For patients with Barrett’s esophagus, surveillance endoscopy detects high-grade dysplasia (HGD) and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) more often than previously reported, according to a retrospective analysis of more than 1,000 patients.

Neoplasia detection rate, defined as findings on initial surveillance endoscopy, was also lower than that observed in past studies, according to lead author Lovekirat Dhaliwal, MBBS, of Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues.

This study’s findings may help define quality control benchmarks for endoscopic surveillance of Barrett’s esophagus, the investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. Accurate metrics are needed, they noted, because almost 9 out of 10 patients with Barrett’s esophagus present with EAC outside of a surveillance program, which “may represent missed opportunities at screening.” At the same time, a previous study by the investigators and one from another group, have suggested that 25%-33% of HGD/EAC cases may go undetected by initial surveillance endoscopy.

“Dysplasia detection in [Barrett’s esophagus] is challenging because of its patchy distribution and often subtle appearance,” the investigators noted. “Lack of compliance with recommended biopsy guidelines is also well-documented.”

On the other hand, Dr. Dhaliwal and colleagues suggested that previous studies may not accurately portray community practice and, therefore, have limited value in determining quality control metrics. A 2019 review, for instance, reported a neoplasia detection rate of 7% among patients with Barrett’s esophagus, but this finding “is composed of data from largely referral center cohorts with endoscopy performed by experienced academic gastroenterologists,” they wrote, which may lead to overestimation of such detection.

To better characterize this landscape, the investigators conducted a retrospective analysis involving 1,066 patients with Barrett’s esophagus who underwent initial surveillance endoscopy between 1991 and 2019. Approximately three out of four surveillance endoscopies (77%) were performed by gastroenterologists, while the remaining were performed by nongastroenterologists, such as family practitioners or surgeons. About 60% of patients were adequately biopsied according to the Seattle protocol.

Analysis revealed that the neoplasia detection rate was 4.9% (95% confidence interval, 3.8%-6.4%), which is less than the previously reported rate of 7%. HGD was more common than EAC (33 cases vs. 20 cases). Out of 1,066 patients, 391 without neoplasia on initial endoscopy underwent repeat endoscopy within a year. Among these individuals, HGD or EAC was detected in eight patients, which suggests that 13% of diagnoses were missed on initial endoscopy, a rate well below the previously reported range of 25%-33%.
 

Technology challenged by technique

The neoplasia detection rate “appeared to increase significantly from 1991 to 2019 on univariate analysis (particularly after 2000), but this was not observed on multivariate analysis,” the investigators wrote. “This was despite the introduction of high definition monitors and high resolution endoscopes in subsequent years.

“This may suggest that in a low dysplasia prevalence setting, basic techniques such as careful white light inspection of the [Barrett’s esophagus] mucosa along with targeted and Seattle protocol biopsies may be more important,” they noted.

The importance of technique may be further supported by another finding: Gastroenterologists detected neoplasia almost four times as often as did nongastroenterologists (odds ratio, 3.6; P = .0154).

“This finding is novel and may be due to additional training in endoscopy, lesion recognition, and familiarity with surveillance guidelines in gastroenterologists,” the investigators wrote. “If this finding is replicated in other cohorts, it may support recommendations for the performance of surveillance by endoscopists trained in gastrointestinal endoscopy and well-versed in surveillance guidelines.

“[U]sing neoplasia detection as a quality metric coupled with outcome measures such as missed dysplasia rates could improve adherence to established biopsy protocols and improve the quality of care to patients,” they wrote. “Ultimately, this can be an opportunity to develop a high-value, evidence-based quality metric in [Barrett’s esophagus] surveillance.”

The authors acknowledged some limitations to their study. Its retrospective design meant no one biopsy protocol could be adopted across the entire study period; however, the results were “unchanged” when restricted to the period after introduction of the Seattle protocol in 2000. The study’s long period could have left results susceptible to changing guidelines, but the neoplasia detection rates remained relatively stable over time.

“Because prior reports consisted largely of tertiary care center cohorts, our findings may reflect the absence of referral bias and be more generalizable,” the investigators wrote.

The study was funded by the National Institute of Aging and the National Cancer Institute. The investigators disclosed relationships with Celgene, Nine Point Medical, Takeda, and others.

For patients with Barrett’s esophagus, surveillance endoscopy detects high-grade dysplasia (HGD) and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) more often than previously reported, according to a retrospective analysis of more than 1,000 patients.

Neoplasia detection rate, defined as findings on initial surveillance endoscopy, was also lower than that observed in past studies, according to lead author Lovekirat Dhaliwal, MBBS, of Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues.

This study’s findings may help define quality control benchmarks for endoscopic surveillance of Barrett’s esophagus, the investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. Accurate metrics are needed, they noted, because almost 9 out of 10 patients with Barrett’s esophagus present with EAC outside of a surveillance program, which “may represent missed opportunities at screening.” At the same time, a previous study by the investigators and one from another group, have suggested that 25%-33% of HGD/EAC cases may go undetected by initial surveillance endoscopy.

“Dysplasia detection in [Barrett’s esophagus] is challenging because of its patchy distribution and often subtle appearance,” the investigators noted. “Lack of compliance with recommended biopsy guidelines is also well-documented.”

On the other hand, Dr. Dhaliwal and colleagues suggested that previous studies may not accurately portray community practice and, therefore, have limited value in determining quality control metrics. A 2019 review, for instance, reported a neoplasia detection rate of 7% among patients with Barrett’s esophagus, but this finding “is composed of data from largely referral center cohorts with endoscopy performed by experienced academic gastroenterologists,” they wrote, which may lead to overestimation of such detection.

To better characterize this landscape, the investigators conducted a retrospective analysis involving 1,066 patients with Barrett’s esophagus who underwent initial surveillance endoscopy between 1991 and 2019. Approximately three out of four surveillance endoscopies (77%) were performed by gastroenterologists, while the remaining were performed by nongastroenterologists, such as family practitioners or surgeons. About 60% of patients were adequately biopsied according to the Seattle protocol.

Analysis revealed that the neoplasia detection rate was 4.9% (95% confidence interval, 3.8%-6.4%), which is less than the previously reported rate of 7%. HGD was more common than EAC (33 cases vs. 20 cases). Out of 1,066 patients, 391 without neoplasia on initial endoscopy underwent repeat endoscopy within a year. Among these individuals, HGD or EAC was detected in eight patients, which suggests that 13% of diagnoses were missed on initial endoscopy, a rate well below the previously reported range of 25%-33%.
 

Technology challenged by technique

The neoplasia detection rate “appeared to increase significantly from 1991 to 2019 on univariate analysis (particularly after 2000), but this was not observed on multivariate analysis,” the investigators wrote. “This was despite the introduction of high definition monitors and high resolution endoscopes in subsequent years.

“This may suggest that in a low dysplasia prevalence setting, basic techniques such as careful white light inspection of the [Barrett’s esophagus] mucosa along with targeted and Seattle protocol biopsies may be more important,” they noted.

The importance of technique may be further supported by another finding: Gastroenterologists detected neoplasia almost four times as often as did nongastroenterologists (odds ratio, 3.6; P = .0154).

“This finding is novel and may be due to additional training in endoscopy, lesion recognition, and familiarity with surveillance guidelines in gastroenterologists,” the investigators wrote. “If this finding is replicated in other cohorts, it may support recommendations for the performance of surveillance by endoscopists trained in gastrointestinal endoscopy and well-versed in surveillance guidelines.

“[U]sing neoplasia detection as a quality metric coupled with outcome measures such as missed dysplasia rates could improve adherence to established biopsy protocols and improve the quality of care to patients,” they wrote. “Ultimately, this can be an opportunity to develop a high-value, evidence-based quality metric in [Barrett’s esophagus] surveillance.”

The authors acknowledged some limitations to their study. Its retrospective design meant no one biopsy protocol could be adopted across the entire study period; however, the results were “unchanged” when restricted to the period after introduction of the Seattle protocol in 2000. The study’s long period could have left results susceptible to changing guidelines, but the neoplasia detection rates remained relatively stable over time.

“Because prior reports consisted largely of tertiary care center cohorts, our findings may reflect the absence of referral bias and be more generalizable,” the investigators wrote.

The study was funded by the National Institute of Aging and the National Cancer Institute. The investigators disclosed relationships with Celgene, Nine Point Medical, Takeda, and others.

For patients with Barrett’s esophagus, surveillance endoscopy detects high-grade dysplasia (HGD) and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) more often than previously reported, according to a retrospective analysis of more than 1,000 patients.

Neoplasia detection rate, defined as findings on initial surveillance endoscopy, was also lower than that observed in past studies, according to lead author Lovekirat Dhaliwal, MBBS, of Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues.

This study’s findings may help define quality control benchmarks for endoscopic surveillance of Barrett’s esophagus, the investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. Accurate metrics are needed, they noted, because almost 9 out of 10 patients with Barrett’s esophagus present with EAC outside of a surveillance program, which “may represent missed opportunities at screening.” At the same time, a previous study by the investigators and one from another group, have suggested that 25%-33% of HGD/EAC cases may go undetected by initial surveillance endoscopy.

“Dysplasia detection in [Barrett’s esophagus] is challenging because of its patchy distribution and often subtle appearance,” the investigators noted. “Lack of compliance with recommended biopsy guidelines is also well-documented.”

On the other hand, Dr. Dhaliwal and colleagues suggested that previous studies may not accurately portray community practice and, therefore, have limited value in determining quality control metrics. A 2019 review, for instance, reported a neoplasia detection rate of 7% among patients with Barrett’s esophagus, but this finding “is composed of data from largely referral center cohorts with endoscopy performed by experienced academic gastroenterologists,” they wrote, which may lead to overestimation of such detection.

To better characterize this landscape, the investigators conducted a retrospective analysis involving 1,066 patients with Barrett’s esophagus who underwent initial surveillance endoscopy between 1991 and 2019. Approximately three out of four surveillance endoscopies (77%) were performed by gastroenterologists, while the remaining were performed by nongastroenterologists, such as family practitioners or surgeons. About 60% of patients were adequately biopsied according to the Seattle protocol.

Analysis revealed that the neoplasia detection rate was 4.9% (95% confidence interval, 3.8%-6.4%), which is less than the previously reported rate of 7%. HGD was more common than EAC (33 cases vs. 20 cases). Out of 1,066 patients, 391 without neoplasia on initial endoscopy underwent repeat endoscopy within a year. Among these individuals, HGD or EAC was detected in eight patients, which suggests that 13% of diagnoses were missed on initial endoscopy, a rate well below the previously reported range of 25%-33%.
 

Technology challenged by technique

The neoplasia detection rate “appeared to increase significantly from 1991 to 2019 on univariate analysis (particularly after 2000), but this was not observed on multivariate analysis,” the investigators wrote. “This was despite the introduction of high definition monitors and high resolution endoscopes in subsequent years.

“This may suggest that in a low dysplasia prevalence setting, basic techniques such as careful white light inspection of the [Barrett’s esophagus] mucosa along with targeted and Seattle protocol biopsies may be more important,” they noted.

The importance of technique may be further supported by another finding: Gastroenterologists detected neoplasia almost four times as often as did nongastroenterologists (odds ratio, 3.6; P = .0154).

“This finding is novel and may be due to additional training in endoscopy, lesion recognition, and familiarity with surveillance guidelines in gastroenterologists,” the investigators wrote. “If this finding is replicated in other cohorts, it may support recommendations for the performance of surveillance by endoscopists trained in gastrointestinal endoscopy and well-versed in surveillance guidelines.

“[U]sing neoplasia detection as a quality metric coupled with outcome measures such as missed dysplasia rates could improve adherence to established biopsy protocols and improve the quality of care to patients,” they wrote. “Ultimately, this can be an opportunity to develop a high-value, evidence-based quality metric in [Barrett’s esophagus] surveillance.”

The authors acknowledged some limitations to their study. Its retrospective design meant no one biopsy protocol could be adopted across the entire study period; however, the results were “unchanged” when restricted to the period after introduction of the Seattle protocol in 2000. The study’s long period could have left results susceptible to changing guidelines, but the neoplasia detection rates remained relatively stable over time.

“Because prior reports consisted largely of tertiary care center cohorts, our findings may reflect the absence of referral bias and be more generalizable,” the investigators wrote.

The study was funded by the National Institute of Aging and the National Cancer Institute. The investigators disclosed relationships with Celgene, Nine Point Medical, Takeda, and others.

Working night shifts has been associated with an increased risk for certain cancers, as well as other health disorders. Indeed, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified night shift work as “probably carcinogenic to humans.”

But why night shift should elevate the risk for cancer has been unclear.

A new study shows that a simulated night shift schedule significantly altered the normal circadian rhythmicity of genes that are involved in cancer hallmark pathways. It also found that this circadian misalignment caused circadian dysregulation of genes involved in key DNA repair pathways.

“Taken together, these findings suggest that night shift schedules throw off the timing of expression of cancer-related genes in a way that reduces the effectiveness of the body’s DNA repair processes when they are most needed,” said co-corresponding author Jason McDermott, a computational scientist with the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory’s biological sciences division in Richland, Wash.

The study was published online in the Journal of Pineal Research.
 

Study conducted among volunteers 

The study was carried out among healthy volunteers who were subjected to simulated night shift or day shift schedules.

The cohort comprised 14 adults between the ages of 22 and 34 years who had normal nighttime sleep schedules. They were randomly assigned (seven in each group) to a simulated day shift schedule that involved 3 days of daytime wakefulness (6 a.m.-10 p.m.), or a simulated night shift schedule involving 3 days of nighttime wakefulness (6 p.m.-10 a.m.).

After the 3 days of simulated shift work, all participants were then kept in a constant routine protocol (used to study humans’ internally generated biological rhythms independent of any external influences). As part of the protocol, they were kept awake for 24 hours in a semi-reclined posture under laboratory conditions with constant light exposure and room temperature and evenly distributed food intake (hourly isocaloric snacks).

Blood samples were collected at 3-hour intervals and used for leukocyte transcriptome analysis and DNA damage assessment.

The authors found that the circadian expression of canonical clock genes was substantially altered by the simulated night shift schedule vs. the day shift schedule. Four genes (CRY1, CRY2, PER2, and NR1D2) lost their normal day-shift rhythmicity following the night shift schedule, and NPAS2 gene expression was not rhythmic during the day shift but exhibited circadian rhythmicity in the simulated night shift condition. Three other genes (NR1D1, PER3, and DBP) were significantly rhythmic during both shifts.

The team also looked at the effect of night shift on circadian rhythmicity in cancer hallmark genes, using a panel of 726 genes. The analysis showed that:

• 257 (35.4%) were rhythmic after at least one of the two simulated shift work conditions.
• 113 (15.6%) were rhythmic in day shift only.
• 96 (13.2%) were rhythmic during night shift only.
• 48 (6.6%) were rhythmic during both shifts.

A subset of 10 (1.4%) genes exhibited a significant phase advance (3.7 to 8.3 hours) or phase delay (2.8 to 7.0 hours) during the night shift vs. the day shift.

Thus, the authors concluded, shift work caused significant disturbances in the rhythmicity of gene expression in cancer hallmark pathways.

