk.

Mean exposure to hormone therapy was 5.6 years for the combined therapy trial and 7.2 years for estrogen alone trial.
 

Ovarian Cancer Incidence Doubles with Estrogen

At 20 years’ follow up, with mortality information available for nearly the full cohort, Dr. Chlebowski and his colleagues could determine that ovarian cancer incidence doubled among women who had taken estrogen alone (hazard ratio = 2.04; 95% CI 1.14-3.65; P = .01), a difference that reached statistical significance at 12 years’ follow up. Ovarian cancer mortality was also significantly increased (HR = 2.79 95% CI 1.30-5.99, P = .006). Absolute numbers were small, however, with 35 cases of ovarian cancer compared with 17 in the placebo group.

Combined therapy recipients saw no increased risk for ovarian cancer and significantly lower endometrial cancer incidence (106 cases vs. 140 HR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.56-0.92; P = .01).

Conjugated equine estrogen, Dr. Chlebowski said during his presentation at the meeting, “was introduced in US clinical practice in 1943 and used for over half a century, yet the question about hormone therapy’s influence on endometrial and ovarian cancer remains unsettled. Endometrial cancer and ovarian cancer are the fourth and fifth leading causes of cancer deaths in women ... and there’s some discordant findings from observational studies.”

Care of Ovarian Cancer Survivors Should Change

The new findings should prompt practice and guideline changes regarding the use of estrogen alone in ovarian cancer survivors, Dr. Chlebowski said.

In an interview, oncologist Eleonora Teplinsky, MD, of Valley-Mount Sinai Comprehensive Cancer Care in Paramus, New Jersey, said that apart from this subgroup of ovarian cancer survivors, the findings would not likely have much impact on how clinicians and patients approach hormone replacement therapy today.

“Twenty years ago the Women’s Health Initiative showed that hormone replacement therapy increases breast cancer risk, and everyone stopped taking HRT. And now people pushing back on it and saying wait a second – it was the estrogen plus progesterone that increased breast cancer, not estrogen alone. And now we’ve got these newer [estrogen] formulations.

“Yes, there’s a little bit of an increased risk [for ovarian cancer]. Patients should be aware. They should know the symptoms of ovarian cancer. But if they have indications and have been recommended HRT, this is not something that we would advise them against because of this very slightly increased risk,” Dr. Teplinsky said.

Oncologist Allison Kurian, MD of Stanford University in Stanford, California, who specializes in breast cancer, also noted that the duration of hormone treatment, treatment timing relative to age of menopause onset, and commonly used estrogen preparations had indeed changed since the time the WHI trials were conducted, making it harder to generalize the findings to current practice. Nonetheless, she argued, they still have real significance.

“WHI is an incredibly complex but also incredibly valuable resource,” said Dr. Kurian, who has conducted studies using WHI data. “The first big results came out in 2002, and we’re still learning from it. These are randomized trials, which offer the strongest form of scientific evidence that exists. So whenever we see results from this study, we have to take note of them,” she said.

Because the WHI trials had shown combined therapy, not estrogen alone, to be associated with breast cancer risk, clinicians have felt reassured over the years about using estrogen alone.

“You can’t give it to a person unless they have their uterus removed, because we know it will cause uterine cancer if the uterus is in place. But if the uterus is removed, the feeling was that you can give estrogen alone. I think the new piece that is going to get everyone’s attention is this signal for ovarian cancer.”

Something else the new findings show, Dr. Kurian said, is that WHI is “the gift that keeps on giving,” even after decades. “Some of the participants had a relatively short-term exposure to HRT. They took a medication for just a little while. But you didn’t see the effects until you followed people 12 years. So we’re now going to be a little more worried about ovarian cancer in this setting than we used to be. And that’s going to be something we’re all going to keep an eye on and think twice about in terms of talking to patients.”

These results help demonstrate what happens when a society invests in science on a national scale, Dr. Kurian said. “Here we have a really long-term, incredibly informative study that keeps generating knowledge to help women.”

When the WHI began, it “really was the first time that people decided it was important to systematically study women at midlife. It was a remarkable thing then that society got mobilized to do this, and we’re still seeing the benefits.”

Dr. Chlebowski disclosed receiving consulting or advisory fees from Pfizer. Dr. Teplinsky and Dr. Kurian disclosed no financial conflicts of interest.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved sarilumab (Kevzara) for the treatment of polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis (pJIA) for patients weighing ≥ 63 kg (139 lb). 

“Polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) can be a painful disease for children where multiple joints are impacted by this chronic inflammation,” said George D. Yancopoulos, MD, PhD, president and chief scientific officer at Regeneron in a press release. 

It is estimated that nearly 300,000 children in the United States have JIA, and 1 in 4 of them have pJIA, according to the Arthritis Foundation. 

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

“Not only are their daily lives impacted, but their futures can be disrupted without adequate treatment,” Dr. Yancopoulos continued. “The approval of Kevzara in polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis provides these vulnerable patients and their families a new FDA-approved treatment option to help navigate this disease.” 

Sarilumab, jointly developed by Sanofi and Regeneron, is an interleukin 6 receptor blocker. It was first approved in 2017 for the treatment of moderate to severely active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in adults who had inadequate response or intolerance to at least one other disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD). 

In 2023, the FDA approved sarilumab as the first biologic treatment for polymyalgia rheumatica in adults who had inadequate response to corticosteroids and could not tolerate a corticosteroid taper. 

For pJIA, sarilumab is administered subcutaneously using a 200-mg/1.14-mL prefilled syringe once every 2 weeks. The medication can be used alone or in combination with other conventional DMARDs. 

“Use of KEVZARA in pediatric patients with pJIA is supported by evidence from adequate and well-controlled studies of KEVZARA in adults with RA, pharmacokinetic data from adult patients with RA,” and pharmacokinetic comparability in 101 pediatric patients aged 2-17 years treated with sarilumab, according to the prescribing information. Sarilumab is not approved for pediatric patients < 63 kg “because of a lack of an appropriate dosage form.” 

The most common reported adverse reactions for sarilumab in pJIA are nasopharyngitis, neutropenia, upper respiratory tract infection, and injection site erythema. The pJIA trial recorded no new adverse reactions or safety concerns, compared with patients with RA. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved sarilumab (Kevzara) for the treatment of polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis (pJIA) for patients weighing ≥ 63 kg (139 lb). 

“Polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) can be a painful disease for children where multiple joints are impacted by this chronic inflammation,” said George D. Yancopoulos, MD, PhD, president and chief scientific officer at Regeneron in a press release. 

It is estimated that nearly 300,000 children in the United States have JIA, and 1 in 4 of them have pJIA, according to the Arthritis Foundation. 

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

“Not only are their daily lives impacted, but their futures can be disrupted without adequate treatment,” Dr. Yancopoulos continued. “The approval of Kevzara in polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis provides these vulnerable patients and their families a new FDA-approved treatment option to help navigate this disease.” 

Sarilumab, jointly developed by Sanofi and Regeneron, is an interleukin 6 receptor blocker. It was first approved in 2017 for the treatment of moderate to severely active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in adults who had inadequate response or intolerance to at least one other disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD). 

In 2023, the FDA approved sarilumab as the first biologic treatment for polymyalgia rheumatica in adults who had inadequate response to corticosteroids and could not tolerate a corticosteroid taper. 

For pJIA, sarilumab is administered subcutaneously using a 200-mg/1.14-mL prefilled syringe once every 2 weeks. The medication can be used alone or in combination with other conventional DMARDs. 

“Use of KEVZARA in pediatric patients with pJIA is supported by evidence from adequate and well-controlled studies of KEVZARA in adults with RA, pharmacokinetic data from adult patients with RA,” and pharmacokinetic comparability in 101 pediatric patients aged 2-17 years treated with sarilumab, according to the prescribing information. Sarilumab is not approved for pediatric patients < 63 kg “because of a lack of an appropriate dosage form.” 