Findings also showed that night shift work increases endogenous and exogenous DNA damage. Endogenous DNA damage was generally higher after the night shift compared to the day shift, and across the 24-hour constant routine the percentage of cells with BRCA1 and g H2AX foci was significantly higher for night shift.
 

Next steps

The team said that the next step is to conduct the same experiment with real-world shift workers who have been consistently on day or night shifts for many years to determine whether in night workers the unrepaired DNA damage builds up over time, which could ultimately increase the risk for cancer.

If what happens in real-world shift workers is consistent with the current findings, this work could eventually be used to develop prevention strategies and drugs that could address the mistiming of DNA repair processes, they suggested.  

“Night shift workers face considerable health disparities, ranging from increased risks of metabolic and cardiovascular disease to mental health disorders and cancer,” co-senior author Hans Van Dongen, PhD, a professor at Washington State University in Pullman and director of the WSU Sleep and Performance Research Center, Spokane, said in a statement. “It is high time that we find diagnosis and treatment solutions for this underserved group of essential workers so that the medical community can address their unique health challenges.”

The study was supported by start-up funds from Washington State University and a Center for Human Health and the Environment grant from North Carolina State University, and in part by the United States Army Medical Research and Development Command, the National Institutes of Health, CDMRP (Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs) Peer Reviewed Cancer Research Program award, and the BRAVE investment.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Working night shifts has been associated with an increased risk for certain cancers, as well as other health disorders. Indeed, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified night shift work as “probably carcinogenic to humans.”

But why night shift should elevate the risk for cancer has been unclear.

A new study shows that a simulated night shift schedule significantly altered the normal circadian rhythmicity of genes that are involved in cancer hallmark pathways. It also found that this circadian misalignment caused circadian dysregulation of genes involved in key DNA repair pathways.

“Taken together, these findings suggest that night shift schedules throw off the timing of expression of cancer-related genes in a way that reduces the effectiveness of the body’s DNA repair processes when they are most needed,” said co-corresponding author Jason McDermott, a computational scientist with the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory’s biological sciences division in Richland, Wash.

The study was published online in the Journal of Pineal Research.
 

Study conducted among volunteers 

The study was carried out among healthy volunteers who were subjected to simulated night shift or day shift schedules.

The cohort comprised 14 adults between the ages of 22 and 34 years who had normal nighttime sleep schedules. They were randomly assigned (seven in each group) to a simulated day shift schedule that involved 3 days of daytime wakefulness (6 a.m.-10 p.m.), or a simulated night shift schedule involving 3 days of nighttime wakefulness (6 p.m.-10 a.m.).

After the 3 days of simulated shift work, all participants were then kept in a constant routine protocol (used to study humans’ internally generated biological rhythms independent of any external influences). As part of the protocol, they were kept awake for 24 hours in a semi-reclined posture under laboratory conditions with constant light exposure and room temperature and evenly distributed food intake (hourly isocaloric snacks).

Blood samples were collected at 3-hour intervals and used for leukocyte transcriptome analysis and DNA damage assessment.

The authors found that the circadian expression of canonical clock genes was substantially altered by the simulated night shift schedule vs. the day shift schedule. Four genes (CRY1, CRY2, PER2, and NR1D2) lost their normal day-shift rhythmicity following the night shift schedule, and NPAS2 gene expression was not rhythmic during the day shift but exhibited circadian rhythmicity in the simulated night shift condition. Three other genes (NR1D1, PER3, and DBP) were significantly rhythmic during both shifts.

The team also looked at the effect of night shift on circadian rhythmicity in cancer hallmark genes, using a panel of 726 genes. The analysis showed that:

• 257 (35.4%) were rhythmic after at least one of the two simulated shift work conditions.
• 113 (15.6%) were rhythmic in day shift only.
• 96 (13.2%) were rhythmic during night shift only.
• 48 (6.6%) were rhythmic during both shifts.

A subset of 10 (1.4%) genes exhibited a significant phase advance (3.7 to 8.3 hours) or phase delay (2.8 to 7.0 hours) during the night shift vs. the day shift.

Thus, the authors concluded, shift work caused significant disturbances in the rhythmicity of gene expression in cancer hallmark pathways.

Findings also showed that night shift work increases endogenous and exogenous DNA damage. Endogenous DNA damage was generally higher after the night shift compared to the day shift, and across the 24-hour constant routine the percentage of cells with BRCA1 and g H2AX foci was significantly higher for night shift.
 

Next steps

The team said that the next step is to conduct the same experiment with real-world shift workers who have been consistently on day or night shifts for many years to determine whether in night workers the unrepaired DNA damage builds up over time, which could ultimately increase the risk for cancer.

If what happens in real-world shift workers is consistent with the current findings, this work could eventually be used to develop prevention strategies and drugs that could address the mistiming of DNA repair processes, they suggested.  

“Night shift workers face considerable health disparities, ranging from increased risks of metabolic and cardiovascular disease to mental health disorders and cancer,” co-senior author Hans Van Dongen, PhD, a professor at Washington State University in Pullman and director of the WSU Sleep and Performance Research Center, Spokane, said in a statement. “It is high time that we find diagnosis and treatment solutions for this underserved group of essential workers so that the medical community can address their unique health challenges.”

The study was supported by start-up funds from Washington State University and a Center for Human Health and the Environment grant from North Carolina State University, and in part by the United States Army Medical Research and Development Command, the National Institutes of Health, CDMRP (Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs) Peer Reviewed Cancer Research Program award, and the BRAVE investment.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Working night shifts has been associated with an increased risk for certain cancers, as well as other health disorders. Indeed, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified night shift work as “probably carcinogenic to humans.”

But why night shift should elevate the risk for cancer has been unclear.

A new study shows that a simulated night shift schedule significantly altered the normal circadian rhythmicity of genes that are involved in cancer hallmark pathways. It also found that this circadian misalignment caused circadian dysregulation of genes involved in key DNA repair pathways.

“Taken together, these findings suggest that night shift schedules throw off the timing of expression of cancer-related genes in a way that reduces the effectiveness of the body’s DNA repair processes when they are most needed,” said co-corresponding author Jason McDermott, a computational scientist with the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory’s biological sciences division in Richland, Wash.

The study was published online in the Journal of Pineal Research.
 

Study conducted among volunteers 

The study was carried out among healthy volunteers who were subjected to simulated night shift or day shift schedules.

The cohort comprised 14 adults between the ages of 22 and 34 years who had normal nighttime sleep schedules. They were randomly assigned (seven in each group) to a simulated day shift schedule that involved 3 days of daytime wakefulness (6 a.m.-10 p.m.), or a simulated night shift schedule involving 3 days of nighttime wakefulness (6 p.m.-10 a.m.).

After the 3 days of simulated shift work, all participants were then kept in a constant routine protocol (used to study humans’ internally generated biological rhythms independent of any external influences). As part of the protocol, they were kept awake for 24 hours in a semi-reclined posture under laboratory conditions with constant light exposure and room temperature and evenly distributed food intake (hourly isocaloric snacks).

Blood samples were collected at 3-hour intervals and used for leukocyte transcriptome analysis and DNA damage assessment.

The authors found that the circadian expression of canonical clock genes was substantially altered by the simulated night shift schedule vs. the day shift schedule. Four genes (CRY1, CRY2, PER2, and NR1D2) lost their normal day-shift rhythmicity following the night shift schedule, and NPAS2 gene expression was not rhythmic during the day shift but exhibited circadian rhythmicity in the simulated night shift condition. Three other genes (NR1D1, PER3, and DBP) were significantly rhythmic during both shifts.

The team also looked at the effect of night shift on circadian rhythmicity in cancer hallmark genes, using a panel of 726 genes. The analysis showed that:

• 257 (35.4%) were rhythmic after at least one of the two simulated shift work conditions.
• 113 (15.6%) were rhythmic in day shift only.
• 96 (13.2%) were rhythmic during night shift only.
• 48 (6.6%) were rhythmic during both shifts.

A subset of 10 (1.4%) genes exhibited a significant phase advance (3.7 to 8.3 hours) or phase delay (2.8 to 7.0 hours) during the night shift vs. the day shift.

Thus, the authors concluded, shift work caused significant disturbances in the rhythmicity of gene expression in cancer hallmark pathways.

Findings also showed that night shift work increases endogenous and exogenous DNA damage. Endogenous DNA damage was generally higher after the night shift compared to the day shift, and across the 24-hour constant routine the percentage of cells with BRCA1 and g H2AX foci was significantly higher for night shift.
 

Next steps

The team said that the next step is to conduct the same experiment with real-world shift workers who have been consistently on day or night shifts for many years to determine whether in night workers the unrepaired DNA damage builds up over time, which could ultimately increase the risk for cancer.

If what happens in real-world shift workers is consistent with the current findings, this work could eventually be used to develop prevention strategies and drugs that could address the mistiming of DNA repair processes, they suggested.  

“Night shift workers face considerable health disparities, ranging from increased risks of metabolic and cardiovascular disease to mental health disorders and cancer,” co-senior author Hans Van Dongen, PhD, a professor at Washington State University in Pullman and director of the WSU Sleep and Performance Research Center, Spokane, said in a statement. “It is high time that we find diagnosis and treatment solutions for this underserved group of essential workers so that the medical community can address their unique health challenges.”

The study was supported by start-up funds from Washington State University and a Center for Human Health and the Environment grant from North Carolina State University, and in part by the United States Army Medical Research and Development Command, the National Institutes of Health, CDMRP (Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs) Peer Reviewed Cancer Research Program award, and the BRAVE investment.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Exercise may help prevent cognitive decline in high-risk patients with early Parkinson’s disease, new research suggests. Investigators found that patients with Parkinson’s disease who were APOE epsilon4 carriers had greater cognitive decline compared with non-APOE epsilon4 carriers, but the findings also revealed higher physical activity appeared to slow cognitive decline in this higher risk group.

“The main finding of the current study is that higher physical activity was related to slower APOE epsilon4-associated cognitive decline in patients with early Parkinson’s disease, which was shown to be robust in sensitivity analyses,” wrote the researchers, led by Ryul Kim, MD, Inha University Hospital, Incheon, Korea.

The study was published online March 31 in Neurology.
 

Unclear mechanism

The APOE epsilon4 allele is known to be a “major risk factor” for Alzheimer’s disease, but “accumulating evidence shows that this allele also has a potential role in cognitive impairment in Parkinson’s disease,” the authors noted.

Previous research shows physical activity has beneficial effects in patients with Parkinson’s disease, but the mechanisms underlying these effects are “not well understood.” Additional data suggest physical activity modifies the APOE epsilon4 effect on the development and progression of Alzheimer’s disease.

“These observations led us to hypothesize that physical activity also plays a role in modulating the association between APOE [epsilon4] and cognition in Parkinson’s disease,” but no studies have yet reported on this interaction in patients with Parkinson’s disease, the authors noted.

To investigate, they drew on data from the Parkinson’s Progression Markers Initiative (PPMI) – a cohort study conducted to identify Parkinson’s disease progression markers.

The current analysis included 173 patients recently diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease but not yet treated for the condition. The cohort’s mean age was 63.3 ± 10.0 years, age of Parkinson’s disease onset was 59.4 ± 10.0 years, and 68% were male. Of these participants, 46 were APOE epsilon4 carriers.

Dopamine transporter (DAT) activity was assessed using imaging at enrollment and again at years 2 and 4. Cognitive function was assessed at years 2, 3, and 4 using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) test.
 

Protective effect

Although APOE epsilon4 carriers tended to be younger than noncarriers, the age of Parkinson’s disease onset did not differ between the 2 groups, and there were also no significant differences between the groups in demographic and clinical variables.

There were larger declines in MoCA scores in the APOE epsilon4 carriers versus the noncarriers (0.21 ± 1.40 and 0.08 ± 1.15 respectively).

The APOE epsilon4 allele was associated with a “steeper” rate of cognitive decline, compared with the non-APOE epsilon4 allele (estimate −1.33 [95% confidence interval, −2.12 to −0.47, P = .002).

There was a significant interaction of physical activity, APOE epsilon4, and time: Higher physical activity was associated with slower APOE epsilon4-related cognitive decline (estimate 0.007 [0.003 to 0.011, P = .001).

However, the researchers found no significant main effects of the APOE epsilon4 allele or physical activity on the change in the MoCA score.

“Considering that dopaminergic treatment may affect cognitive function, particularly in the early stage of Parkinson’s disease, we additionally included the levodopa daily equivalent dose (LEDD) and its interaction with time as covariates in the model,” the investigators noted.

They found that the interactive association between physical activity and the APOE epsilon4 allele on cognitive decline remained significant, even when participants who had normal cognitive performance at year 2 were included in the study population or when LEDD variables were included as covariates in the model.

Both high- and low-intensity exercise were significantly associated with slower APOE epsilon4-related cognitive decline.

There was no significant interaction between physical activity and APOE epsilon4 with changes in striatal DAT activities.

“Increased physical activity attenuated APOE epsilon4-related vulnerability to early cognitive decline in patients with Parkinson’s disease,” the authors noted, adding that the effect “did not appear to be mediated by striatal dopamine activity.”

They hypothesized that physical activity may “offer a greater protective effect” on cerebral amyloid accumulation in APOE epsilon4 carriers. It is also possible that physical activity will counteract the negative impact of the APOE epsilon4 allele through improved brain mechanism and decreased neuroinflammation.
 

‘The next blockbuster drug’

Commenting on the study in an interview, Bastiaan R. Bloem, MD, PhD, director of the center of expertise for Parkinson & movement disorders, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands, said exercise might be seen as “the next blockbuster drug.”

Dr. Bloem, who was not involved in the study, noted there is “quite robust evidence now that exercise acts as symptomatic therapy, like a drug, alleviating sleep [disturbances], depression, constipation, and motor symptoms.”

The study “sheds new light on the idea of exercise as not only alleviating symptoms but actually as a potential disease modifier,” said Dr. Bloem, whose research has focused on the beneficial effects of a rigorous exercise program, combined with tablet-based gamificaton and a reward system in stabilizing motor symptoms in patients with Parkinson’s disease over time.

“The reward system created additional motivation for the patients with Parkinson’s disease who often experience depression and apathy that interfere with motivation,” he said.

The current study has important take-home messages for practicing clinicians. “Physicians should encourage exercise in patients, and patients should also take the lead themselves,” Dr. Bloem said. “It doesn’t matter what type of exercise you do, but it should have an aerobic component, should be safe so the patient doesn’t fall down, should have enough intensity to cause the patient to pant, and should be individualized and enjoyable so the patients stick to it,” he emphasized.

Dr. Bloem noted that yoga and mindfulness are also helpful. “If we’ve learned anything from the COVID-19 crisis, it’s that chronic stress is deleterious to all of us and particularly bad for people with PD, because you need dopamine to be able to handle stress, and the lack of dopamine in people with PD makes them deteriorate faster.”

The study was supported by a research grant of National Research Foundation by the Ministry of Science and ICT (MSIT) in Korea. The authors and Dr. Bloem have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Exercise may help prevent cognitive decline in high-risk patients with early Parkinson’s disease, new research suggests. Investigators found that patients with Parkinson’s disease who were APOE epsilon4 carriers had greater cognitive decline compared with non-APOE epsilon4 carriers, but the findings also revealed higher physical activity appeared to slow cognitive decline in this higher risk group.

“The main finding of the current study is that higher physical activity was related to slower APOE epsilon4-associated cognitive decline in patients with early Parkinson’s disease, which was shown to be robust in sensitivity analyses,” wrote the researchers, led by Ryul Kim, MD, Inha University Hospital, Incheon, Korea.

The study was published online March 31 in Neurology.
 

Unclear mechanism

The APOE epsilon4 allele is known to be a “major risk factor” for Alzheimer’s disease, but “accumulating evidence shows that this allele also has a potential role in cognitive impairment in Parkinson’s disease,” the authors noted.

Previous research shows physical activity has beneficial effects in patients with Parkinson’s disease, but the mechanisms underlying these effects are “not well understood.” Additional data suggest physical activity modifies the APOE epsilon4 effect on the development and progression of Alzheimer’s disease.

“These observations led us to hypothesize that physical activity also plays a role in modulating the association between APOE [epsilon4] and cognition in Parkinson’s disease,” but no studies have yet reported on this interaction in patients with Parkinson’s disease, the authors noted.

To investigate, they drew on data from the Parkinson’s Progression Markers Initiative (PPMI) – a cohort study conducted to identify Parkinson’s disease progression markers.

The current analysis included 173 patients recently diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease but not yet treated for the condition. The cohort’s mean age was 63.3 ± 10.0 years, age of Parkinson’s disease onset was 59.4 ± 10.0 years, and 68% were male. Of these participants, 46 were APOE epsilon4 carriers.

Dopamine transporter (DAT) activity was assessed using imaging at enrollment and again at years 2 and 4. Cognitive function was assessed at years 2, 3, and 4 using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) test.
 

Protective effect

Although APOE epsilon4 carriers tended to be younger than noncarriers, the age of Parkinson’s disease onset did not differ between the 2 groups, and there were also no significant differences between the groups in demographic and clinical variables.

There were larger declines in MoCA scores in the APOE epsilon4 carriers versus the noncarriers (0.21 ± 1.40 and 0.08 ± 1.15 respectively).

The APOE epsilon4 allele was associated with a “steeper” rate of cognitive decline, compared with the non-APOE epsilon4 allele (estimate −1.33 [95% confidence interval, −2.12 to −0.47, P = .002).

There was a significant interaction of physical activity, APOE epsilon4, and time: Higher physical activity was associated with slower APOE epsilon4-related cognitive decline (estimate 0.007 [0.003 to 0.011, P = .001).

However, the researchers found no significant main effects of the APOE epsilon4 allele or physical activity on the change in the MoCA score.

“Considering that dopaminergic treatment may affect cognitive function, particularly in the early stage of Parkinson’s disease, we additionally included the levodopa daily equivalent dose (LEDD) and its interaction with time as covariates in the model,” the investigators noted.

They found that the interactive association between physical activity and the APOE epsilon4 allele on cognitive decline remained significant, even when participants who had normal cognitive performance at year 2 were included in the study population or when LEDD variables were included as covariates in the model.

Both high- and low-intensity exercise were significantly associated with slower APOE epsilon4-related cognitive decline.

There was no significant interaction between physical activity and APOE epsilon4 with changes in striatal DAT activities.

“Increased physical activity attenuated APOE epsilon4-related vulnerability to early cognitive decline in patients with Parkinson’s disease,” the authors noted, adding that the effect “did not appear to be mediated by striatal dopamine activity.”

They hypothesized that physical activity may “offer a greater protective effect” on cerebral amyloid accumulation in APOE epsilon4 carriers. It is also possible that physical activity will counteract the negative impact of the APOE epsilon4 allele through improved brain mechanism and decreased neuroinflammation.
 

‘The next blockbuster drug’

Commenting on the study in an interview, Bastiaan R. Bloem, MD, PhD, director of the center of expertise for Parkinson & movement disorders, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands, said exercise might be seen as “the next blockbuster drug.”

Dr. Bloem, who was not involved in the study, noted there is “quite robust evidence now that exercise acts as symptomatic therapy, like a drug, alleviating sleep [disturbances], depression, constipation, and motor symptoms.”

The study “sheds new light on the idea of exercise as not only alleviating symptoms but actually as a potential disease modifier,” said Dr. Bloem, whose research has focused on the beneficial effects of a rigorous exercise program, combined with tablet-based gamificaton and a reward system in stabilizing motor symptoms in patients with Parkinson’s disease over time.

“The reward system created additional motivation for the patients with Parkinson’s disease who often experience depression and apathy that interfere with motivation,” he said.

The current study has important take-home messages for practicing clinicians. “Physicians should encourage exercise in patients, and patients should also take the lead themselves,” Dr. Bloem said. “It doesn’t matter what type of exercise you do, but it should have an aerobic component, should be safe so the patient doesn’t fall down, should have enough intensity to cause the patient to pant, and should be individualized and enjoyable so the patients stick to it,” he emphasized.

Dr. Bloem noted that yoga and mindfulness are also helpful. “If we’ve learned anything from the COVID-19 crisis, it’s that chronic stress is deleterious to all of us and particularly bad for people with PD, because you need dopamine to be able to handle stress, and the lack of dopamine in people with PD makes them deteriorate faster.”

The study was supported by a research grant of National Research Foundation by the Ministry of Science and ICT (MSIT) in Korea. The authors and Dr. Bloem have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Exercise may help prevent cognitive decline in high-risk patients with early Parkinson’s disease, new research suggests. Investigators found that patients with Parkinson’s disease who were APOE epsilon4 carriers had greater cognitive decline compared with non-APOE epsilon4 carriers, but the findings also revealed higher physical activity appeared to slow cognitive decline in this higher risk group.

“The main finding of the current study is that higher physical activity was related to slower APOE epsilon4-associated cognitive decline in patients with early Parkinson’s disease, which was shown to be robust in sensitivity analyses,” wrote the researchers, led by Ryul Kim, MD, Inha University Hospital, Incheon, Korea.

The study was published online March 31 in Neurology.
 

Unclear mechanism

The APOE epsilon4 allele is known to be a “major risk factor” for Alzheimer’s disease, but “accumulating evidence shows that this allele also has a potential role in cognitive impairment in Parkinson’s disease,” the authors noted.

Previous research shows physical activity has beneficial effects in patients with Parkinson’s disease, but the mechanisms underlying these effects are “not well understood.” Additional data suggest physical activity modifies the APOE epsilon4 effect on the development and progression of Alzheimer’s disease.

“These observations led us to hypothesize that physical activity also plays a role in modulating the association between APOE [epsilon4] and cognition in Parkinson’s disease,” but no studies have yet reported on this interaction in patients with Parkinson’s disease, the authors noted.

To investigate, they drew on data from the Parkinson’s Progression Markers Initiative (PPMI) – a cohort study conducted to identify Parkinson’s disease progression markers.

The current analysis included 173 patients recently diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease but not yet treated for the condition. The cohort’s mean age was 63.3 ± 10.0 years, age of Parkinson’s disease onset was 59.4 ± 10.0 years, and 68% were male. Of these participants, 46 were APOE epsilon4 carriers.

Dopamine transporter (DAT) activity was assessed using imaging at enrollment and again at years 2 and 4. Cognitive function was assessed at years 2, 3, and 4 using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) test.
 

Protective effect

Although APOE epsilon4 carriers tended to be younger than noncarriers, the age of Parkinson’s disease onset did not differ between the 2 groups, and there were also no significant differences between the groups in demographic and clinical variables.

There were larger declines in MoCA scores in the APOE epsilon4 carriers versus the noncarriers (0.21 ± 1.40 and 0.08 ± 1.15 respectively).

The APOE epsilon4 allele was associated with a “steeper” rate of cognitive decline, compared with the non-APOE epsilon4 allele (estimate −1.33 [95% confidence interval, −2.12 to −0.47, P = .002).

There was a significant interaction of physical activity, APOE epsilon4, and time: Higher physical activity was associated with slower APOE epsilon4-related cognitive decline (estimate 0.007 [0.003 to 0.011, P = .001).

However, the researchers found no significant main effects of the APOE epsilon4 allele or physical activity on the change in the MoCA score.

“Considering that dopaminergic treatment may affect cognitive function, particularly in the early stage of Parkinson’s disease, we additionally included the levodopa daily equivalent dose (LEDD) and its interaction with time as covariates in the model,” the investigators noted.

They found that the interactive association between physical activity and the APOE epsilon4 allele on cognitive decline remained significant, even when participants who had normal cognitive performance at year 2 were included in the study population or when LEDD variables were included as covariates in the model.

Both high- and low-intensity exercise were significantly associated with slower APOE epsilon4-related cognitive decline.

There was no significant interaction between physical activity and APOE epsilon4 with changes in striatal DAT activities.

“Increased physical activity attenuated APOE epsilon4-related vulnerability to early cognitive decline in patients with Parkinson’s disease,” the authors noted, adding that the effect “did not appear to be mediated by striatal dopamine activity.”

They hypothesized that physical activity may “offer a greater protective effect” on cerebral amyloid accumulation in APOE epsilon4 carriers. It is also possible that physical activity will counteract the negative impact of the APOE epsilon4 allele through improved brain mechanism and decreased neuroinflammation.
 

‘The next blockbuster drug’

Commenting on the study in an interview, Bastiaan R. Bloem, MD, PhD, director of the center of expertise for Parkinson & movement disorders, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands, said exercise might be seen as “the next blockbuster drug.”

Dr. Bloem, who was not involved in the study, noted there is “quite robust evidence now that exercise acts as symptomatic therapy, like a drug, alleviating sleep [disturbances], depression, constipation, and motor symptoms.”

The study “sheds new light on the idea of exercise as not only alleviating symptoms but actually as a potential disease modifier,” said Dr. Bloem, whose research has focused on the beneficial effects of a rigorous exercise program, combined with tablet-based gamificaton and a reward system in stabilizing motor symptoms in patients with Parkinson’s disease over time.

“The reward system created additional motivation for the patients with Parkinson’s disease who often experience depression and apathy that interfere with motivation,” he said.

The current study has important take-home messages for practicing clinicians. “Physicians should encourage exercise in patients, and patients should also take the lead themselves,” Dr. Bloem said. “It doesn’t matter what type of exercise you do, but it should have an aerobic component, should be safe so the patient doesn’t fall down, should have enough intensity to cause the patient to pant, and should be individualized and enjoyable so the patients stick to it,” he emphasized.

Dr. Bloem noted that yoga and mindfulness are also helpful. “If we’ve learned anything from the COVID-19 crisis, it’s that chronic stress is deleterious to all of us and particularly bad for people with PD, because you need dopamine to be able to handle stress, and the lack of dopamine in people with PD makes them deteriorate faster.”

The study was supported by a research grant of National Research Foundation by the Ministry of Science and ICT (MSIT) in Korea. The authors and Dr. Bloem have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Specialty palliative care interventions improve outcomes in patients with hematologic malignancies but are underutilized, according to findings from a systematic literature review.

Outcomes that were improved, as demonstrated by 16 studies that met inclusion criteria for the review, included symptom management, inpatient mortality, health care utilization, health care costs, and caregiver-reported outcomes, Elizabeth Elliott, DO, a hematology and oncology fellow at the Cardinal Bernardin Cancer Center, Loyola University, Maywood, Ill., and colleagues reported.

The findings were published online in the Journal of Pain and Symptom Management.
 

Palliative care needs

Patients with hematologic malignancies, including leukemia, myeloma, and lymphoma, have a high need for supportive care, the authors noted, adding that, although its use has increased over time, palliative care (PC) is often provided late in the disease course – sometimes only in the final days of life.

“Compared with their solid tumor counterparts, patients with hematologic malignancies experience higher symptom burdens, have higher rates of cancer-directed care near death, and are more likely to die while hospitalized than at home or in hospice,” they wrote. “Despite this need, specialist palliative care is less commonly utilized in patients with hematologic malignancies than other cancer types.”

Given the high health care utilization among patients with hematologic malignancies, earlier and more widespread utilization of PC in this population may significantly reduce health care costs, they added.
 

Palliative care benefits

Of 5,345 studies published between 2005 and 2020 and screened for the current review, 16 met inclusion criteria, including 10 retrospective cohort studies; 4 prospective cohort studies; and 2 randomized, controlled studies.

Nine studies included only patients with hematologic malignancies and seven included both patients with solid tumors and patients with hematologic malignancies. Each study assessed as being of moderate quality.

Benefits of PC as demonstrated in the studies included:

Symptom management: One study, for example, showed that an integrated psychological and PC intervention improved traumatic stress levels, degree and number of physical symptoms, pain intensity, depressive symptoms, and quality of life, compared with no intervention. Another showed that the percentage of patients reporting moderate to severe pain improved from 57% to 18% with a PC intervention, and the number reporting depressive episodes improved from 13% to 5%.

Reduced in-patient death: Findings from eight studies showed that 21.9%-83% of those receiving PC died at home, compared with 6.0%-8.9% of controls. Two studies showed that PC provided at least 20 days prior to death decreased the likelihood of inpatient death and death in an ICU, compared with controls, and one showed that the rate of in-hospital deaths was 30% for those with home PC or hospice, compared with 80% of controls.

Health care utilization: The studies showed that hospitalization occurred in 45%-76.3% of hematologic malignancy patients who received PC, compared with 98% of controls. The odds ratio for hospitalization among acute leukemia patients receiving PC was 0.64, compared with 2.53 among those in a historical control group.

Caregiver-reported outcomes: One randomized, controlled study showed that PC was associated with smaller increases in depression scores, improved coping, and improved scores in multiple quality of life domains in caregivers versus controls.

Survival: One study showed that a larger percentage of hematologic malignancy patients who died 1-6 months after diagnosis had not received PC (28% vs. 23%), whereas more of those who died 6-12 months or 12 or more months after diagnosis had received PC (23.9 vs. 14.9% and 42.5% vs. 22.0%).

Health care costs: Two studies showed a decrease in inpatient costs after a palliative care consultation. Decreases in hospitalization costs were $2,321 and $1,506 for less medically complex patients and $3,515 and $5,617 for more medically complex patient.

Improving PC utilization

One potential strategy to promote earlier referrals to PC is improved education for hematologists, the authors said, citing a study showing that 98% of oncology fellows at one center reported improvement in their ability to assess and manage patient symptoms after completion of a 4-week mandatory PC rotation.

“Another strategy to improve referrals to PC of hematologic malignancies patients could be the creation of programs which facilitate collaboration between PC providers and hematologists, such as the palliative and supportive care special interest group within the American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy,” they wrote.

A third strategy “could be to provide a concurrent care model, in which cancer directed therapy (such as transfusions) is provided at the same time as hospice care,” they added, explaining that such an approach was shown in a study of patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer to be associated with less aggressive medical treatment and lower costs.

The authors also stressed that patient with solid tumors and those with hematologic malignancies have differing supportive care needs and health care utilization, but several studies included in the current review included both types of cancer.

“Further studies investigating PC use exclusively in patients with hematologic malignancies are needed. Our results demonstrate a strong argument for hematologists to refer their patients early and often for specialized PC,” they concluded.