The most common reported adverse reactions for sarilumab in pJIA are nasopharyngitis, neutropenia, upper respiratory tract infection, and injection site erythema. The pJIA trial recorded no new adverse reactions or safety concerns, compared with patients with RA. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved sarilumab (Kevzara) for the treatment of polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis (pJIA) for patients weighing ≥ 63 kg (139 lb). 

“Polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) can be a painful disease for children where multiple joints are impacted by this chronic inflammation,” said George D. Yancopoulos, MD, PhD, president and chief scientific officer at Regeneron in a press release. 

It is estimated that nearly 300,000 children in the United States have JIA, and 1 in 4 of them have pJIA, according to the Arthritis Foundation. 

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

“Not only are their daily lives impacted, but their futures can be disrupted without adequate treatment,” Dr. Yancopoulos continued. “The approval of Kevzara in polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis provides these vulnerable patients and their families a new FDA-approved treatment option to help navigate this disease.” 

Sarilumab, jointly developed by Sanofi and Regeneron, is an interleukin 6 receptor blocker. It was first approved in 2017 for the treatment of moderate to severely active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in adults who had inadequate response or intolerance to at least one other disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD). 

In 2023, the FDA approved sarilumab as the first biologic treatment for polymyalgia rheumatica in adults who had inadequate response to corticosteroids and could not tolerate a corticosteroid taper. 

For pJIA, sarilumab is administered subcutaneously using a 200-mg/1.14-mL prefilled syringe once every 2 weeks. The medication can be used alone or in combination with other conventional DMARDs. 

“Use of KEVZARA in pediatric patients with pJIA is supported by evidence from adequate and well-controlled studies of KEVZARA in adults with RA, pharmacokinetic data from adult patients with RA,” and pharmacokinetic comparability in 101 pediatric patients aged 2-17 years treated with sarilumab, according to the prescribing information. Sarilumab is not approved for pediatric patients < 63 kg “because of a lack of an appropriate dosage form.” 

The most common reported adverse reactions for sarilumab in pJIA are nasopharyngitis, neutropenia, upper respiratory tract infection, and injection site erythema. The pJIA trial recorded no new adverse reactions or safety concerns, compared with patients with RA. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An influential US panel may largely reaffirm its current recommendation in favor of screening older women to prevent osteoporotic fractures, while also repeating its call for more research to try to determine whether men would benefit from this kind of routine testing.

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) on June 11 released a draft update of its recommendations on osteoporosis screening. The task force will accept comments on the draft through July 8. Federal law gives the USPSTF recommendations extra clout, requiring insurers to cover — without co-pay — services that get top marks “A” or “B” from the task force.

The task force intends to maintain a “B” recommendation on screening of older women, indicating that the evidence gathered to date suggests a moderate net benefit. But the draft includes a shift in the approach to this screening.

The USPSTF proposed saying that it recommends screening for osteoporosis in both women aged 65 years and older and postmenopausal women younger than 65 years who are at an increased risk for an osteoporotic fracture. The current recommendation, finalized in 2018, advises “screening for osteoporosis with bone measurement testing [emphasis added]” for these groups.

The proposed change in language — dropping the phrase “with bone measurement testing” — is intended to expand flexibility for clinicians, Esa Davis, MD, MPH, a member of USPSTF and a professor at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, told this news organization.

USPSTF

University of Chicago Medicine

Insufficient Evidence

The USPSTF’s “I” grade is different from a “D” grade, which is what the task force uses to recommend against the use of a service.

A “D” grade means the USPSTF says there is moderate or high certainty that the service has no net benefit or that the harms outweigh the benefits. (The USPSTF makes it easy to search online for grades given to preventive services, including those that got a “D.”)

The USPSTF is calling for more studies on the benefits and harms of screening for osteoporosis to prevent fractures and related morbidity and mortality in men.

“Men do get osteoporosis,” Dr. Davis said. “But unfortunately, the evidence isn’t there” to allow USPSTF to make a recommendation on screening approaches.

“Any man who has concerns about bone health should certainly talk to his clinician and figure out what is the best form of screening” he might want to do, she said.

There’s been a growing interest in the question of whether to screen men for osteoporosis and bone health. For example, Osteoporosis Canada last year updated a guideline to emphasize the need to assess older patients of both sexes for the risk for fractures. But the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care in 2023 came to a conclusion in line with the USPSTF draft.

The Canadian task force recommended against routine screening in men, while adding that clinicians should be alert to changes in health that may indicate the patient has experienced or is at a higher risk for fragility fracture.
 

Risk Factors, Concerns About Tests

The USPSTF said that risk factors associated with fragility fractures are similar in men and women. These include:

• Increasing age
• Low body mass index
• Excessive alcohol intake
• Current smoking
• Chronic corticosteroid use
• History of prior fractures, falls within the past year, cerebrovascular accident, and diabetes
• Hypogonadism

The process of updating the USPSTF recommendations can serve as a chance to expand public awareness about osteoporosis, as many men may not know to raise the question of their fracture risk during medical appointments, Dr. Davis said.

“Clinicians need to be aware of the risk factors and to be able to have conversations with men,” she said.

Dr. Davis also cautioned about the need to be aware of limitations with clinical risk assessment tools. In the draft recommendation statement, the USPSTF noted that some tools and approaches may be less likely to identify Black, Hispanic, and Asian people as high risk, and subsequently, clinicians may be less likely to offer treatment to them compared with White people of the same age, bone mineral density, and clinical risk profile.

Dr. Davis had no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Jain received research funding from the Amgen Foundation.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An influential US panel may largely reaffirm its current recommendation in favor of screening older women to prevent osteoporotic fractures, while also repeating its call for more research to try to determine whether men would benefit from this kind of routine testing.

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) on June 11 released a draft update of its recommendations on osteoporosis screening. The task force will accept comments on the draft through July 8. Federal law gives the USPSTF recommendations extra clout, requiring insurers to cover — without co-pay — services that get top marks “A” or “B” from the task force.

The task force intends to maintain a “B” recommendation on screening of older women, indicating that the evidence gathered to date suggests a moderate net benefit. But the draft includes a shift in the approach to this screening.

The USPSTF proposed saying that it recommends screening for osteoporosis in both women aged 65 years and older and postmenopausal women younger than 65 years who are at an increased risk for an osteoporotic fracture. The current recommendation, finalized in 2018, advises “screening for osteoporosis with bone measurement testing [emphasis added]” for these groups.

The proposed change in language — dropping the phrase “with bone measurement testing” — is intended to expand flexibility for clinicians, Esa Davis, MD, MPH, a member of USPSTF and a professor at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, told this news organization.

USPSTF

University of Chicago Medicine

Insufficient Evidence

The USPSTF’s “I” grade is different from a “D” grade, which is what the task force uses to recommend against the use of a service.

A “D” grade means the USPSTF says there is moderate or high certainty that the service has no net benefit or that the harms outweigh the benefits. (The USPSTF makes it easy to search online for grades given to preventive services, including those that got a “D.”)

The USPSTF is calling for more studies on the benefits and harms of screening for osteoporosis to prevent fractures and related morbidity and mortality in men.

“Men do get osteoporosis,” Dr. Davis said. “But unfortunately, the evidence isn’t there” to allow USPSTF to make a recommendation on screening approaches.

“Any man who has concerns about bone health should certainly talk to his clinician and figure out what is the best form of screening” he might want to do, she said.

There’s been a growing interest in the question of whether to screen men for osteoporosis and bone health. For example, Osteoporosis Canada last year updated a guideline to emphasize the need to assess older patients of both sexes for the risk for fractures. But the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care in 2023 came to a conclusion in line with the USPSTF draft.

The Canadian task force recommended against routine screening in men, while adding that clinicians should be alert to changes in health that may indicate the patient has experienced or is at a higher risk for fragility fracture.
 

Risk Factors, Concerns About Tests

The USPSTF said that risk factors associated with fragility fractures are similar in men and women. These include:

• Increasing age
• Low body mass index
• Excessive alcohol intake
• Current smoking
• Chronic corticosteroid use
• History of prior fractures, falls within the past year, cerebrovascular accident, and diabetes
• Hypogonadism

The process of updating the USPSTF recommendations can serve as a chance to expand public awareness about osteoporosis, as many men may not know to raise the question of their fracture risk during medical appointments, Dr. Davis said.

“Clinicians need to be aware of the risk factors and to be able to have conversations with men,” she said.

Dr. Davis also cautioned about the need to be aware of limitations with clinical risk assessment tools. In the draft recommendation statement, the USPSTF noted that some tools and approaches may be less likely to identify Black, Hispanic, and Asian people as high risk, and subsequently, clinicians may be less likely to offer treatment to them compared with White people of the same age, bone mineral density, and clinical risk profile.

Dr. Davis had no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Jain received research funding from the Amgen Foundation.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An influential US panel may largely reaffirm its current recommendation in favor of screening older women to prevent osteoporotic fractures, while also repeating its call for more research to try to determine whether men would benefit from this kind of routine testing.

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) on June 11 released a draft update of its recommendations on osteoporosis screening. The task force will accept comments on the draft through July 8. Federal law gives the USPSTF recommendations extra clout, requiring insurers to cover — without co-pay — services that get top marks “A” or “B” from the task force.

The task force intends to maintain a “B” recommendation on screening of older women, indicating that the evidence gathered to date suggests a moderate net benefit. But the draft includes a shift in the approach to this screening.

The USPSTF proposed saying that it recommends screening for osteoporosis in both women aged 65 years and older and postmenopausal women younger than 65 years who are at an increased risk for an osteoporotic fracture. The current recommendation, finalized in 2018, advises “screening for osteoporosis with bone measurement testing [emphasis added]” for these groups.

The proposed change in language — dropping the phrase “with bone measurement testing” — is intended to expand flexibility for clinicians, Esa Davis, MD, MPH, a member of USPSTF and a professor at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, told this news organization.

USPSTF

University of Chicago Medicine

Insufficient Evidence

The USPSTF’s “I” grade is different from a “D” grade, which is what the task force uses to recommend against the use of a service.

A “D” grade means the USPSTF says there is moderate or high certainty that the service has no net benefit or that the harms outweigh the benefits. (The USPSTF makes it easy to search online for grades given to preventive services, including those that got a “D.”)

The USPSTF is calling for more studies on the benefits and harms of screening for osteoporosis to prevent fractures and related morbidity and mortality in men.

“Men do get osteoporosis,” Dr. Davis said. “But unfortunately, the evidence isn’t there” to allow USPSTF to make a recommendation on screening approaches.

“Any man who has concerns about bone health should certainly talk to his clinician and figure out what is the best form of screening” he might want to do, she said.

There’s been a growing interest in the question of whether to screen men for osteoporosis and bone health. For example, Osteoporosis Canada last year updated a guideline to emphasize the need to assess older patients of both sexes for the risk for fractures. But the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care in 2023 came to a conclusion in line with the USPSTF draft.

The Canadian task force recommended against routine screening in men, while adding that clinicians should be alert to changes in health that may indicate the patient has experienced or is at a higher risk for fragility fracture.
 

Risk Factors, Concerns About Tests

The USPSTF said that risk factors associated with fragility fractures are similar in men and women. These include:

• Increasing age
• Low body mass index
• Excessive alcohol intake
• Current smoking
• Chronic corticosteroid use
• History of prior fractures, falls within the past year, cerebrovascular accident, and diabetes
• Hypogonadism

The process of updating the USPSTF recommendations can serve as a chance to expand public awareness about osteoporosis, as many men may not know to raise the question of their fracture risk during medical appointments, Dr. Davis said.

“Clinicians need to be aware of the risk factors and to be able to have conversations with men,” she said.

Dr. Davis also cautioned about the need to be aware of limitations with clinical risk assessment tools. In the draft recommendation statement, the USPSTF noted that some tools and approaches may be less likely to identify Black, Hispanic, and Asian people as high risk, and subsequently, clinicians may be less likely to offer treatment to them compared with White people of the same age, bone mineral density, and clinical risk profile.

Dr. Davis had no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Jain received research funding from the Amgen Foundation.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Having more tender than swollen joints is linked to worse patient-reported outcomes (PROs), particularly in pain interference, social participation, and fatigue, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODOLOGY:

• In early RA, understanding the impact of tender-swollen joint differences (TSJDs) on PROs across multiple domains of health-related quality of life is important to customize personalized therapeutic strategies.
• This study evaluated the impact of TSJDs on PROs over 1 year in 547 patients (mean age, 56 years; 70% women; mean symptom duration, 5.3 months) with early RA across 18 centers in Canada between January 2016 and August 2022.
• TSJDs were assessed for 28 joints (six large and 22 small) at baseline and at 3-, 6-, and 12-month visits using the PRO Measurement Information System (PROMIS-29), covering seven domains of health. Higher PROMIS T-scores indicated better health outcomes.

TAKEAWAY: 

• A one-point increase of TSJD was significantly associated with worse PROMIS T-scores in physical function (adjusted regression coefficient [β], −0.27; 95% CI, −0.39 to −0.15) and social participation (β, −0.34; 95% CI, −0.50 to −0.19).
• A one-point increase in TSJD was also linked to worsened PROMIS symptoms in pain interference (β, 0.49), fatigue (β, 0.34), sleep problems (β, 0.29), anxiety (β, 0.23), and depression (β, 0.20).
• Large-joint TSJD was particularly associated with worse PROs than small-joint TSJD.
• The sensitivity analysis validated the reliability of the primary findings regarding the association between joint counts and PROs evaluated by PROMIS-29, even when accounting for C-reactive protein levels in various scenarios or assumptions.

IN PRACTICE:

“Patients with more tender than swollen joints may experience worsening of all seven domains of health, especially pain interference, social participation, and fatigue. Rheumatologists should be alerted to their patients with early RA having more tender than swollen joints, particularly in large joints,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Charis F. Meng, MD, Division of Rheumatology, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York. It was published online on May 1, 2024, in Journal of Clinical Rheumatology. 

LIMITATIONS:

The study was observational with missing data, which could have impacted the reliability of the results. Most participants were women and White individuals, which could restrict the generalizability of results. The absence of ultrasound for synovitis limited the clinical assessment of patients with RA for information beyond physical examination alone. 

DISCLOSURES: 

The study was supported and funded by the Inflammatory Arthritis Center and Division of Rheumatology at the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York. One author reported receiving funding from the National Institutes of Health.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Having more tender than swollen joints is linked to worse patient-reported outcomes (PROs), particularly in pain interference, social participation, and fatigue, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODOLOGY:

• In early RA, understanding the impact of tender-swollen joint differences (TSJDs) on PROs across multiple domains of health-related quality of life is important to customize personalized therapeutic strategies.
• This study evaluated the impact of TSJDs on PROs over 1 year in 547 patients (mean age, 56 years; 70% women; mean symptom duration, 5.3 months) with early RA across 18 centers in Canada between January 2016 and August 2022.
• TSJDs were assessed for 28 joints (six large and 22 small) at baseline and at 3-, 6-, and 12-month visits using the PRO Measurement Information System (PROMIS-29), covering seven domains of health. Higher PROMIS T-scores indicated better health outcomes.

TAKEAWAY: 

• A one-point increase of TSJD was significantly associated with worse PROMIS T-scores in physical function (adjusted regression coefficient [β], −0.27; 95% CI, −0.39 to −0.15) and social participation (β, −0.34; 95% CI, −0.50 to −0.19).
• A one-point increase in TSJD was also linked to worsened PROMIS symptoms in pain interference (β, 0.49), fatigue (β, 0.34), sleep problems (β, 0.29), anxiety (β, 0.23), and depression (β, 0.20).
• Large-joint TSJD was particularly associated with worse PROs than small-joint TSJD.
• The sensitivity analysis validated the reliability of the primary findings regarding the association between joint counts and PROs evaluated by PROMIS-29, even when accounting for C-reactive protein levels in various scenarios or assumptions.