Indeed, when PC is integrated within hematologic malignancies, impacts occur that are similar to those seen in a variety of other diseases and include improved symptom control, enhanced caregiver experience, and reduced burdens on the health care system, Toby C Campbell, MD, said in an interview.

“The benefits of providing palliative care concurrent with standard cancer care is felt by all the major stakeholders in this care: the patients, their caregivers, and the health care system around them,” said Dr. Campbell, a thoracic medical oncologist and professor in the division of hematology, medical oncology, and palliative care at the University of Wisconsin–Madison.
 

Overcoming challenges

However, this is “new territory” for most programs, added Dr. Campbell, who also is the University of Wisconsin health chief of palliative care and holds the Ellen and Peter O. Johnson Chair in Palliative Care .

“The palliative care clinicians have a lot of learning to do if they’re going to enter this space and provide expert care,” he said, adding that expert care is what is needed and what was studied in this review. “Providing palliative care to patients with hematologic malignancies has a unique pace and a number of subspecialized therapeutic options with which the palliative care clinician must become familiar.”

Examples include bone marrow transplantation with prolonged hospitalizations and transfusion support, he said.

“Palliative care programs, in order to provide high quality care, will need to familiarize themselves with these therapies and develop close partnership with hematologists to integrate seamlessly into the patient’s care,” he added. “At some centers, culture changes will be necessary concurrent with the clinical practice change of integrating palliative care and it is the responsibility of the palliative care clinicians to bring their very best to these new relationships and patient populations.”

The authors reported having no disclosures. Dr. Campbell also reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

Specialty palliative care interventions improve outcomes in patients with hematologic malignancies but are underutilized, according to findings from a systematic literature review.

Outcomes that were improved, as demonstrated by 16 studies that met inclusion criteria for the review, included symptom management, inpatient mortality, health care utilization, health care costs, and caregiver-reported outcomes, Elizabeth Elliott, DO, a hematology and oncology fellow at the Cardinal Bernardin Cancer Center, Loyola University, Maywood, Ill., and colleagues reported.

The findings were published online in the Journal of Pain and Symptom Management.
 

Palliative care needs

Patients with hematologic malignancies, including leukemia, myeloma, and lymphoma, have a high need for supportive care, the authors noted, adding that, although its use has increased over time, palliative care (PC) is often provided late in the disease course – sometimes only in the final days of life.

“Compared with their solid tumor counterparts, patients with hematologic malignancies experience higher symptom burdens, have higher rates of cancer-directed care near death, and are more likely to die while hospitalized than at home or in hospice,” they wrote. “Despite this need, specialist palliative care is less commonly utilized in patients with hematologic malignancies than other cancer types.”

Given the high health care utilization among patients with hematologic malignancies, earlier and more widespread utilization of PC in this population may significantly reduce health care costs, they added.
 

Palliative care benefits

Of 5,345 studies published between 2005 and 2020 and screened for the current review, 16 met inclusion criteria, including 10 retrospective cohort studies; 4 prospective cohort studies; and 2 randomized, controlled studies.

Nine studies included only patients with hematologic malignancies and seven included both patients with solid tumors and patients with hematologic malignancies. Each study assessed as being of moderate quality.

Benefits of PC as demonstrated in the studies included:

Symptom management: One study, for example, showed that an integrated psychological and PC intervention improved traumatic stress levels, degree and number of physical symptoms, pain intensity, depressive symptoms, and quality of life, compared with no intervention. Another showed that the percentage of patients reporting moderate to severe pain improved from 57% to 18% with a PC intervention, and the number reporting depressive episodes improved from 13% to 5%.

Reduced in-patient death: Findings from eight studies showed that 21.9%-83% of those receiving PC died at home, compared with 6.0%-8.9% of controls. Two studies showed that PC provided at least 20 days prior to death decreased the likelihood of inpatient death and death in an ICU, compared with controls, and one showed that the rate of in-hospital deaths was 30% for those with home PC or hospice, compared with 80% of controls.

Health care utilization: The studies showed that hospitalization occurred in 45%-76.3% of hematologic malignancy patients who received PC, compared with 98% of controls. The odds ratio for hospitalization among acute leukemia patients receiving PC was 0.64, compared with 2.53 among those in a historical control group.

Caregiver-reported outcomes: One randomized, controlled study showed that PC was associated with smaller increases in depression scores, improved coping, and improved scores in multiple quality of life domains in caregivers versus controls.

Survival: One study showed that a larger percentage of hematologic malignancy patients who died 1-6 months after diagnosis had not received PC (28% vs. 23%), whereas more of those who died 6-12 months or 12 or more months after diagnosis had received PC (23.9 vs. 14.9% and 42.5% vs. 22.0%).

Health care costs: Two studies showed a decrease in inpatient costs after a palliative care consultation. Decreases in hospitalization costs were $2,321 and $1,506 for less medically complex patients and $3,515 and $5,617 for more medically complex patient.

Improving PC utilization

One potential strategy to promote earlier referrals to PC is improved education for hematologists, the authors said, citing a study showing that 98% of oncology fellows at one center reported improvement in their ability to assess and manage patient symptoms after completion of a 4-week mandatory PC rotation.

“Another strategy to improve referrals to PC of hematologic malignancies patients could be the creation of programs which facilitate collaboration between PC providers and hematologists, such as the palliative and supportive care special interest group within the American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy,” they wrote.

A third strategy “could be to provide a concurrent care model, in which cancer directed therapy (such as transfusions) is provided at the same time as hospice care,” they added, explaining that such an approach was shown in a study of patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer to be associated with less aggressive medical treatment and lower costs.

The authors also stressed that patient with solid tumors and those with hematologic malignancies have differing supportive care needs and health care utilization, but several studies included in the current review included both types of cancer.

“Further studies investigating PC use exclusively in patients with hematologic malignancies are needed. Our results demonstrate a strong argument for hematologists to refer their patients early and often for specialized PC,” they concluded.

Indeed, when PC is integrated within hematologic malignancies, impacts occur that are similar to those seen in a variety of other diseases and include improved symptom control, enhanced caregiver experience, and reduced burdens on the health care system, Toby C Campbell, MD, said in an interview.

“The benefits of providing palliative care concurrent with standard cancer care is felt by all the major stakeholders in this care: the patients, their caregivers, and the health care system around them,” said Dr. Campbell, a thoracic medical oncologist and professor in the division of hematology, medical oncology, and palliative care at the University of Wisconsin–Madison.
 

Overcoming challenges

However, this is “new territory” for most programs, added Dr. Campbell, who also is the University of Wisconsin health chief of palliative care and holds the Ellen and Peter O. Johnson Chair in Palliative Care .

“The palliative care clinicians have a lot of learning to do if they’re going to enter this space and provide expert care,” he said, adding that expert care is what is needed and what was studied in this review. “Providing palliative care to patients with hematologic malignancies has a unique pace and a number of subspecialized therapeutic options with which the palliative care clinician must become familiar.”

Examples include bone marrow transplantation with prolonged hospitalizations and transfusion support, he said.

“Palliative care programs, in order to provide high quality care, will need to familiarize themselves with these therapies and develop close partnership with hematologists to integrate seamlessly into the patient’s care,” he added. “At some centers, culture changes will be necessary concurrent with the clinical practice change of integrating palliative care and it is the responsibility of the palliative care clinicians to bring their very best to these new relationships and patient populations.”

The authors reported having no disclosures. Dr. Campbell also reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

Specialty palliative care interventions improve outcomes in patients with hematologic malignancies but are underutilized, according to findings from a systematic literature review.

Outcomes that were improved, as demonstrated by 16 studies that met inclusion criteria for the review, included symptom management, inpatient mortality, health care utilization, health care costs, and caregiver-reported outcomes, Elizabeth Elliott, DO, a hematology and oncology fellow at the Cardinal Bernardin Cancer Center, Loyola University, Maywood, Ill., and colleagues reported.

The findings were published online in the Journal of Pain and Symptom Management.
 

Palliative care needs

Patients with hematologic malignancies, including leukemia, myeloma, and lymphoma, have a high need for supportive care, the authors noted, adding that, although its use has increased over time, palliative care (PC) is often provided late in the disease course – sometimes only in the final days of life.

“Compared with their solid tumor counterparts, patients with hematologic malignancies experience higher symptom burdens, have higher rates of cancer-directed care near death, and are more likely to die while hospitalized than at home or in hospice,” they wrote. “Despite this need, specialist palliative care is less commonly utilized in patients with hematologic malignancies than other cancer types.”

Given the high health care utilization among patients with hematologic malignancies, earlier and more widespread utilization of PC in this population may significantly reduce health care costs, they added.
 

Palliative care benefits

Of 5,345 studies published between 2005 and 2020 and screened for the current review, 16 met inclusion criteria, including 10 retrospective cohort studies; 4 prospective cohort studies; and 2 randomized, controlled studies.

Nine studies included only patients with hematologic malignancies and seven included both patients with solid tumors and patients with hematologic malignancies. Each study assessed as being of moderate quality.

Benefits of PC as demonstrated in the studies included:

Symptom management: One study, for example, showed that an integrated psychological and PC intervention improved traumatic stress levels, degree and number of physical symptoms, pain intensity, depressive symptoms, and quality of life, compared with no intervention. Another showed that the percentage of patients reporting moderate to severe pain improved from 57% to 18% with a PC intervention, and the number reporting depressive episodes improved from 13% to 5%.

Reduced in-patient death: Findings from eight studies showed that 21.9%-83% of those receiving PC died at home, compared with 6.0%-8.9% of controls. Two studies showed that PC provided at least 20 days prior to death decreased the likelihood of inpatient death and death in an ICU, compared with controls, and one showed that the rate of in-hospital deaths was 30% for those with home PC or hospice, compared with 80% of controls.

Health care utilization: The studies showed that hospitalization occurred in 45%-76.3% of hematologic malignancy patients who received PC, compared with 98% of controls. The odds ratio for hospitalization among acute leukemia patients receiving PC was 0.64, compared with 2.53 among those in a historical control group.

Caregiver-reported outcomes: One randomized, controlled study showed that PC was associated with smaller increases in depression scores, improved coping, and improved scores in multiple quality of life domains in caregivers versus controls.

Survival: One study showed that a larger percentage of hematologic malignancy patients who died 1-6 months after diagnosis had not received PC (28% vs. 23%), whereas more of those who died 6-12 months or 12 or more months after diagnosis had received PC (23.9 vs. 14.9% and 42.5% vs. 22.0%).

Health care costs: Two studies showed a decrease in inpatient costs after a palliative care consultation. Decreases in hospitalization costs were $2,321 and $1,506 for less medically complex patients and $3,515 and $5,617 for more medically complex patient.

Improving PC utilization

One potential strategy to promote earlier referrals to PC is improved education for hematologists, the authors said, citing a study showing that 98% of oncology fellows at one center reported improvement in their ability to assess and manage patient symptoms after completion of a 4-week mandatory PC rotation.

“Another strategy to improve referrals to PC of hematologic malignancies patients could be the creation of programs which facilitate collaboration between PC providers and hematologists, such as the palliative and supportive care special interest group within the American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy,” they wrote.

A third strategy “could be to provide a concurrent care model, in which cancer directed therapy (such as transfusions) is provided at the same time as hospice care,” they added, explaining that such an approach was shown in a study of patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer to be associated with less aggressive medical treatment and lower costs.

The authors also stressed that patient with solid tumors and those with hematologic malignancies have differing supportive care needs and health care utilization, but several studies included in the current review included both types of cancer.

“Further studies investigating PC use exclusively in patients with hematologic malignancies are needed. Our results demonstrate a strong argument for hematologists to refer their patients early and often for specialized PC,” they concluded.

Indeed, when PC is integrated within hematologic malignancies, impacts occur that are similar to those seen in a variety of other diseases and include improved symptom control, enhanced caregiver experience, and reduced burdens on the health care system, Toby C Campbell, MD, said in an interview.

“The benefits of providing palliative care concurrent with standard cancer care is felt by all the major stakeholders in this care: the patients, their caregivers, and the health care system around them,” said Dr. Campbell, a thoracic medical oncologist and professor in the division of hematology, medical oncology, and palliative care at the University of Wisconsin–Madison.
 

Overcoming challenges

However, this is “new territory” for most programs, added Dr. Campbell, who also is the University of Wisconsin health chief of palliative care and holds the Ellen and Peter O. Johnson Chair in Palliative Care .

“The palliative care clinicians have a lot of learning to do if they’re going to enter this space and provide expert care,” he said, adding that expert care is what is needed and what was studied in this review. “Providing palliative care to patients with hematologic malignancies has a unique pace and a number of subspecialized therapeutic options with which the palliative care clinician must become familiar.”

Examples include bone marrow transplantation with prolonged hospitalizations and transfusion support, he said.

“Palliative care programs, in order to provide high quality care, will need to familiarize themselves with these therapies and develop close partnership with hematologists to integrate seamlessly into the patient’s care,” he added. “At some centers, culture changes will be necessary concurrent with the clinical practice change of integrating palliative care and it is the responsibility of the palliative care clinicians to bring their very best to these new relationships and patient populations.”

The authors reported having no disclosures. Dr. Campbell also reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

Protection against norovirus gastroenteritis is supported in part by norovirus-specific CD8+ T cells that reside in peripheral, intestinal, and lymphoid tissues, according to investigators.

These findings, and the molecular tools used to discover them, could guide development of a norovirus vaccine and novel cellular therapies, according to lead author Ajinkya Pattekar, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues.

“Currently, there are no approved pharmacologic therapies against norovirus, and despite several promising clinical trials, an effective vaccine is not available,” the investigators wrote in Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology, which may stem from an incomplete understanding of norovirus immunity, according to Dr. Pattekar and colleagues.

They noted that most previous research has focused on humoral immunity, which appears variable between individuals, with some people exhibiting a strong humoral response, while others mount only partial humoral protection. The investigators also noted that, depending on which studies were examined, this type of defense could last years or fade within weeks to months and that “immune mechanisms other than antibodies may be important for protection against noroviruses.”

Specifically, cellular immunity may be at work. A 2020 study involving volunteers showed that T cells were cross-reactive to a type of norovirus the participants had never been exposed to.

“These findings suggest that T cells may target conserved epitopes and could offer cross-protection against a broad range of noroviruses,” Dr. Pattekar and colleagues wrote.

To test this hypothesis, they first collected peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) from three healthy volunteers with unknown norovirus exposure history. Then serum samples were screened for norovirus functional antibodies via the binding between virus-like particles (VLPs) and histo–blood group antigens (HBGAs). This revealed disparate profiles of blocking antibodies against various norovirus strains. While donor 1 and donor 2 had antibodies against multiple strains, donor 3 lacked norovirus antibodies. Further testing showed that this latter individual was a nonsecretor with limited exposure history.

Next, the investigators tested donor PBMCs for norovirus-specific T-cell responses with use of overlapping libraries of peptides for each of the three norovirus open reading frames (ORF1, ORF2, and ORF3). T-cell responses, predominantly involving CD8+ T cells, were observed in all donors. While donor 1 had the greatest response to ORF1, donors 2 and 3 had responses that focused on ORF2.