IN PRACTICE:

“Patients with more tender than swollen joints may experience worsening of all seven domains of health, especially pain interference, social participation, and fatigue. Rheumatologists should be alerted to their patients with early RA having more tender than swollen joints, particularly in large joints,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Charis F. Meng, MD, Division of Rheumatology, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York. It was published online on May 1, 2024, in Journal of Clinical Rheumatology. 

LIMITATIONS:

The study was observational with missing data, which could have impacted the reliability of the results. Most participants were women and White individuals, which could restrict the generalizability of results. The absence of ultrasound for synovitis limited the clinical assessment of patients with RA for information beyond physical examination alone. 

DISCLOSURES: 

The study was supported and funded by the Inflammatory Arthritis Center and Division of Rheumatology at the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York. One author reported receiving funding from the National Institutes of Health.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Having more tender than swollen joints is linked to worse patient-reported outcomes (PROs), particularly in pain interference, social participation, and fatigue, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODOLOGY:

• In early RA, understanding the impact of tender-swollen joint differences (TSJDs) on PROs across multiple domains of health-related quality of life is important to customize personalized therapeutic strategies.
• This study evaluated the impact of TSJDs on PROs over 1 year in 547 patients (mean age, 56 years; 70% women; mean symptom duration, 5.3 months) with early RA across 18 centers in Canada between January 2016 and August 2022.
• TSJDs were assessed for 28 joints (six large and 22 small) at baseline and at 3-, 6-, and 12-month visits using the PRO Measurement Information System (PROMIS-29), covering seven domains of health. Higher PROMIS T-scores indicated better health outcomes.

TAKEAWAY: 

• A one-point increase of TSJD was significantly associated with worse PROMIS T-scores in physical function (adjusted regression coefficient [β], −0.27; 95% CI, −0.39 to −0.15) and social participation (β, −0.34; 95% CI, −0.50 to −0.19).
• A one-point increase in TSJD was also linked to worsened PROMIS symptoms in pain interference (β, 0.49), fatigue (β, 0.34), sleep problems (β, 0.29), anxiety (β, 0.23), and depression (β, 0.20).
• Large-joint TSJD was particularly associated with worse PROs than small-joint TSJD.
• The sensitivity analysis validated the reliability of the primary findings regarding the association between joint counts and PROs evaluated by PROMIS-29, even when accounting for C-reactive protein levels in various scenarios or assumptions.

IN PRACTICE:

“Patients with more tender than swollen joints may experience worsening of all seven domains of health, especially pain interference, social participation, and fatigue. Rheumatologists should be alerted to their patients with early RA having more tender than swollen joints, particularly in large joints,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Charis F. Meng, MD, Division of Rheumatology, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York. It was published online on May 1, 2024, in Journal of Clinical Rheumatology. 

LIMITATIONS:

The study was observational with missing data, which could have impacted the reliability of the results. Most participants were women and White individuals, which could restrict the generalizability of results. The absence of ultrasound for synovitis limited the clinical assessment of patients with RA for information beyond physical examination alone. 

DISCLOSURES: 

The study was supported and funded by the Inflammatory Arthritis Center and Division of Rheumatology at the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York. One author reported receiving funding from the National Institutes of Health.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new broadly inclusive definition of long COVID from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) has been developed with the aim of improving consistency, documentation, and treatment for both adults and children.

According to the 2024 NASEM definition of long COVID issued on June 11, 2024, “Long COVID is an infection-associated chronic condition that occurs after SARS-CoV-2 infection and is present for at least 3 months as a continuous, relapsing and remitting, or progressive disease state that affects one or more organ systems.” 

People with long COVID may present with one or more of a long list of symptoms, such as shortness of breath, rapid heartbeat, extreme fatigue, post-exertional malaise, or sleep disturbance and with single or multiple diagnosable conditions, including interstitial lung disease, arrhythmias, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), diabetes, or autoimmune disorders. The condition can exacerbate preexisting health conditions or present as new ones. 

The definition does not require laboratory confirmation or other proof of initial infection. Long COVID can follow SARS-CoV-2 infection of any severity, including asymptomatic infections, whether or not they were initially recognized. 

Several working definitions and terms for long COVID had previously been proposed, including those from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, but no common definition or terminology had been established.

The new definition was developed at the request of the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health (OASH). It was written by a multi-stakeholder panel convened by NASEM, which recommended that the new definition be universally adopted by the federal government, clinical societies and associations, public health practitioners, clinicians, payers, the drug industry, and others using the term long COVID. 

Recent surveys suggest that approximately 7% of Americans have experienced or are experiencing long COVID. “It’s millions of people,” panel chair Harvey V. Fineberg, MD, president of the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, told this news organization. 

The new definition “does not erase the problem of clinical judgment ... But we think this definition has the real advantage of elevating to the clinician’s mind the real likelihood in the current environment of prevalence of this virus that a presenting patient’s strange symptoms are both real and maybe related as an expression of long COVID,” Dr. Fineberg noted. 

One way this new definition differs from previous ones such as WHO’s, he said, is “they talk about a diagnosis of exclusion. One of the important points in our definition is that other diagnosable conditions like ME/CFS or POTS can be part of the picture of long COVID. They are not alternative. They are, in fact, an expression of long COVID.”

Indeed, the NASEM report also introduces the term infection-associated chronic condition (IACC). This was important, Dr. Fineberg said, “because it’s the larger family of conditions of which long COVID is a part. It emphasizes a relatedness of long COVID to other conditions that can follow from a variety of infections. We also adopted the term ‘disease state’ to convey the seriousness and reality of this condition in the lives of patients.” 
 

Comments on New Definition

In a statement provided to this news organization, Lucinda Bateman, MD, and Brayden Yellman, MD, co-medical directors of the Bateman-Horne Center in Salt Lake City, said that “describing long COVID as an IACC ... not only meets the NASEM goal of allowing clinicians, researchers, and public health officials to meaningfully identify and serve all persons who suffer illness or disability in the wake of a SARS-CoV-2 infection, but also draws direct comparison to other known IACC’s (such as ME/CFS, post-treatment Lyme, POTS) that have been plaguing many for decades.”

Dr. Fineberg noted another important aspect of the NASEM report: “Our definition includes an explicit statement on equity, explaining that long COVID can affect anyone, young and old, different races, different ages, different sexes, different genders, different orientations, different socioeconomic conditions ... This does not mean that every single person is at equal risk. There are risk factors, but the important point is the universal nature of this as a condition.”

Two clinical directors of long COVID programs who were contacted by this news organization praised the new definition. Zijian Chen, MD, director of Mount Sinai’s Center for Post-COVID Care, New York, said that it’s “very similar to the definition that we have used for our clinical practice since 2020. It is very important that the broad definition helps to be inclusive of all patients that may be affected. The inclusion of children as a consideration is important as well, since there is routinely less focus on children because they tend to have less disease frequency ... The creation of a unified definition helps both with clinical practice and research.”

Nisha Viswanathan, MD, director of the long COVID program at the University of California, Los Angeles, said: “I think they left it intentionally broad for the medical practitioner to not necessarily use the definition to rule out individuals, but to perhaps use more of a clinical gestalt to help rule in this diagnosis ... I think this definition is providing clarity to health care providers on what exactly would be falling under the long-COVID diagnosis header.” 

Dr. Viswanathan also said that she anticipates this definition to help patients make their case in filing disability claims. “Because long COVID has not previously had a good fleshed-out definition, it was very easy for disability providers to reject claims for patients who continue to have symptoms ... I actually think this might help our patients ultimately in their attempt to be able to have the ability to care for themselves when they’re disabled enough to not be able to work.”

Written into the report is the expectation that the definition “will evolve as new evidence emerges and the understanding of long COVID matures.” The writing committee calls for reexamination in “no more than 3 years.” Factors that would prompt a reevaluation could include improved testing methods, discovery of medical factors and/or biomarkers that distinguish long COVID from other conditions, and new treatments. 