“Thus, norovirus-specific T cells targeting ORF1 and ORF2 epitopes are present in peripheral blood from healthy donors regardless of secretor status,” the investigators wrote.

To better characterize T-cell epitopes, the investigators subdivided the overlapping peptide libraries into groups of shorter peptides, then exposed serum to these smaller component pools. This revealed eight HLA class I restricted epitopes that were derived from a genogroup II.4 pandemic norovirus strain; this group of variants has been responsible for all six of the norovirus pandemics since 1996.

Closer examination of the epitopes showed that they were “broadly conserved beyond GII.4.” Only one epitope exhibited variation in the C-terminal aromatic anchor, and it was nondominant. The investigators therefore identified seven immunodominant CD8+ epitopes, which they considered “valuable targets for vaccine and cell-based therapies.

“These data further confirm that epitope-specific CD8+ T cells are a universal feature of the overall norovirus immune response and could be an attractive target for future vaccines,” the investigators wrote.

Additional testing involving samples of spleen, mesenteric lymph nodes, and duodenum from deceased individuals showed presence of norovirus-specific CD8+ T cells, with particular abundance in intestinal tissue, and distinct phenotypes and functional properties in different tissue types.

“Future studies using tetramers and intestinal samples should build on these observations and fully define the location and microenvironment of norovirus-specific T cells,” the investigators wrote. “If carried out in the context of a vaccine trial, such studies could be highly valuable in elucidating tissue-resident memory correlates of norovirus immunity.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the Wellcome Trust, and Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.

Protection against norovirus gastroenteritis is supported in part by norovirus-specific CD8+ T cells that reside in peripheral, intestinal, and lymphoid tissues, according to investigators.

These findings, and the molecular tools used to discover them, could guide development of a norovirus vaccine and novel cellular therapies, according to lead author Ajinkya Pattekar, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues.

“Currently, there are no approved pharmacologic therapies against norovirus, and despite several promising clinical trials, an effective vaccine is not available,” the investigators wrote in Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology, which may stem from an incomplete understanding of norovirus immunity, according to Dr. Pattekar and colleagues.

They noted that most previous research has focused on humoral immunity, which appears variable between individuals, with some people exhibiting a strong humoral response, while others mount only partial humoral protection. The investigators also noted that, depending on which studies were examined, this type of defense could last years or fade within weeks to months and that “immune mechanisms other than antibodies may be important for protection against noroviruses.”

Specifically, cellular immunity may be at work. A 2020 study involving volunteers showed that T cells were cross-reactive to a type of norovirus the participants had never been exposed to.

“These findings suggest that T cells may target conserved epitopes and could offer cross-protection against a broad range of noroviruses,” Dr. Pattekar and colleagues wrote.

To test this hypothesis, they first collected peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) from three healthy volunteers with unknown norovirus exposure history. Then serum samples were screened for norovirus functional antibodies via the binding between virus-like particles (VLPs) and histo–blood group antigens (HBGAs). This revealed disparate profiles of blocking antibodies against various norovirus strains. While donor 1 and donor 2 had antibodies against multiple strains, donor 3 lacked norovirus antibodies. Further testing showed that this latter individual was a nonsecretor with limited exposure history.

Next, the investigators tested donor PBMCs for norovirus-specific T-cell responses with use of overlapping libraries of peptides for each of the three norovirus open reading frames (ORF1, ORF2, and ORF3). T-cell responses, predominantly involving CD8+ T cells, were observed in all donors. While donor 1 had the greatest response to ORF1, donors 2 and 3 had responses that focused on ORF2.

“Thus, norovirus-specific T cells targeting ORF1 and ORF2 epitopes are present in peripheral blood from healthy donors regardless of secretor status,” the investigators wrote.

To better characterize T-cell epitopes, the investigators subdivided the overlapping peptide libraries into groups of shorter peptides, then exposed serum to these smaller component pools. This revealed eight HLA class I restricted epitopes that were derived from a genogroup II.4 pandemic norovirus strain; this group of variants has been responsible for all six of the norovirus pandemics since 1996.

Closer examination of the epitopes showed that they were “broadly conserved beyond GII.4.” Only one epitope exhibited variation in the C-terminal aromatic anchor, and it was nondominant. The investigators therefore identified seven immunodominant CD8+ epitopes, which they considered “valuable targets for vaccine and cell-based therapies.

“These data further confirm that epitope-specific CD8+ T cells are a universal feature of the overall norovirus immune response and could be an attractive target for future vaccines,” the investigators wrote.

Additional testing involving samples of spleen, mesenteric lymph nodes, and duodenum from deceased individuals showed presence of norovirus-specific CD8+ T cells, with particular abundance in intestinal tissue, and distinct phenotypes and functional properties in different tissue types.

“Future studies using tetramers and intestinal samples should build on these observations and fully define the location and microenvironment of norovirus-specific T cells,” the investigators wrote. “If carried out in the context of a vaccine trial, such studies could be highly valuable in elucidating tissue-resident memory correlates of norovirus immunity.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the Wellcome Trust, and Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.

Protection against norovirus gastroenteritis is supported in part by norovirus-specific CD8+ T cells that reside in peripheral, intestinal, and lymphoid tissues, according to investigators.

These findings, and the molecular tools used to discover them, could guide development of a norovirus vaccine and novel cellular therapies, according to lead author Ajinkya Pattekar, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues.

“Currently, there are no approved pharmacologic therapies against norovirus, and despite several promising clinical trials, an effective vaccine is not available,” the investigators wrote in Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology, which may stem from an incomplete understanding of norovirus immunity, according to Dr. Pattekar and colleagues.

They noted that most previous research has focused on humoral immunity, which appears variable between individuals, with some people exhibiting a strong humoral response, while others mount only partial humoral protection. The investigators also noted that, depending on which studies were examined, this type of defense could last years or fade within weeks to months and that “immune mechanisms other than antibodies may be important for protection against noroviruses.”

Specifically, cellular immunity may be at work. A 2020 study involving volunteers showed that T cells were cross-reactive to a type of norovirus the participants had never been exposed to.

“These findings suggest that T cells may target conserved epitopes and could offer cross-protection against a broad range of noroviruses,” Dr. Pattekar and colleagues wrote.

To test this hypothesis, they first collected peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) from three healthy volunteers with unknown norovirus exposure history. Then serum samples were screened for norovirus functional antibodies via the binding between virus-like particles (VLPs) and histo–blood group antigens (HBGAs). This revealed disparate profiles of blocking antibodies against various norovirus strains. While donor 1 and donor 2 had antibodies against multiple strains, donor 3 lacked norovirus antibodies. Further testing showed that this latter individual was a nonsecretor with limited exposure history.

Next, the investigators tested donor PBMCs for norovirus-specific T-cell responses with use of overlapping libraries of peptides for each of the three norovirus open reading frames (ORF1, ORF2, and ORF3). T-cell responses, predominantly involving CD8+ T cells, were observed in all donors. While donor 1 had the greatest response to ORF1, donors 2 and 3 had responses that focused on ORF2.

“Thus, norovirus-specific T cells targeting ORF1 and ORF2 epitopes are present in peripheral blood from healthy donors regardless of secretor status,” the investigators wrote.

To better characterize T-cell epitopes, the investigators subdivided the overlapping peptide libraries into groups of shorter peptides, then exposed serum to these smaller component pools. This revealed eight HLA class I restricted epitopes that were derived from a genogroup II.4 pandemic norovirus strain; this group of variants has been responsible for all six of the norovirus pandemics since 1996.

Closer examination of the epitopes showed that they were “broadly conserved beyond GII.4.” Only one epitope exhibited variation in the C-terminal aromatic anchor, and it was nondominant. The investigators therefore identified seven immunodominant CD8+ epitopes, which they considered “valuable targets for vaccine and cell-based therapies.

“These data further confirm that epitope-specific CD8+ T cells are a universal feature of the overall norovirus immune response and could be an attractive target for future vaccines,” the investigators wrote.

Additional testing involving samples of spleen, mesenteric lymph nodes, and duodenum from deceased individuals showed presence of norovirus-specific CD8+ T cells, with particular abundance in intestinal tissue, and distinct phenotypes and functional properties in different tissue types.

“Future studies using tetramers and intestinal samples should build on these observations and fully define the location and microenvironment of norovirus-specific T cells,” the investigators wrote. “If carried out in the context of a vaccine trial, such studies could be highly valuable in elucidating tissue-resident memory correlates of norovirus immunity.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the Wellcome Trust, and Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.

Incorporation of a nonintensive fitness intervention for women with obesity into a standard fertility treatment program could be cost effective, a new analysis finds.

Financial data for the Canadian Fit-for-Fertility program were presented March 20 at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society by Matea Belan, PhD, of the division of endocrinology at the University of Sherbrooke (Que.).

Women with obesity and infertility are typically advised to lose 5%-10% of their body weight as first-line fertility treatment, as doing so has been shown to increase rates of ovulation and pregnancy. But most established fertility treatment programs don’t incorporate organized lifestyle modification interventions, Dr. Belan explained during a press briefing.

“Mostly they’re just given general advice, not resources. It’s up to the woman to seek help for lifestyle. Our idea is to give them access to intervention that’s integrated into the setting of a fertility clinic,” she said.

Primary results from the Fit-for-Fertility program, including significant weight loss and a 40% increased live birth rate at 18 months, compared with standard fertility treatment, were presented at ENDO 2019 and reported at the time by this news organization.

In the new analysis, the cost in Canadian dollars per additional newborn achieved with the Fit-for-Fertility program was similar to the willingness-to-pay for in vitro fertilization from a health system perspective.

The final goal, lead investigator Jean-Patrice Baillargeon, MD, said in an interview, “would be to convince stakeholders, and mainly the provincial government, to cover the costs of our lifestyle program. This would not be more costly than funding IVF, but [would provide] more long-term benefits for the whole family and the offspring.”

Chloe A. Zera, MD, said in an interview that she supports the idea in principle, but is concerned that, in the U.S. health care system, women don’t always have access to fertility and obesity treatments to begin with.

“There’s a huge equity issue. People with Medicaid don’t necessarily get coverage for IVF. ... Even many commercially insured people are paying out of pocket, which can be $10,000 to $15,000 for a cycle just for the medications, so the cost to patients on the individual level is huge,” said Dr. Zera, who is associate professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

She added: “I’m prolifestyle modification. I’m also proequity in health care delivery so I would want to make sure that the way it’s delivered incorporates that as a consideration. ... Is that money better spent on primary prevention of obesity and access to basic services and basic reproductive health care for everybody?”
 

Primary results: Improvements in overall and spontaneous pregnancy rates

The study included 130 women with infertility and a body mass index of at least 30 kg/m2 (mean, 40), of whom 65 were randomized to the Fit-for-Fitness program and 65 to standard fertility treatment that did not include a lifestyle intervention, although those women could consult professionals on their own. The women in the lifestyle intervention group had to stop medical fertility treatments for the first 6 months but could use them thereafter while the controls continued to use them throughout.

Based on motivational interviewing, the program focused on womens’ individual likes and dislikes, experiences, and perceived capacities, aiming to improve healthful habits gradually and with “low intensity” so as to maintain them in the long run.

The program combined individual sessions with a nutritionist and kinesiologist every 6 weeks and 12 mandatory group sessions. The women were asked to reduce their total caloric intake by about 500 calories/day but weren’t asked to change their diets. They were also advised to increase physical activity by about 150 minutes/week.

“We want to keep it sustainable in time, so they don’t have a relapse when they become pregnant, and to help the newborn and spouse too. It’s about improving and maintaining habits,” Dr. Belan explained during the briefing.

At 6 months, mean weight changes were –3.4% versus –0.89% for the intervention versus control groups (P = .003).

“What is important for women with obesity and infertility is to improve their lifestyle, both physical activity and nutrition, even if the weight loss is minimal,” noted Dr. Baillargeon, professor of medicine, health sciences research and physiology, also at the University of Sherbrooke.

A total of 46 intervention and 52 control patients finished the 18-month study. Pregnancies occurred in 61% of the intervention group versus 39% of the controls, while spontaneous pregnancies – among those not using medical fertility treatments – occurred in 33.3% versus 12.3% (P = .009).

The primary outcome, live births at 18 months, occurred in 51.0% of the intervention group versus 36.8% of controls, which wasn’t a statistically significant difference, but was “highly clinically significant,” Dr. Belan said.
 

Cost per additional newborn similar to IVF

Costs (in Canadian dollars) considered in the analysis included those related to the management of infertility, obesity, pregnancy, and childbirth. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, a standard cost-effectiveness measure, per live birth were $24,393 from a societal perspective, $12,633 for the health system, and $5,980 for the patient.

Because the $12,633 health system cost per additional newborn with the Fit-for-Fertility program is similar to the health system’s willingness-to-pay for IVF of up to $15,000, a lifestyle intervention could be considered cost-efficient compared with the standard of care, Dr. Belan said.

“We think that the Fit-for-Fertility program could be deemed cost effective and could represent an interesting alternative to the usual standard of care for women with obesity seeking fertility treatments,” she commented.

The Canadian Institutes of Health Research is funding a larger randomized, controlled trial of the program at six Canadian centers to validate these results.

Dr. Belan, Dr. Baillargeon, and Dr. Zera reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Incorporation of a nonintensive fitness intervention for women with obesity into a standard fertility treatment program could be cost effective, a new analysis finds.

Financial data for the Canadian Fit-for-Fertility program were presented March 20 at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society by Matea Belan, PhD, of the division of endocrinology at the University of Sherbrooke (Que.).

Women with obesity and infertility are typically advised to lose 5%-10% of their body weight as first-line fertility treatment, as doing so has been shown to increase rates of ovulation and pregnancy. But most established fertility treatment programs don’t incorporate organized lifestyle modification interventions, Dr. Belan explained during a press briefing.

“Mostly they’re just given general advice, not resources. It’s up to the woman to seek help for lifestyle. Our idea is to give them access to intervention that’s integrated into the setting of a fertility clinic,” she said.

Primary results from the Fit-for-Fertility program, including significant weight loss and a 40% increased live birth rate at 18 months, compared with standard fertility treatment, were presented at ENDO 2019 and reported at the time by this news organization.

In the new analysis, the cost in Canadian dollars per additional newborn achieved with the Fit-for-Fertility program was similar to the willingness-to-pay for in vitro fertilization from a health system perspective.

The final goal, lead investigator Jean-Patrice Baillargeon, MD, said in an interview, “would be to convince stakeholders, and mainly the provincial government, to cover the costs of our lifestyle program. This would not be more costly than funding IVF, but [would provide] more long-term benefits for the whole family and the offspring.”

Chloe A. Zera, MD, said in an interview that she supports the idea in principle, but is concerned that, in the U.S. health care system, women don’t always have access to fertility and obesity treatments to begin with.

“There’s a huge equity issue. People with Medicaid don’t necessarily get coverage for IVF. ... Even many commercially insured people are paying out of pocket, which can be $10,000 to $15,000 for a cycle just for the medications, so the cost to patients on the individual level is huge,” said Dr. Zera, who is associate professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

She added: “I’m prolifestyle modification. I’m also proequity in health care delivery so I would want to make sure that the way it’s delivered incorporates that as a consideration. ... Is that money better spent on primary prevention of obesity and access to basic services and basic reproductive health care for everybody?”
 