Meanwhile, Dr. Fineberg told this news organization, “If this definition adds to the readiness, awareness, openness, and response to the patient with long COVID, it will have done its job.” 

Dr. Fineberg, Dr. Bateman, Dr. Yellman, Dr. Viswanathan, and Dr. Chen have no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new broadly inclusive definition of long COVID from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) has been developed with the aim of improving consistency, documentation, and treatment for both adults and children.

According to the 2024 NASEM definition of long COVID issued on June 11, 2024, “Long COVID is an infection-associated chronic condition that occurs after SARS-CoV-2 infection and is present for at least 3 months as a continuous, relapsing and remitting, or progressive disease state that affects one or more organ systems.” 

People with long COVID may present with one or more of a long list of symptoms, such as shortness of breath, rapid heartbeat, extreme fatigue, post-exertional malaise, or sleep disturbance and with single or multiple diagnosable conditions, including interstitial lung disease, arrhythmias, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), diabetes, or autoimmune disorders. The condition can exacerbate preexisting health conditions or present as new ones. 

The definition does not require laboratory confirmation or other proof of initial infection. Long COVID can follow SARS-CoV-2 infection of any severity, including asymptomatic infections, whether or not they were initially recognized. 

Several working definitions and terms for long COVID had previously been proposed, including those from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, but no common definition or terminology had been established.

The new definition was developed at the request of the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health (OASH). It was written by a multi-stakeholder panel convened by NASEM, which recommended that the new definition be universally adopted by the federal government, clinical societies and associations, public health practitioners, clinicians, payers, the drug industry, and others using the term long COVID. 

Recent surveys suggest that approximately 7% of Americans have experienced or are experiencing long COVID. “It’s millions of people,” panel chair Harvey V. Fineberg, MD, president of the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, told this news organization. 

The new definition “does not erase the problem of clinical judgment ... But we think this definition has the real advantage of elevating to the clinician’s mind the real likelihood in the current environment of prevalence of this virus that a presenting patient’s strange symptoms are both real and maybe related as an expression of long COVID,” Dr. Fineberg noted. 

One way this new definition differs from previous ones such as WHO’s, he said, is “they talk about a diagnosis of exclusion. One of the important points in our definition is that other diagnosable conditions like ME/CFS or POTS can be part of the picture of long COVID. They are not alternative. They are, in fact, an expression of long COVID.”

Indeed, the NASEM report also introduces the term infection-associated chronic condition (IACC). This was important, Dr. Fineberg said, “because it’s the larger family of conditions of which long COVID is a part. It emphasizes a relatedness of long COVID to other conditions that can follow from a variety of infections. We also adopted the term ‘disease state’ to convey the seriousness and reality of this condition in the lives of patients.” 
 

Comments on New Definition

In a statement provided to this news organization, Lucinda Bateman, MD, and Brayden Yellman, MD, co-medical directors of the Bateman-Horne Center in Salt Lake City, said that “describing long COVID as an IACC ... not only meets the NASEM goal of allowing clinicians, researchers, and public health officials to meaningfully identify and serve all persons who suffer illness or disability in the wake of a SARS-CoV-2 infection, but also draws direct comparison to other known IACC’s (such as ME/CFS, post-treatment Lyme, POTS) that have been plaguing many for decades.”

Dr. Fineberg noted another important aspect of the NASEM report: “Our definition includes an explicit statement on equity, explaining that long COVID can affect anyone, young and old, different races, different ages, different sexes, different genders, different orientations, different socioeconomic conditions ... This does not mean that every single person is at equal risk. There are risk factors, but the important point is the universal nature of this as a condition.”

Two clinical directors of long COVID programs who were contacted by this news organization praised the new definition. Zijian Chen, MD, director of Mount Sinai’s Center for Post-COVID Care, New York, said that it’s “very similar to the definition that we have used for our clinical practice since 2020. It is very important that the broad definition helps to be inclusive of all patients that may be affected. The inclusion of children as a consideration is important as well, since there is routinely less focus on children because they tend to have less disease frequency ... The creation of a unified definition helps both with clinical practice and research.”

Nisha Viswanathan, MD, director of the long COVID program at the University of California, Los Angeles, said: “I think they left it intentionally broad for the medical practitioner to not necessarily use the definition to rule out individuals, but to perhaps use more of a clinical gestalt to help rule in this diagnosis ... I think this definition is providing clarity to health care providers on what exactly would be falling under the long-COVID diagnosis header.” 

Dr. Viswanathan also said that she anticipates this definition to help patients make their case in filing disability claims. “Because long COVID has not previously had a good fleshed-out definition, it was very easy for disability providers to reject claims for patients who continue to have symptoms ... I actually think this might help our patients ultimately in their attempt to be able to have the ability to care for themselves when they’re disabled enough to not be able to work.”

Written into the report is the expectation that the definition “will evolve as new evidence emerges and the understanding of long COVID matures.” The writing committee calls for reexamination in “no more than 3 years.” Factors that would prompt a reevaluation could include improved testing methods, discovery of medical factors and/or biomarkers that distinguish long COVID from other conditions, and new treatments. 

Meanwhile, Dr. Fineberg told this news organization, “If this definition adds to the readiness, awareness, openness, and response to the patient with long COVID, it will have done its job.” 

Dr. Fineberg, Dr. Bateman, Dr. Yellman, Dr. Viswanathan, and Dr. Chen have no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new broadly inclusive definition of long COVID from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) has been developed with the aim of improving consistency, documentation, and treatment for both adults and children.

According to the 2024 NASEM definition of long COVID issued on June 11, 2024, “Long COVID is an infection-associated chronic condition that occurs after SARS-CoV-2 infection and is present for at least 3 months as a continuous, relapsing and remitting, or progressive disease state that affects one or more organ systems.” 

People with long COVID may present with one or more of a long list of symptoms, such as shortness of breath, rapid heartbeat, extreme fatigue, post-exertional malaise, or sleep disturbance and with single or multiple diagnosable conditions, including interstitial lung disease, arrhythmias, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), diabetes, or autoimmune disorders. The condition can exacerbate preexisting health conditions or present as new ones. 

The definition does not require laboratory confirmation or other proof of initial infection. Long COVID can follow SARS-CoV-2 infection of any severity, including asymptomatic infections, whether or not they were initially recognized. 

Several working definitions and terms for long COVID had previously been proposed, including those from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, but no common definition or terminology had been established.

The new definition was developed at the request of the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health (OASH). It was written by a multi-stakeholder panel convened by NASEM, which recommended that the new definition be universally adopted by the federal government, clinical societies and associations, public health practitioners, clinicians, payers, the drug industry, and others using the term long COVID. 

Recent surveys suggest that approximately 7% of Americans have experienced or are experiencing long COVID. “It’s millions of people,” panel chair Harvey V. Fineberg, MD, president of the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, told this news organization. 

The new definition “does not erase the problem of clinical judgment ... But we think this definition has the real advantage of elevating to the clinician’s mind the real likelihood in the current environment of prevalence of this virus that a presenting patient’s strange symptoms are both real and maybe related as an expression of long COVID,” Dr. Fineberg noted. 

One way this new definition differs from previous ones such as WHO’s, he said, is “they talk about a diagnosis of exclusion. One of the important points in our definition is that other diagnosable conditions like ME/CFS or POTS can be part of the picture of long COVID. They are not alternative. They are, in fact, an expression of long COVID.”

Indeed, the NASEM report also introduces the term infection-associated chronic condition (IACC). This was important, Dr. Fineberg said, “because it’s the larger family of conditions of which long COVID is a part. It emphasizes a relatedness of long COVID to other conditions that can follow from a variety of infections. We also adopted the term ‘disease state’ to convey the seriousness and reality of this condition in the lives of patients.” 
 