Primary results: Improvements in overall and spontaneous pregnancy rates

The study included 130 women with infertility and a body mass index of at least 30 kg/m2 (mean, 40), of whom 65 were randomized to the Fit-for-Fitness program and 65 to standard fertility treatment that did not include a lifestyle intervention, although those women could consult professionals on their own. The women in the lifestyle intervention group had to stop medical fertility treatments for the first 6 months but could use them thereafter while the controls continued to use them throughout.

Based on motivational interviewing, the program focused on womens’ individual likes and dislikes, experiences, and perceived capacities, aiming to improve healthful habits gradually and with “low intensity” so as to maintain them in the long run.

The program combined individual sessions with a nutritionist and kinesiologist every 6 weeks and 12 mandatory group sessions. The women were asked to reduce their total caloric intake by about 500 calories/day but weren’t asked to change their diets. They were also advised to increase physical activity by about 150 minutes/week.

“We want to keep it sustainable in time, so they don’t have a relapse when they become pregnant, and to help the newborn and spouse too. It’s about improving and maintaining habits,” Dr. Belan explained during the briefing.

At 6 months, mean weight changes were –3.4% versus –0.89% for the intervention versus control groups (P = .003).

“What is important for women with obesity and infertility is to improve their lifestyle, both physical activity and nutrition, even if the weight loss is minimal,” noted Dr. Baillargeon, professor of medicine, health sciences research and physiology, also at the University of Sherbrooke.

A total of 46 intervention and 52 control patients finished the 18-month study. Pregnancies occurred in 61% of the intervention group versus 39% of the controls, while spontaneous pregnancies – among those not using medical fertility treatments – occurred in 33.3% versus 12.3% (P = .009).

The primary outcome, live births at 18 months, occurred in 51.0% of the intervention group versus 36.8% of controls, which wasn’t a statistically significant difference, but was “highly clinically significant,” Dr. Belan said.
 

Cost per additional newborn similar to IVF

Costs (in Canadian dollars) considered in the analysis included those related to the management of infertility, obesity, pregnancy, and childbirth. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, a standard cost-effectiveness measure, per live birth were $24,393 from a societal perspective, $12,633 for the health system, and $5,980 for the patient.

Because the $12,633 health system cost per additional newborn with the Fit-for-Fertility program is similar to the health system’s willingness-to-pay for IVF of up to $15,000, a lifestyle intervention could be considered cost-efficient compared with the standard of care, Dr. Belan said.

“We think that the Fit-for-Fertility program could be deemed cost effective and could represent an interesting alternative to the usual standard of care for women with obesity seeking fertility treatments,” she commented.

The Canadian Institutes of Health Research is funding a larger randomized, controlled trial of the program at six Canadian centers to validate these results.

Dr. Belan, Dr. Baillargeon, and Dr. Zera reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Incorporation of a nonintensive fitness intervention for women with obesity into a standard fertility treatment program could be cost effective, a new analysis finds.

Financial data for the Canadian Fit-for-Fertility program were presented March 20 at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society by Matea Belan, PhD, of the division of endocrinology at the University of Sherbrooke (Que.).

Women with obesity and infertility are typically advised to lose 5%-10% of their body weight as first-line fertility treatment, as doing so has been shown to increase rates of ovulation and pregnancy. But most established fertility treatment programs don’t incorporate organized lifestyle modification interventions, Dr. Belan explained during a press briefing.

“Mostly they’re just given general advice, not resources. It’s up to the woman to seek help for lifestyle. Our idea is to give them access to intervention that’s integrated into the setting of a fertility clinic,” she said.

Primary results from the Fit-for-Fertility program, including significant weight loss and a 40% increased live birth rate at 18 months, compared with standard fertility treatment, were presented at ENDO 2019 and reported at the time by this news organization.

In the new analysis, the cost in Canadian dollars per additional newborn achieved with the Fit-for-Fertility program was similar to the willingness-to-pay for in vitro fertilization from a health system perspective.

The final goal, lead investigator Jean-Patrice Baillargeon, MD, said in an interview, “would be to convince stakeholders, and mainly the provincial government, to cover the costs of our lifestyle program. This would not be more costly than funding IVF, but [would provide] more long-term benefits for the whole family and the offspring.”

Chloe A. Zera, MD, said in an interview that she supports the idea in principle, but is concerned that, in the U.S. health care system, women don’t always have access to fertility and obesity treatments to begin with.

“There’s a huge equity issue. People with Medicaid don’t necessarily get coverage for IVF. ... Even many commercially insured people are paying out of pocket, which can be $10,000 to $15,000 for a cycle just for the medications, so the cost to patients on the individual level is huge,” said Dr. Zera, who is associate professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

She added: “I’m prolifestyle modification. I’m also proequity in health care delivery so I would want to make sure that the way it’s delivered incorporates that as a consideration. ... Is that money better spent on primary prevention of obesity and access to basic services and basic reproductive health care for everybody?”
 

Primary results: Improvements in overall and spontaneous pregnancy rates

The study included 130 women with infertility and a body mass index of at least 30 kg/m2 (mean, 40), of whom 65 were randomized to the Fit-for-Fitness program and 65 to standard fertility treatment that did not include a lifestyle intervention, although those women could consult professionals on their own. The women in the lifestyle intervention group had to stop medical fertility treatments for the first 6 months but could use them thereafter while the controls continued to use them throughout.

Based on motivational interviewing, the program focused on womens’ individual likes and dislikes, experiences, and perceived capacities, aiming to improve healthful habits gradually and with “low intensity” so as to maintain them in the long run.

The program combined individual sessions with a nutritionist and kinesiologist every 6 weeks and 12 mandatory group sessions. The women were asked to reduce their total caloric intake by about 500 calories/day but weren’t asked to change their diets. They were also advised to increase physical activity by about 150 minutes/week.

“We want to keep it sustainable in time, so they don’t have a relapse when they become pregnant, and to help the newborn and spouse too. It’s about improving and maintaining habits,” Dr. Belan explained during the briefing.

At 6 months, mean weight changes were –3.4% versus –0.89% for the intervention versus control groups (P = .003).

“What is important for women with obesity and infertility is to improve their lifestyle, both physical activity and nutrition, even if the weight loss is minimal,” noted Dr. Baillargeon, professor of medicine, health sciences research and physiology, also at the University of Sherbrooke.

A total of 46 intervention and 52 control patients finished the 18-month study. Pregnancies occurred in 61% of the intervention group versus 39% of the controls, while spontaneous pregnancies – among those not using medical fertility treatments – occurred in 33.3% versus 12.3% (P = .009).

The primary outcome, live births at 18 months, occurred in 51.0% of the intervention group versus 36.8% of controls, which wasn’t a statistically significant difference, but was “highly clinically significant,” Dr. Belan said.
 

Cost per additional newborn similar to IVF

Costs (in Canadian dollars) considered in the analysis included those related to the management of infertility, obesity, pregnancy, and childbirth. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, a standard cost-effectiveness measure, per live birth were $24,393 from a societal perspective, $12,633 for the health system, and $5,980 for the patient.

Because the $12,633 health system cost per additional newborn with the Fit-for-Fertility program is similar to the health system’s willingness-to-pay for IVF of up to $15,000, a lifestyle intervention could be considered cost-efficient compared with the standard of care, Dr. Belan said.

“We think that the Fit-for-Fertility program could be deemed cost effective and could represent an interesting alternative to the usual standard of care for women with obesity seeking fertility treatments,” she commented.

The Canadian Institutes of Health Research is funding a larger randomized, controlled trial of the program at six Canadian centers to validate these results.

Dr. Belan, Dr. Baillargeon, and Dr. Zera reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new protocol designed to help patients in rheumatology clinics quit smoking proved both efficient and effective in referring willing participants to free tobacco quit lines.

seanika/ThinkStock

“Rheumatology visits provide a unique opportunity to address smoking as a chronic modifiable risk factor in populations at high risk for cardiovascular disease, pulmonary disease, and rheumatic disease progression,” wrote Christie M. Bartels, MD, chief of the division of rheumatology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and colleagues. The study was published in Arthritis Care & Research.

To assess the effectiveness of implementing a smoking cessation protocol for patients with rheumatic diseases, the researchers launched a quasi-experimental cohort study in which their Quit Connect protocol was tested at three rheumatology clinics. Adapting the Ask, Advise, Connect primary care protocol to a new setting, nurses and medical assistants were trained to use electronic health record (EHR) prompts that would check if patients who smoked were ready to quit within 30 days, advise them to do so, and then use electronic referrals to connect them to state-run tobacco quit lines. An extended baseline period – October 2012 to March 2016 – was compared to a 6-month intervention period from April to October 2016.

Across 54,090 pre- and postimplementation rheumatology clinic visits, 4,601 were with current smokers. Demographics were similar across both periods: The mean age of the patients was 51 years, about two-thirds were female, and 85% were White.

Clinicians’ assessment of tobacco use before and after implementation of the program stayed steady at 96% of patient visits, but the percentage of tobacco users’ visits that included checking for readiness to quit within the next 30 days rose from 3% (135 of 4,078) to 80% (421 of 523).

Before the implementation of the program, 0.6% of eligible visits with current smokers included a quit-line referral offer. After implementation, 93 (18%) of the 523 smokers who visited – 122 of whom said they were ready to quit – were offered referrals, a 26-fold increase. Of the 93 offered referrals, 66 (71%) accepted and 16 set a quit date or reported having quit; 11 accepted counseling services and nicotine replacement.

Although clinic staff reported encountering several obstacles, such as the need to craft nonthreatening language for challenging patients, they also contributed their own talking points that were included in the EHR tools and desktop brochures. On average, the protocol took less than 90 seconds to perform.

Rheumatologists can make headway on patients quitting smoking

“While smoking cessation programs require time and resources to implement, this study suggests a role for evidence-based protocols within rheumatology centers,” Medha Barbhaiya, MD, a rheumatologist at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, said in an interview. “Given that current smokers are at an increased risk of developing more severe rheumatic disease and cardiovascular disease, and patients often visit their rheumatologist multiple times yearly, rheumatologists may be well-positioned to address smoking cessation with patients.”

In regard to next steps, she noted that “while future large studies in diverse cohorts are needed to confirm these findings, implementing a formal smoking cessation protocol within rheumatology centers may provide a unique opportunity for rheumatologists to directly help patients modify their disease risk, leading to improved health outcomes.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including the fact that it was a prepost design and not a randomized trial. They also recognized that many tobacco users require 8-10 attempts before permanently quitting, likely lessening the lasting impact of the short-term study. They did cite expert analysis, however, that says “connecting patients to evidence-based resources makes them more likely to permanently quit.”

The study was supported in part by Pfizer’s office of Independent Grants for Learning and Change and by a grant collaboration from the University of Wisconsin Clinical and Translational Science Award and the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health’s Wisconsin Partnership Program, through the NIH National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences.

A new protocol designed to help patients in rheumatology clinics quit smoking proved both efficient and effective in referring willing participants to free tobacco quit lines.

seanika/ThinkStock

“Rheumatology visits provide a unique opportunity to address smoking as a chronic modifiable risk factor in populations at high risk for cardiovascular disease, pulmonary disease, and rheumatic disease progression,” wrote Christie M. Bartels, MD, chief of the division of rheumatology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and colleagues. The study was published in Arthritis Care & Research.

To assess the effectiveness of implementing a smoking cessation protocol for patients with rheumatic diseases, the researchers launched a quasi-experimental cohort study in which their Quit Connect protocol was tested at three rheumatology clinics. Adapting the Ask, Advise, Connect primary care protocol to a new setting, nurses and medical assistants were trained to use electronic health record (EHR) prompts that would check if patients who smoked were ready to quit within 30 days, advise them to do so, and then use electronic referrals to connect them to state-run tobacco quit lines. An extended baseline period – October 2012 to March 2016 – was compared to a 6-month intervention period from April to October 2016.

Across 54,090 pre- and postimplementation rheumatology clinic visits, 4,601 were with current smokers. Demographics were similar across both periods: The mean age of the patients was 51 years, about two-thirds were female, and 85% were White.

Clinicians’ assessment of tobacco use before and after implementation of the program stayed steady at 96% of patient visits, but the percentage of tobacco users’ visits that included checking for readiness to quit within the next 30 days rose from 3% (135 of 4,078) to 80% (421 of 523).

Before the implementation of the program, 0.6% of eligible visits with current smokers included a quit-line referral offer. After implementation, 93 (18%) of the 523 smokers who visited – 122 of whom said they were ready to quit – were offered referrals, a 26-fold increase. Of the 93 offered referrals, 66 (71%) accepted and 16 set a quit date or reported having quit; 11 accepted counseling services and nicotine replacement.

Although clinic staff reported encountering several obstacles, such as the need to craft nonthreatening language for challenging patients, they also contributed their own talking points that were included in the EHR tools and desktop brochures. On average, the protocol took less than 90 seconds to perform.

Rheumatologists can make headway on patients quitting smoking

“While smoking cessation programs require time and resources to implement, this study suggests a role for evidence-based protocols within rheumatology centers,” Medha Barbhaiya, MD, a rheumatologist at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, said in an interview. “Given that current smokers are at an increased risk of developing more severe rheumatic disease and cardiovascular disease, and patients often visit their rheumatologist multiple times yearly, rheumatologists may be well-positioned to address smoking cessation with patients.”

In regard to next steps, she noted that “while future large studies in diverse cohorts are needed to confirm these findings, implementing a formal smoking cessation protocol within rheumatology centers may provide a unique opportunity for rheumatologists to directly help patients modify their disease risk, leading to improved health outcomes.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including the fact that it was a prepost design and not a randomized trial. They also recognized that many tobacco users require 8-10 attempts before permanently quitting, likely lessening the lasting impact of the short-term study. They did cite expert analysis, however, that says “connecting patients to evidence-based resources makes them more likely to permanently quit.”

The study was supported in part by Pfizer’s office of Independent Grants for Learning and Change and by a grant collaboration from the University of Wisconsin Clinical and Translational Science Award and the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health’s Wisconsin Partnership Program, through the NIH National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences.

A new protocol designed to help patients in rheumatology clinics quit smoking proved both efficient and effective in referring willing participants to free tobacco quit lines.

seanika/ThinkStock

“Rheumatology visits provide a unique opportunity to address smoking as a chronic modifiable risk factor in populations at high risk for cardiovascular disease, pulmonary disease, and rheumatic disease progression,” wrote Christie M. Bartels, MD, chief of the division of rheumatology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and colleagues. The study was published in Arthritis Care & Research.

To assess the effectiveness of implementing a smoking cessation protocol for patients with rheumatic diseases, the researchers launched a quasi-experimental cohort study in which their Quit Connect protocol was tested at three rheumatology clinics. Adapting the Ask, Advise, Connect primary care protocol to a new setting, nurses and medical assistants were trained to use electronic health record (EHR) prompts that would check if patients who smoked were ready to quit within 30 days, advise them to do so, and then use electronic referrals to connect them to state-run tobacco quit lines. An extended baseline period – October 2012 to March 2016 – was compared to a 6-month intervention period from April to October 2016.