Comments on New Definition

In a statement provided to this news organization, Lucinda Bateman, MD, and Brayden Yellman, MD, co-medical directors of the Bateman-Horne Center in Salt Lake City, said that “describing long COVID as an IACC ... not only meets the NASEM goal of allowing clinicians, researchers, and public health officials to meaningfully identify and serve all persons who suffer illness or disability in the wake of a SARS-CoV-2 infection, but also draws direct comparison to other known IACC’s (such as ME/CFS, post-treatment Lyme, POTS) that have been plaguing many for decades.”

Dr. Fineberg noted another important aspect of the NASEM report: “Our definition includes an explicit statement on equity, explaining that long COVID can affect anyone, young and old, different races, different ages, different sexes, different genders, different orientations, different socioeconomic conditions ... This does not mean that every single person is at equal risk. There are risk factors, but the important point is the universal nature of this as a condition.”

Two clinical directors of long COVID programs who were contacted by this news organization praised the new definition. Zijian Chen, MD, director of Mount Sinai’s Center for Post-COVID Care, New York, said that it’s “very similar to the definition that we have used for our clinical practice since 2020. It is very important that the broad definition helps to be inclusive of all patients that may be affected. The inclusion of children as a consideration is important as well, since there is routinely less focus on children because they tend to have less disease frequency ... The creation of a unified definition helps both with clinical practice and research.”

Nisha Viswanathan, MD, director of the long COVID program at the University of California, Los Angeles, said: “I think they left it intentionally broad for the medical practitioner to not necessarily use the definition to rule out individuals, but to perhaps use more of a clinical gestalt to help rule in this diagnosis ... I think this definition is providing clarity to health care providers on what exactly would be falling under the long-COVID diagnosis header.” 

Dr. Viswanathan also said that she anticipates this definition to help patients make their case in filing disability claims. “Because long COVID has not previously had a good fleshed-out definition, it was very easy for disability providers to reject claims for patients who continue to have symptoms ... I actually think this might help our patients ultimately in their attempt to be able to have the ability to care for themselves when they’re disabled enough to not be able to work.”

Written into the report is the expectation that the definition “will evolve as new evidence emerges and the understanding of long COVID matures.” The writing committee calls for reexamination in “no more than 3 years.” Factors that would prompt a reevaluation could include improved testing methods, discovery of medical factors and/or biomarkers that distinguish long COVID from other conditions, and new treatments. 

Meanwhile, Dr. Fineberg told this news organization, “If this definition adds to the readiness, awareness, openness, and response to the patient with long COVID, it will have done its job.” 

Dr. Fineberg, Dr. Bateman, Dr. Yellman, Dr. Viswanathan, and Dr. Chen have no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

High-frequency electric nerve block significantly reduced postamputation pain in a new study, presenting a potential new therapeutic option for amputees.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study enrolled 180 patients with unilateral lower limb amputations who were experiencing severe post-procedure pain.
• Participants were randomized 1:1 to receive 3 months of treatment with either a high-frequency nerve block (Altius; Neuros Medical) or an active sham.
• Effectiveness was measured by the percentage of participants achieving at least a 50% reduction in pain in more than half of the treatment sessions.
• The researchers attempted to control for variables including pain type and baseline pain intensity.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 24.7% of patients in the group that received the nerve block were responders at 30 minutes post-treatment, significantly higher than 7.1% in the control group (P = .002).
• The rate of response rose to 46.8% in the treatment group at 120 minutes, compared with 22.2% in the sham group (P = .001).
• Patients who received the nerve block reported a greater improvement in their score on the Brief Pain Inventory than those in the sham arm — 2.3 ± 0.29 vs 1.3 ± 0.26, respectively (P = .01).
• Use of opioids trended toward a greater reduction in the treatment group, although that finding was not statistically significant.

IN PRACTICE:

The results suggested “high-frequency electric nerve block could be a viable option for managing chronic post-amputation pain, potentially improving patients’ quality of life and reducing reliance on opioids,” the authors wrote. “The study addresses a critical gap in treatment options for amputees suffering from persistent pain, offering evidence for a novel therapeutic approach.”

“We have never seen a study of this magnitude and rigor in this patient population,” said lead author Leonardo Kapural, MD, PhD, of the Carolinas Pain Institute in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, in a press release about the data. “The data demonstrated clear and lasting benefit of treatment for pain reduction and functional outcomes at 3 months, creating great optimism for the long-term study results. These findings represent a significant advancement for an at-risk and underserved patient population in desperate need of reliable and effective treatment.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Leonardo Kapural, MD, PhD, of the Carolinas Pain Institute in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, and was published online in the Journal of Pain Research.

LIMITATIONS:

The sample size of 180 participants may limit the generalizability of the findings to all amputees. A 3-month duration for assessing treatment efficacy may not capture long-term outcomes and effects. The active-sham control design, while rigorous, may not fully account for the placebo effects inherent in pain perception studies.

DISCLOSURES:

The QUEST study was funded by Neuros Medical Inc. Dr. Kapural reported personal fees from various medical companies, unrelated to this work. No other conflicts of interest were reported in this work.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

High-frequency electric nerve block significantly reduced postamputation pain in a new study, presenting a potential new therapeutic option for amputees.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study enrolled 180 patients with unilateral lower limb amputations who were experiencing severe post-procedure pain.
• Participants were randomized 1:1 to receive 3 months of treatment with either a high-frequency nerve block (Altius; Neuros Medical) or an active sham.
• Effectiveness was measured by the percentage of participants achieving at least a 50% reduction in pain in more than half of the treatment sessions.
• The researchers attempted to control for variables including pain type and baseline pain intensity.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 24.7% of patients in the group that received the nerve block were responders at 30 minutes post-treatment, significantly higher than 7.1% in the control group (P = .002).
• The rate of response rose to 46.8% in the treatment group at 120 minutes, compared with 22.2% in the sham group (P = .001).
• Patients who received the nerve block reported a greater improvement in their score on the Brief Pain Inventory than those in the sham arm — 2.3 ± 0.29 vs 1.3 ± 0.26, respectively (P = .01).
• Use of opioids trended toward a greater reduction in the treatment group, although that finding was not statistically significant.

IN PRACTICE:

The results suggested “high-frequency electric nerve block could be a viable option for managing chronic post-amputation pain, potentially improving patients’ quality of life and reducing reliance on opioids,” the authors wrote. “The study addresses a critical gap in treatment options for amputees suffering from persistent pain, offering evidence for a novel therapeutic approach.”

“We have never seen a study of this magnitude and rigor in this patient population,” said lead author Leonardo Kapural, MD, PhD, of the Carolinas Pain Institute in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, in a press release about the data. “The data demonstrated clear and lasting benefit of treatment for pain reduction and functional outcomes at 3 months, creating great optimism for the long-term study results. These findings represent a significant advancement for an at-risk and underserved patient population in desperate need of reliable and effective treatment.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Leonardo Kapural, MD, PhD, of the Carolinas Pain Institute in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, and was published online in the Journal of Pain Research.

LIMITATIONS:

The sample size of 180 participants may limit the generalizability of the findings to all amputees. A 3-month duration for assessing treatment efficacy may not capture long-term outcomes and effects. The active-sham control design, while rigorous, may not fully account for the placebo effects inherent in pain perception studies.

DISCLOSURES:

The QUEST study was funded by Neuros Medical Inc. Dr. Kapural reported personal fees from various medical companies, unrelated to this work. No other conflicts of interest were reported in this work.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

High-frequency electric nerve block significantly reduced postamputation pain in a new study, presenting a potential new therapeutic option for amputees.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study enrolled 180 patients with unilateral lower limb amputations who were experiencing severe post-procedure pain.
• Participants were randomized 1:1 to receive 3 months of treatment with either a high-frequency nerve block (Altius; Neuros Medical) or an active sham.
• Effectiveness was measured by the percentage of participants achieving at least a 50% reduction in pain in more than half of the treatment sessions.
• The researchers attempted to control for variables including pain type and baseline pain intensity.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 24.7% of patients in the group that received the nerve block were responders at 30 minutes post-treatment, significantly higher than 7.1% in the control group (P = .002).
• The rate of response rose to 46.8% in the treatment group at 120 minutes, compared with 22.2% in the sham group (P = .001).
• Patients who received the nerve block reported a greater improvement in their score on the Brief Pain Inventory than those in the sham arm — 2.3 ± 0.29 vs 1.3 ± 0.26, respectively (P = .01).
• Use of opioids trended toward a greater reduction in the treatment group, although that finding was not statistically significant.

IN PRACTICE:

The results suggested “high-frequency electric nerve block could be a viable option for managing chronic post-amputation pain, potentially improving patients’ quality of life and reducing reliance on opioids,” the authors wrote. “The study addresses a critical gap in treatment options for amputees suffering from persistent pain, offering evidence for a novel therapeutic approach.”

“We have never seen a study of this magnitude and rigor in this patient population,” said lead author Leonardo Kapural, MD, PhD, of the Carolinas Pain Institute in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, in a press release about the data. “The data demonstrated clear and lasting benefit of treatment for pain reduction and functional outcomes at 3 months, creating great optimism for the long-term study results. These findings represent a significant advancement for an at-risk and underserved patient population in desperate need of reliable and effective treatment.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Leonardo Kapural, MD, PhD, of the Carolinas Pain Institute in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, and was published online in the Journal of Pain Research.

LIMITATIONS:

The sample size of 180 participants may limit the generalizability of the findings to all amputees. A 3-month duration for assessing treatment efficacy may not capture long-term outcomes and effects. The active-sham control design, while rigorous, may not fully account for the placebo effects inherent in pain perception studies.

DISCLOSURES:

The QUEST study was funded by Neuros Medical Inc. Dr. Kapural reported personal fees from various medical companies, unrelated to this work. No other conflicts of interest were reported in this work.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Pigments in permanent makeup inks include those that have been reported to cause allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), but the ability to identify these allergies in patients is limited.

METHODOLOGY:

• While the allergenic potential of pigments in traditional tattoos has been documented, there is less clarity about pigments used in inks contained in cosmetic tattoos, also known as permanent makeup, and their association with ACD.
• Researchers conducted an Internet search and identified 974 individual permanent makeup ink products sold in the United States and also identified 79 unique pigments in those products.
• They evaluated the safety data sheets of these products and performed a PubMed search to identify documented ACD cases related to these pigments.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 79 pigments, 20 contained inorganic metals, which included iron, aluminum, silicone, chromium, copper, titanium, molybdenum, and manganese.
• Organic pigments were more common: 59 of the remaining pigments were organic compounds, mostly azo, quinacridone, or anthraquinone dyes, including 4 black pigments made from carbon only.
• A literature search identified 29 cases where patients had developed ACD thought to be caused by at least one of the 79 pigments identified by the authors of the current study and included 10 of the 79 pigments (12%).
• In 18 of the 29 cases in the literature, patch testing to the suspected pigment had been performed; in 3 cases, ACD was suspected without confirmatory testing.

IN PRACTICE:

Permanent makeup is becoming more popular, and there have been reports of ACD related to pigments contained in the inks, the authors wrote. “Traditional patch testing methods may not be useful in confirming the presence of a pigment allergy, even if one is suspect,” they added. “Consumers and patch testing physicians would benefit from better labeling of tattoo inks and the development of protocols designed to specifically test for tattoo pigment allergies.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Sarah Rigali, MS, of Rosalind Franklin University, Chicago Medical School, Chicago, and coauthors from the Department of Dermatology, Northwestern University, Chicago, published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study is limited by incomplete safety data sheets. So, many brands of permanent makeup ink could not be investigated. In addition, some pigments may not be fully disclosed in ingredient lists and precise ink content measurements were not available.

DISCLOSURES:

The study reported receiving no funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Pigments in permanent makeup inks include those that have been reported to cause allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), but the ability to identify these allergies in patients is limited.

METHODOLOGY:

• While the allergenic potential of pigments in traditional tattoos has been documented, there is less clarity about pigments used in inks contained in cosmetic tattoos, also known as permanent makeup, and their association with ACD.
• Researchers conducted an Internet search and identified 974 individual permanent makeup ink products sold in the United States and also identified 79 unique pigments in those products.
• They evaluated the safety data sheets of these products and performed a PubMed search to identify documented ACD cases related to these pigments.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 79 pigments, 20 contained inorganic metals, which included iron, aluminum, silicone, chromium, copper, titanium, molybdenum, and manganese.
• Organic pigments were more common: 59 of the remaining pigments were organic compounds, mostly azo, quinacridone, or anthraquinone dyes, including 4 black pigments made from carbon only.
• A literature search identified 29 cases where patients had developed ACD thought to be caused by at least one of the 79 pigments identified by the authors of the current study and included 10 of the 79 pigments (12%).
• In 18 of the 29 cases in the literature, patch testing to the suspected pigment had been performed; in 3 cases, ACD was suspected without confirmatory testing.

IN PRACTICE:

Permanent makeup is becoming more popular, and there have been reports of ACD related to pigments contained in the inks, the authors wrote. “Traditional patch testing methods may not be useful in confirming the presence of a pigment allergy, even if one is suspect,” they added. “Consumers and patch testing physicians would benefit from better labeling of tattoo inks and the development of protocols designed to specifically test for tattoo pigment allergies.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Sarah Rigali, MS, of Rosalind Franklin University, Chicago Medical School, Chicago, and coauthors from the Department of Dermatology, Northwestern University, Chicago, published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study is limited by incomplete safety data sheets. So, many brands of permanent makeup ink could not be investigated. In addition, some pigments may not be fully disclosed in ingredient lists and precise ink content measurements were not available.

DISCLOSURES:

The study reported receiving no funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Pigments in permanent makeup inks include those that have been reported to cause allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), but the ability to identify these allergies in patients is limited.

METHODOLOGY:

• While the allergenic potential of pigments in traditional tattoos has been documented, there is less clarity about pigments used in inks contained in cosmetic tattoos, also known as permanent makeup, and their association with ACD.
• Researchers conducted an Internet search and identified 974 individual permanent makeup ink products sold in the United States and also identified 79 unique pigments in those products.
• They evaluated the safety data sheets of these products and performed a PubMed search to identify documented ACD cases related to these pigments.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 79 pigments, 20 contained inorganic metals, which included iron, aluminum, silicone, chromium, copper, titanium, molybdenum, and manganese.
• Organic pigments were more common: 59 of the remaining pigments were organic compounds, mostly azo, quinacridone, or anthraquinone dyes, including 4 black pigments made from carbon only.
• A literature search identified 29 cases where patients had developed ACD thought to be caused by at least one of the 79 pigments identified by the authors of the current study and included 10 of the 79 pigments (12%).
• In 18 of the 29 cases in the literature, patch testing to the suspected pigment had been performed; in 3 cases, ACD was suspected without confirmatory testing.

IN PRACTICE:

Permanent makeup is becoming more popular, and there have been reports of ACD related to pigments contained in the inks, the authors wrote. “Traditional patch testing methods may not be useful in confirming the presence of a pigment allergy, even if one is suspect,” they added. “Consumers and patch testing physicians would benefit from better labeling of tattoo inks and the development of protocols designed to specifically test for tattoo pigment allergies.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Sarah Rigali, MS, of Rosalind Franklin University, Chicago Medical School, Chicago, and coauthors from the Department of Dermatology, Northwestern University, Chicago, published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study is limited by incomplete safety data sheets. So, many brands of permanent makeup ink could not be investigated. In addition, some pigments may not be fully disclosed in ingredient lists and precise ink content measurements were not available.

DISCLOSURES:

The study reported receiving no funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Among people diagnosed with cutaneous melanoma in the United States, those who live in rural areas have significantly lower rates of survival than those who live in urban areas, results from an analysis of data from the National Cancer Institute showed.