Across 54,090 pre- and postimplementation rheumatology clinic visits, 4,601 were with current smokers. Demographics were similar across both periods: The mean age of the patients was 51 years, about two-thirds were female, and 85% were White.

Clinicians’ assessment of tobacco use before and after implementation of the program stayed steady at 96% of patient visits, but the percentage of tobacco users’ visits that included checking for readiness to quit within the next 30 days rose from 3% (135 of 4,078) to 80% (421 of 523).

Before the implementation of the program, 0.6% of eligible visits with current smokers included a quit-line referral offer. After implementation, 93 (18%) of the 523 smokers who visited – 122 of whom said they were ready to quit – were offered referrals, a 26-fold increase. Of the 93 offered referrals, 66 (71%) accepted and 16 set a quit date or reported having quit; 11 accepted counseling services and nicotine replacement.

Although clinic staff reported encountering several obstacles, such as the need to craft nonthreatening language for challenging patients, they also contributed their own talking points that were included in the EHR tools and desktop brochures. On average, the protocol took less than 90 seconds to perform.

Rheumatologists can make headway on patients quitting smoking

“While smoking cessation programs require time and resources to implement, this study suggests a role for evidence-based protocols within rheumatology centers,” Medha Barbhaiya, MD, a rheumatologist at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, said in an interview. “Given that current smokers are at an increased risk of developing more severe rheumatic disease and cardiovascular disease, and patients often visit their rheumatologist multiple times yearly, rheumatologists may be well-positioned to address smoking cessation with patients.”

In regard to next steps, she noted that “while future large studies in diverse cohorts are needed to confirm these findings, implementing a formal smoking cessation protocol within rheumatology centers may provide a unique opportunity for rheumatologists to directly help patients modify their disease risk, leading to improved health outcomes.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including the fact that it was a prepost design and not a randomized trial. They also recognized that many tobacco users require 8-10 attempts before permanently quitting, likely lessening the lasting impact of the short-term study. They did cite expert analysis, however, that says “connecting patients to evidence-based resources makes them more likely to permanently quit.”

The study was supported in part by Pfizer’s office of Independent Grants for Learning and Change and by a grant collaboration from the University of Wisconsin Clinical and Translational Science Award and the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health’s Wisconsin Partnership Program, through the NIH National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences.

Last year, cancer screening programs around the world ground to a halt as SARS-CoV-2 infection rates surged globally. The effect of this slowdown is now becoming clear.

Thousands of cancer diagnoses are “missing,” and oncologists worry that this will lead to more advanced cancers and higher mortality for years to come.

“I feel like this is an earthquake that’s rocked our health care system. My guess is that you’ll probably still see repercussions of this over the next couple of years at least,” said Sharon Chang, MD, an attending surgical oncologist in the Permanente Medical Group, Fremont, Calif.

She was senior author of a study that analyzed the effects of the slowdown in mammography screening as a result of California’s “shelter-in-place” order on March 17, 2020. In the 2 months that followed, there were 64% fewer breast cancer diagnoses at 21 Kaiser Permanente medical centers, compared with the same period in 2019 (250 vs. 703).

In effect, approximately 450 breast cancer patients had “disappeared,” said coauthor Annie Tang, MD, a research fellow at the University of California, San Francisco, East Bay surgery program.

“What surprised me most from our data was the sheer number of breast cancer patients that were missing,” Dr. Tang said in an interview.

A similar picture has emerged elsewhere.

In Boston, an estimated 1,438 cancerous and precancerous lesions “went missing” during the first 3 months of pandemic shutdown, according to a study from the Massachusetts General Brigham health care system.

In this study, the investigators assessed screening rates for five cancers – breast cancer (mammography), prostate cancer (prostate-specific antigen testing), colorectal cancer (colonoscopy), cervical cancer (Papanicolaou tests), and lung cancer (low-dose CT).

Screening rates during the first peak of the pandemic (March 2 to June 2, 2020) were compared with those during the preceding and following 3 months and during the same 3 months in 2019.

The results showed a pronounced drop in screening rates during the peak pandemic period, compared with the three control periods. Decreases occurred for all screening tests and ranged from –60% to –82%.

There were also significant decreases in cancer diagnoses resulting from the decreases in screening tests, ranging from –19% to –78%.

“Quantifying the actual problem made us realize how much work needs to be done to get us back to prepandemic numbers,” said senior author Quoc-Dien Trinh, MD, FACS, codirector of the Dana Farber/Brigham and Women’s prostate cancer program.

In the Canadian province of Alberta, a similar decrease in cancer diagnoses occurred during the early days of the pandemic.

By the end of 2020, Alberta was “missing” approximately 2,000 cases of invasive cancers and 1,000 cases of noninvasive cancers, Doug Stewart, MD, senior medical director at the Cancer Strategic Clinical Network (SCN) of Alberta Health Services, told this news organization.

Dr. Stewart is able to track cancer diagnoses in Alberta almost in real time through a mandatory cancer registry. Within a month of shutdown, there was a 30% decrease in diagnoses of invasive cancers and a 50% decrease “in the kind of preinvasive cancers that, for the most part, are picked up by screening programs,” said Dr. Stewart.

After the health care system opened up again in the summer, Stewart said, noninvasive cancer diagnoses continued to be 20% lower than expected. There was a 10% shortfall in invasive cancer diagnoses.

The number of diagnoses had returned to normal by December 2020. However, Dr. Stewart is worried that this fact conceals a terrible truth.

The worry is over the backlog. Although the number of diagnoses is now similar to what it was before the pandemic, “people are presenting later, and maybe the cancer is more advanced,” he speculated.

His team at Alberta Health Services is assessing whether the cancers that are being diagnosed now are more advanced. Initial results are anticipated by late April 2021.

In the United Kingdom, there was a similar halt in cancer screening as a result of the country’s lockdown. Researchers now predict an uptick in cancer diagnoses.

Ajay Aggarwal, MD, PhD, consultant clinical oncologist and associate professor at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and colleagues have estimated that at least 3,500 deaths from breast, colorectal, esophageal, and lung cancer will occur during the next 5 years in England that could have been avoided had it not been for the lockdown measures necessitated by the pandemic.

Speaking to this news organization, Dr. Aggarwal warned that these numbers, which are from a modeling study published in August 2020, are “extremely conservative,” because the investigators considered diagnostic delays over only a 3-month period, the analysis involved only four cancers, and it did not reflect deferral of cancer treatment.

“It felt like it was the tip of the iceberg,” Dr. Aggarwal said. He warns that more recent data suggest that “diagnostic delays are probably worse than we predicted.”

He suspects that there is more at play than screening cancellations.

In another study conducted in the United Kingdom, data show “a falling edge of referrals” from primary care to cancer centers early in the pandemic. In that study, investigators analyzed real-time weekly hospital data from eight large British hospitals and found that urgent cancer referrals fell 70% at their lowest point.

“It really surprised me that the urgent referrals dropped so drastically,” said lead author Alvina Lai, PhD, a lecturer in health data analytics at University College London.

She attributed this in part to patients’ adherence to lockdown rules. “Patients are trying to follow government guidelines to stay home and not go to [general practitioners] unless necessary,” Dr. Lai explained in an interview.

Canada, like the United Kingdom, has a publicly funded health care system. Dr. Stewart came to a similar conclusion. “Some patients who have been diagnosed with cancer ... have told me it took them an extra couple of months to even contact the family doc, because they ... didn’t want to bother the family doctor with something that wasn’t COVID, this kind of guilt. They want to do something good for society. You know, most people are just really nice people, and they don’t want to bother the health care system if they don’t have COVID,” Dr. Stewart said.

Shelley Fuld Nasso, CEO of the National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship, a nonprofit organization based in Silver Spring, Md., agreed that screening shutdowns are not the only danger. “While we agree that screening is really important, we also want to make sure patients are following up with their physicians about symptoms that they have,” she said.

“Some of the speculation or concern about increased mortality for cancer is related to screening, but some of it is related to delayed diagnosis because of not following up on symptoms. ... What concerns me is not everyone has that ability or willingness to advocate for themselves,” she said.

Speaking at a press briefing held by the American Society for Radiation Oncology on March 30, Dr. Nasso related a case involving a patient who experienced severe arm pain. In a teleconsultation with her primary care physician, her condition was diagnosed as arthritis. She was subsequently diagnosed in the ED as having multiple myeloma.

Patients who “feel fine” may postpone their checkups to avoid going to the hospital and risking exposure to COVID-19.

“Some patients are still hesitant about returning for their mammograms or coming in if they feel a breast lump,” Dr. Tang said. “That fear of COVID-19 is still out there, and we don’t know how long patients are going to delay.”

In London, Dr. Aggarwal saw a similar response to the pandemic. “People were overestimating quite significantly what their risk of death was from acquiring COVID-19, and I think that balance was never [redressed] explicitly,” he said.

Public health initiatives to rebalance the messaging are now underway.

Public Health England and National Health Service England launched their Help Us Help You campaign in October 2020. The public information campaign urges people to speak to their doctors if they were “worried about a symptom that could be cancer.”

In Canada, the provincial government in Alberta has launched a public awareness campaign that conveys the message, “cancer has not gone away.”

“Cancer is still the No. 1 cause of potential life-years lost, despite COVID,” Dr. Stewart said. “We need to do what we can to make sure there’s no slippage in survival rates.”

Dr. Tang, Dr. Chang, Dr. Lai, Dr. Stewart, and Dr. Aggarwal have disclosed no relevant financial relationship. Dr. Trinh has received personal fees from Astellas, Bayer, and Janssen and grants from Intuitive Surgical.

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

Last year, cancer screening programs around the world ground to a halt as SARS-CoV-2 infection rates surged globally. The effect of this slowdown is now becoming clear.

Thousands of cancer diagnoses are “missing,” and oncologists worry that this will lead to more advanced cancers and higher mortality for years to come.

“I feel like this is an earthquake that’s rocked our health care system. My guess is that you’ll probably still see repercussions of this over the next couple of years at least,” said Sharon Chang, MD, an attending surgical oncologist in the Permanente Medical Group, Fremont, Calif.

She was senior author of a study that analyzed the effects of the slowdown in mammography screening as a result of California’s “shelter-in-place” order on March 17, 2020. In the 2 months that followed, there were 64% fewer breast cancer diagnoses at 21 Kaiser Permanente medical centers, compared with the same period in 2019 (250 vs. 703).

In effect, approximately 450 breast cancer patients had “disappeared,” said coauthor Annie Tang, MD, a research fellow at the University of California, San Francisco, East Bay surgery program.

“What surprised me most from our data was the sheer number of breast cancer patients that were missing,” Dr. Tang said in an interview.

A similar picture has emerged elsewhere.

In Boston, an estimated 1,438 cancerous and precancerous lesions “went missing” during the first 3 months of pandemic shutdown, according to a study from the Massachusetts General Brigham health care system.

In this study, the investigators assessed screening rates for five cancers – breast cancer (mammography), prostate cancer (prostate-specific antigen testing), colorectal cancer (colonoscopy), cervical cancer (Papanicolaou tests), and lung cancer (low-dose CT).

Screening rates during the first peak of the pandemic (March 2 to June 2, 2020) were compared with those during the preceding and following 3 months and during the same 3 months in 2019.

The results showed a pronounced drop in screening rates during the peak pandemic period, compared with the three control periods. Decreases occurred for all screening tests and ranged from –60% to –82%.

There were also significant decreases in cancer diagnoses resulting from the decreases in screening tests, ranging from –19% to –78%.

“Quantifying the actual problem made us realize how much work needs to be done to get us back to prepandemic numbers,” said senior author Quoc-Dien Trinh, MD, FACS, codirector of the Dana Farber/Brigham and Women’s prostate cancer program.

In the Canadian province of Alberta, a similar decrease in cancer diagnoses occurred during the early days of the pandemic.

By the end of 2020, Alberta was “missing” approximately 2,000 cases of invasive cancers and 1,000 cases of noninvasive cancers, Doug Stewart, MD, senior medical director at the Cancer Strategic Clinical Network (SCN) of Alberta Health Services, told this news organization.

Dr. Stewart is able to track cancer diagnoses in Alberta almost in real time through a mandatory cancer registry. Within a month of shutdown, there was a 30% decrease in diagnoses of invasive cancers and a 50% decrease “in the kind of preinvasive cancers that, for the most part, are picked up by screening programs,” said Dr. Stewart.

After the health care system opened up again in the summer, Stewart said, noninvasive cancer diagnoses continued to be 20% lower than expected. There was a 10% shortfall in invasive cancer diagnoses.

The number of diagnoses had returned to normal by December 2020. However, Dr. Stewart is worried that this fact conceals a terrible truth.

The worry is over the backlog. Although the number of diagnoses is now similar to what it was before the pandemic, “people are presenting later, and maybe the cancer is more advanced,” he speculated.

His team at Alberta Health Services is assessing whether the cancers that are being diagnosed now are more advanced. Initial results are anticipated by late April 2021.

In the United Kingdom, there was a similar halt in cancer screening as a result of the country’s lockdown. Researchers now predict an uptick in cancer diagnoses.

Ajay Aggarwal, MD, PhD, consultant clinical oncologist and associate professor at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and colleagues have estimated that at least 3,500 deaths from breast, colorectal, esophageal, and lung cancer will occur during the next 5 years in England that could have been avoided had it not been for the lockdown measures necessitated by the pandemic.

Speaking to this news organization, Dr. Aggarwal warned that these numbers, which are from a modeling study published in August 2020, are “extremely conservative,” because the investigators considered diagnostic delays over only a 3-month period, the analysis involved only four cancers, and it did not reflect deferral of cancer treatment.

“It felt like it was the tip of the iceberg,” Dr. Aggarwal said. He warns that more recent data suggest that “diagnostic delays are probably worse than we predicted.”

He suspects that there is more at play than screening cancellations.

In another study conducted in the United Kingdom, data show “a falling edge of referrals” from primary care to cancer centers early in the pandemic. In that study, investigators analyzed real-time weekly hospital data from eight large British hospitals and found that urgent cancer referrals fell 70% at their lowest point.

“It really surprised me that the urgent referrals dropped so drastically,” said lead author Alvina Lai, PhD, a lecturer in health data analytics at University College London.

She attributed this in part to patients’ adherence to lockdown rules. “Patients are trying to follow government guidelines to stay home and not go to [general practitioners] unless necessary,” Dr. Lai explained in an interview.

Canada, like the United Kingdom, has a publicly funded health care system. Dr. Stewart came to a similar conclusion. “Some patients who have been diagnosed with cancer ... have told me it took them an extra couple of months to even contact the family doc, because they ... didn’t want to bother the family doctor with something that wasn’t COVID, this kind of guilt. They want to do something good for society. You know, most people are just really nice people, and they don’t want to bother the health care system if they don’t have COVID,” Dr. Stewart said.

Shelley Fuld Nasso, CEO of the National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship, a nonprofit organization based in Silver Spring, Md., agreed that screening shutdowns are not the only danger. “While we agree that screening is really important, we also want to make sure patients are following up with their physicians about symptoms that they have,” she said.

“Some of the speculation or concern about increased mortality for cancer is related to screening, but some of it is related to delayed diagnosis because of not following up on symptoms. ... What concerns me is not everyone has that ability or willingness to advocate for themselves,” she said.