“Melanoma is currently the fifth most common malignancy in the United States, with approximately 106,000 new cases and 7180 reported deaths occurring in 2021,” the study’s first author, Mitchell Taylor, MD, a dermatology research fellow at the University of Nebraska, Omaha, and colleagues wrote in the abstract, which was presented during a poster session at the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology. “Rural areas have been shown to bear a higher melanoma disease burden, yet there is a paucity of national-level studies examining these disparities.”

To characterize the rural population diagnosed with cutaneous melanoma and assess associated disparities in the United States, the researchers queried the NCI’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database to identify individuals diagnosed with cutaneous melanoma from 2000 to 2020 (International Classification of Diseases, 3rd Edition, 8720/3 — 8780/3; Primary Site codes C44.0-C44.9). They drew from US Office of Management and Budget terminology to define and categorize rural and urban communities.

Among 391,047 patients included during the study period, binary logistic regression analysis revealed that patients in rural areas had a greater odds of being older, from ages 50 to 75 years (odds ratio [OR], 1.10; P < .001); had annual incomes < $70,000 (OR, 16.80; P < .001); had tumors located on the head and neck (OR, 1.24; P < .001); and presented with regional/distant disease (OR, 1.13; P < .001).

As for disease-specific survival, patients living in rural areas had significantly reduced survival compared with those living in urban areas (a mean of 207.3 vs 216.3 months, respectively; P < .001). Multivariate Cox regression revealed that living in a rural setting was significantly associated with reduced disease-specific survival (hazard ratio [HR], 1.10; P < .001), as was having head and neck tumors (HR, 1.41; P < .001).“Overall, this study underscores a significant decrease in disease-specific survival among rural patients diagnosed with cutaneous melanoma and establishes a significant association between rural living and high-risk primary tumor locations, particularly the head and neck,” the authors concluded.

Lucinda Kohn, MD, assistant professor of dermatology in the Centers for American Indian and Alaska Native Health at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, Colorado, who was asked to comment on the results, said the findings echo the results of a recent study which characterized melanoma rates among non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Native individuals from 1999 to 2019.

“I suspect this decreased disease-specific survival highlights the issues our rural-residing patients face with access to dermatology care,” Dr. Kohn told this news organization. “Dermatologists are able to detect thinner melanomas than patients [and] are preferentially concentrated in metropolitan areas. Dermatologists are also the most skilled and knowledgeable to screen, diagnose, and manage melanomas. Having fewer dermatologists in rural areas impedes melanoma care for our rural-residing patients.”

Neither the researchers nor Dr. Kohn reported any relevant disclosures.

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

Among people diagnosed with cutaneous melanoma in the United States, those who live in rural areas have significantly lower rates of survival than those who live in urban areas, results from an analysis of data from the National Cancer Institute showed.

“Melanoma is currently the fifth most common malignancy in the United States, with approximately 106,000 new cases and 7180 reported deaths occurring in 2021,” the study’s first author, Mitchell Taylor, MD, a dermatology research fellow at the University of Nebraska, Omaha, and colleagues wrote in the abstract, which was presented during a poster session at the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology. “Rural areas have been shown to bear a higher melanoma disease burden, yet there is a paucity of national-level studies examining these disparities.”

To characterize the rural population diagnosed with cutaneous melanoma and assess associated disparities in the United States, the researchers queried the NCI’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database to identify individuals diagnosed with cutaneous melanoma from 2000 to 2020 (International Classification of Diseases, 3rd Edition, 8720/3 — 8780/3; Primary Site codes C44.0-C44.9). They drew from US Office of Management and Budget terminology to define and categorize rural and urban communities.

Among 391,047 patients included during the study period, binary logistic regression analysis revealed that patients in rural areas had a greater odds of being older, from ages 50 to 75 years (odds ratio [OR], 1.10; P < .001); had annual incomes < $70,000 (OR, 16.80; P < .001); had tumors located on the head and neck (OR, 1.24; P < .001); and presented with regional/distant disease (OR, 1.13; P < .001).

As for disease-specific survival, patients living in rural areas had significantly reduced survival compared with those living in urban areas (a mean of 207.3 vs 216.3 months, respectively; P < .001). Multivariate Cox regression revealed that living in a rural setting was significantly associated with reduced disease-specific survival (hazard ratio [HR], 1.10; P < .001), as was having head and neck tumors (HR, 1.41; P < .001).“Overall, this study underscores a significant decrease in disease-specific survival among rural patients diagnosed with cutaneous melanoma and establishes a significant association between rural living and high-risk primary tumor locations, particularly the head and neck,” the authors concluded.

Lucinda Kohn, MD, assistant professor of dermatology in the Centers for American Indian and Alaska Native Health at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, Colorado, who was asked to comment on the results, said the findings echo the results of a recent study which characterized melanoma rates among non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Native individuals from 1999 to 2019.

“I suspect this decreased disease-specific survival highlights the issues our rural-residing patients face with access to dermatology care,” Dr. Kohn told this news organization. “Dermatologists are able to detect thinner melanomas than patients [and] are preferentially concentrated in metropolitan areas. Dermatologists are also the most skilled and knowledgeable to screen, diagnose, and manage melanomas. Having fewer dermatologists in rural areas impedes melanoma care for our rural-residing patients.”

Neither the researchers nor Dr. Kohn reported any relevant disclosures.

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

Among people diagnosed with cutaneous melanoma in the United States, those who live in rural areas have significantly lower rates of survival than those who live in urban areas, results from an analysis of data from the National Cancer Institute showed.

“Melanoma is currently the fifth most common malignancy in the United States, with approximately 106,000 new cases and 7180 reported deaths occurring in 2021,” the study’s first author, Mitchell Taylor, MD, a dermatology research fellow at the University of Nebraska, Omaha, and colleagues wrote in the abstract, which was presented during a poster session at the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology. “Rural areas have been shown to bear a higher melanoma disease burden, yet there is a paucity of national-level studies examining these disparities.”

To characterize the rural population diagnosed with cutaneous melanoma and assess associated disparities in the United States, the researchers queried the NCI’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database to identify individuals diagnosed with cutaneous melanoma from 2000 to 2020 (International Classification of Diseases, 3rd Edition, 8720/3 — 8780/3; Primary Site codes C44.0-C44.9). They drew from US Office of Management and Budget terminology to define and categorize rural and urban communities.

Among 391,047 patients included during the study period, binary logistic regression analysis revealed that patients in rural areas had a greater odds of being older, from ages 50 to 75 years (odds ratio [OR], 1.10; P < .001); had annual incomes < $70,000 (OR, 16.80; P < .001); had tumors located on the head and neck (OR, 1.24; P < .001); and presented with regional/distant disease (OR, 1.13; P < .001).

As for disease-specific survival, patients living in rural areas had significantly reduced survival compared with those living in urban areas (a mean of 207.3 vs 216.3 months, respectively; P < .001). Multivariate Cox regression revealed that living in a rural setting was significantly associated with reduced disease-specific survival (hazard ratio [HR], 1.10; P < .001), as was having head and neck tumors (HR, 1.41; P < .001).“Overall, this study underscores a significant decrease in disease-specific survival among rural patients diagnosed with cutaneous melanoma and establishes a significant association between rural living and high-risk primary tumor locations, particularly the head and neck,” the authors concluded.

Lucinda Kohn, MD, assistant professor of dermatology in the Centers for American Indian and Alaska Native Health at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, Colorado, who was asked to comment on the results, said the findings echo the results of a recent study which characterized melanoma rates among non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Native individuals from 1999 to 2019.

“I suspect this decreased disease-specific survival highlights the issues our rural-residing patients face with access to dermatology care,” Dr. Kohn told this news organization. “Dermatologists are able to detect thinner melanomas than patients [and] are preferentially concentrated in metropolitan areas. Dermatologists are also the most skilled and knowledgeable to screen, diagnose, and manage melanomas. Having fewer dermatologists in rural areas impedes melanoma care for our rural-residing patients.”

Neither the researchers nor Dr. Kohn reported any relevant disclosures.

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