Speaking at a press briefing held by the American Society for Radiation Oncology on March 30, Dr. Nasso related a case involving a patient who experienced severe arm pain. In a teleconsultation with her primary care physician, her condition was diagnosed as arthritis. She was subsequently diagnosed in the ED as having multiple myeloma.

Patients who “feel fine” may postpone their checkups to avoid going to the hospital and risking exposure to COVID-19.

“Some patients are still hesitant about returning for their mammograms or coming in if they feel a breast lump,” Dr. Tang said. “That fear of COVID-19 is still out there, and we don’t know how long patients are going to delay.”

In London, Dr. Aggarwal saw a similar response to the pandemic. “People were overestimating quite significantly what their risk of death was from acquiring COVID-19, and I think that balance was never [redressed] explicitly,” he said.

Public health initiatives to rebalance the messaging are now underway.

Public Health England and National Health Service England launched their Help Us Help You campaign in October 2020. The public information campaign urges people to speak to their doctors if they were “worried about a symptom that could be cancer.”

In Canada, the provincial government in Alberta has launched a public awareness campaign that conveys the message, “cancer has not gone away.”

“Cancer is still the No. 1 cause of potential life-years lost, despite COVID,” Dr. Stewart said. “We need to do what we can to make sure there’s no slippage in survival rates.”

Dr. Tang, Dr. Chang, Dr. Lai, Dr. Stewart, and Dr. Aggarwal have disclosed no relevant financial relationship. Dr. Trinh has received personal fees from Astellas, Bayer, and Janssen and grants from Intuitive Surgical.

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

Last year, cancer screening programs around the world ground to a halt as SARS-CoV-2 infection rates surged globally. The effect of this slowdown is now becoming clear.

Thousands of cancer diagnoses are “missing,” and oncologists worry that this will lead to more advanced cancers and higher mortality for years to come.

“I feel like this is an earthquake that’s rocked our health care system. My guess is that you’ll probably still see repercussions of this over the next couple of years at least,” said Sharon Chang, MD, an attending surgical oncologist in the Permanente Medical Group, Fremont, Calif.

She was senior author of a study that analyzed the effects of the slowdown in mammography screening as a result of California’s “shelter-in-place” order on March 17, 2020. In the 2 months that followed, there were 64% fewer breast cancer diagnoses at 21 Kaiser Permanente medical centers, compared with the same period in 2019 (250 vs. 703).

In effect, approximately 450 breast cancer patients had “disappeared,” said coauthor Annie Tang, MD, a research fellow at the University of California, San Francisco, East Bay surgery program.

“What surprised me most from our data was the sheer number of breast cancer patients that were missing,” Dr. Tang said in an interview.

A similar picture has emerged elsewhere.

In Boston, an estimated 1,438 cancerous and precancerous lesions “went missing” during the first 3 months of pandemic shutdown, according to a study from the Massachusetts General Brigham health care system.

In this study, the investigators assessed screening rates for five cancers – breast cancer (mammography), prostate cancer (prostate-specific antigen testing), colorectal cancer (colonoscopy), cervical cancer (Papanicolaou tests), and lung cancer (low-dose CT).

Screening rates during the first peak of the pandemic (March 2 to June 2, 2020) were compared with those during the preceding and following 3 months and during the same 3 months in 2019.

The results showed a pronounced drop in screening rates during the peak pandemic period, compared with the three control periods. Decreases occurred for all screening tests and ranged from –60% to –82%.

There were also significant decreases in cancer diagnoses resulting from the decreases in screening tests, ranging from –19% to –78%.

“Quantifying the actual problem made us realize how much work needs to be done to get us back to prepandemic numbers,” said senior author Quoc-Dien Trinh, MD, FACS, codirector of the Dana Farber/Brigham and Women’s prostate cancer program.

In the Canadian province of Alberta, a similar decrease in cancer diagnoses occurred during the early days of the pandemic.

By the end of 2020, Alberta was “missing” approximately 2,000 cases of invasive cancers and 1,000 cases of noninvasive cancers, Doug Stewart, MD, senior medical director at the Cancer Strategic Clinical Network (SCN) of Alberta Health Services, told this news organization.

Dr. Stewart is able to track cancer diagnoses in Alberta almost in real time through a mandatory cancer registry. Within a month of shutdown, there was a 30% decrease in diagnoses of invasive cancers and a 50% decrease “in the kind of preinvasive cancers that, for the most part, are picked up by screening programs,” said Dr. Stewart.

After the health care system opened up again in the summer, Stewart said, noninvasive cancer diagnoses continued to be 20% lower than expected. There was a 10% shortfall in invasive cancer diagnoses.

The number of diagnoses had returned to normal by December 2020. However, Dr. Stewart is worried that this fact conceals a terrible truth.

The worry is over the backlog. Although the number of diagnoses is now similar to what it was before the pandemic, “people are presenting later, and maybe the cancer is more advanced,” he speculated.

His team at Alberta Health Services is assessing whether the cancers that are being diagnosed now are more advanced. Initial results are anticipated by late April 2021.

In the United Kingdom, there was a similar halt in cancer screening as a result of the country’s lockdown. Researchers now predict an uptick in cancer diagnoses.

Ajay Aggarwal, MD, PhD, consultant clinical oncologist and associate professor at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and colleagues have estimated that at least 3,500 deaths from breast, colorectal, esophageal, and lung cancer will occur during the next 5 years in England that could have been avoided had it not been for the lockdown measures necessitated by the pandemic.

Speaking to this news organization, Dr. Aggarwal warned that these numbers, which are from a modeling study published in August 2020, are “extremely conservative,” because the investigators considered diagnostic delays over only a 3-month period, the analysis involved only four cancers, and it did not reflect deferral of cancer treatment.

“It felt like it was the tip of the iceberg,” Dr. Aggarwal said. He warns that more recent data suggest that “diagnostic delays are probably worse than we predicted.”

He suspects that there is more at play than screening cancellations.

In another study conducted in the United Kingdom, data show “a falling edge of referrals” from primary care to cancer centers early in the pandemic. In that study, investigators analyzed real-time weekly hospital data from eight large British hospitals and found that urgent cancer referrals fell 70% at their lowest point.

“It really surprised me that the urgent referrals dropped so drastically,” said lead author Alvina Lai, PhD, a lecturer in health data analytics at University College London.

She attributed this in part to patients’ adherence to lockdown rules. “Patients are trying to follow government guidelines to stay home and not go to [general practitioners] unless necessary,” Dr. Lai explained in an interview.

Canada, like the United Kingdom, has a publicly funded health care system. Dr. Stewart came to a similar conclusion. “Some patients who have been diagnosed with cancer ... have told me it took them an extra couple of months to even contact the family doc, because they ... didn’t want to bother the family doctor with something that wasn’t COVID, this kind of guilt. They want to do something good for society. You know, most people are just really nice people, and they don’t want to bother the health care system if they don’t have COVID,” Dr. Stewart said.

Shelley Fuld Nasso, CEO of the National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship, a nonprofit organization based in Silver Spring, Md., agreed that screening shutdowns are not the only danger. “While we agree that screening is really important, we also want to make sure patients are following up with their physicians about symptoms that they have,” she said.

“Some of the speculation or concern about increased mortality for cancer is related to screening, but some of it is related to delayed diagnosis because of not following up on symptoms. ... What concerns me is not everyone has that ability or willingness to advocate for themselves,” she said.

Speaking at a press briefing held by the American Society for Radiation Oncology on March 30, Dr. Nasso related a case involving a patient who experienced severe arm pain. In a teleconsultation with her primary care physician, her condition was diagnosed as arthritis. She was subsequently diagnosed in the ED as having multiple myeloma.

Patients who “feel fine” may postpone their checkups to avoid going to the hospital and risking exposure to COVID-19.

“Some patients are still hesitant about returning for their mammograms or coming in if they feel a breast lump,” Dr. Tang said. “That fear of COVID-19 is still out there, and we don’t know how long patients are going to delay.”

In London, Dr. Aggarwal saw a similar response to the pandemic. “People were overestimating quite significantly what their risk of death was from acquiring COVID-19, and I think that balance was never [redressed] explicitly,” he said.

Public health initiatives to rebalance the messaging are now underway.

Public Health England and National Health Service England launched their Help Us Help You campaign in October 2020. The public information campaign urges people to speak to their doctors if they were “worried about a symptom that could be cancer.”

In Canada, the provincial government in Alberta has launched a public awareness campaign that conveys the message, “cancer has not gone away.”

“Cancer is still the No. 1 cause of potential life-years lost, despite COVID,” Dr. Stewart said. “We need to do what we can to make sure there’s no slippage in survival rates.”

Dr. Tang, Dr. Chang, Dr. Lai, Dr. Stewart, and Dr. Aggarwal have disclosed no relevant financial relationship. Dr. Trinh has received personal fees from Astellas, Bayer, and Janssen and grants from Intuitive Surgical.

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

Treating triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), one of the more lethal breast cancer subtypes, remains a challenge. By definition, TNBC lacks the three telltale molecular signatures known to spur tumor growth: estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2). A growing amount of literature shows that these frequently aggressive tumors harbor a rich array of molecular characteristics but no clear oncogenic driver.

“TNBC is incredibly heterogeneous, which makes it challenging to treat,” said Rita Nanda, MD, director of the breast oncology program and associate professor of medicine at the University of Chicago. “We have subsets of TNBC that don’t respond to currently available therapies and, as of yet, have no identifiable therapeutic targets.”

Overall, about 40% of patients with TNBC show a pathologic complete response after first-line neoadjuvant chemotherapy – typically anthracycline and taxane-based agents. But for 50% of patients, chemotherapy leaves behind substantial residual cancer tissue. These patients subsequently face a 40%-80% risk for recurrence and progression to advanced disease.

When triple-negative disease metastasizes, survival rates plummet. The most recent data from the National Cancer Institute, which tracked patients by stage of diagnosis between 2010 and 2016, showed steep declines in 5-year survival as TNBC progressed from local (91.2%) to regional (65%) to advanced-stage disease (11.5%).

Experts have started to make headway identifying and targeting different molecular features of advanced TNBC. These approaches often focus on three key areas: targeting cell surface proteins or oncogenes, stimulating an anticancer immune response, or inhibiting an overactive signaling pathway.

“For a patient with metastatic breast cancer, finding a molecular target or an oncogenic driver is essential,” said Kelly McCann, MD, PhD, a hematologist/oncologist in the department of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles. “Because TNBC encompasses many different molecular subsets of breast cancer, the development of effective new therapeutics is going to depend on subdividing TNBC into categories with more clear targets.”
 

A targeted strategy

The Food and Drug Administration’s approval of sacituzumab govitecan, the first antibody-drug conjugate to treat metastatic TNBC, marked an important addition to the TNBC drug armamentarium. “Sacituzumab govitecan is one of the most exciting drugs available for the treatment of metastatic disease,” Dr. Nanda said.

Sacituzumab govitecan, approved as third-line therapy for metastatic TNBC, works by targeting the cell surface protein TROP2, expressed in about 88% of TNBC tumors but rarely in healthy cells.

In the phase 1/2 ASCENT trial, the median progression-free survival was 5.5 months and overall survival was 13.0 months in 108 patients with metastatic TNBC who had received at least two therapies prior to sacituzumab govitecan.

A subsequent phase 3 trial showed progression-free survival of 5.6 months with sacituzumab govitecan and 1.7 months with physician’s choice of chemotherapy. The median overall survival was 12.1 months and 6.7 months, respectively.

But, according to the analysis, TROP2 expression did not necessarily predict who would benefit from sacituzumab govitecan. A biomarker study revealed that although patients with moderate to high TROP2 expression exhibited the strongest treatment response, those with low TROP2 expression also survived longer when given sacituzumab govitecan, compared with chemotherapy alone.

In other words, “patients did better on sacituzumab govitecan regardless of TROP2 expression, which suggests we do not have a good biomarker for identifying who will benefit,” Dr. Nanda said.

Two other investigational antibody-drug conjugates, trastuzumab deruxtecan and ladiratuzumab vedotin, show promise in the metastatic space as well. For instance, the recent phase 2 trial evaluating trastuzumab deruxtecan in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer reported treatment response in 44% of patients with HER2-low tumors.

Given that about 36.6% of TNBC tumors exhibit low levels of HER2 expression, “trastuzumab deruxtecan represents potential in treating HER2-low TNBC,” said Yuan Yuan, MD, PhD, medical oncologist at City of Hope, a comprehensive cancer center in Los Angeles County.

Early results from a phase 1b study showed that trastuzumab deruxtecan produced a response rate of 37% in patients with HER2-low breast cancer.

Investigators are now recruiting for an open-label phase 3 trial to determine whether trastuzumab deruxtecan extends survival in patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancers.
 

Immunotherapy advances

Immune checkpoint inhibitors represent another promising treatment avenue for metastatic TNBC. Pembrolizumab and atezolizumab, recently approved by the FDA, show moderate progression-free and overall survival benefits in patients with metastatic TNBC expressing PD-L1. Estimates of PD-L1 immune cells present in TNBC tumors vary widely, from about 20% to 65%.

Yet, data on which patients will benefit are not so clear-cut. “These drugs give us more choices and represent the fast-evolving therapeutic landscape in TNBC, but they also leave a lot of unanswered questions about PD-L1 as a biomarker,” Dr. Yuan said.

Take two recent phase 3 trials evaluating atezolizumab: IMpassion130 and IMpassion131. In IMpassion130, patients with PDL1–positive tumors exhibited significantly longer median overall survival on atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel (25.0 months) compared with nab-paclitaxel alone (15.5 months). As with the trend observed in the TROP2 data for sacituzumab govitecan, all patients survived longer on atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel regardless of PD-L1 status: 21.3 months vs. 17.6 months with nab-paclitaxel alone.

However, in IMpassion131, neither progression-free survival nor overall survival significantly improved in the PD-L1–positive group receiving atezolizumab plus paclitaxel compared with paclitaxel alone: Progression-free survival was 5.7 months vs. 6 months, respectively, and overall survival was 28.3 months vs. 22.1 months.

“It is unclear why this study failed to demonstrate a significant improvement in progression-free survival with the addition of atezolizumab to paclitaxel,” Dr. Nanda said. “Perhaps the negative finding has to do with how the trial was conducted, or perhaps the PD-L1 assay used is an unreliable biomarker of immunotherapy benefit.”
 

Continued efforts to understand TNBC

Given the diversity of metastatic TNBC and the absence of clear molecular targets, researchers are exploring a host of therapeutic strategies in addition to antibody-drug conjugates and immunotherapies.

On the oncogene front, researchers are investigating common mutations in TNBC. About 11% of TNBC tumors, for instance, carry germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2. These tumors may be more likely to respond to platinum agents and PARP inhibitors, such as FDA-approved olaparib. In a phase 3 trial, patients with metastatic HER2-negative breast cancer and a germline BRCA mutation who received olaparib exhibited a 2.8-month longer median progression-free survival and a 42% reduced risk for disease progression or death compared with those on standard chemotherapy.

When considering signaling pathways, the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway has been the target of numerous clinical trials. Dysregulation of signaling through the PI3K and AKT signaling pathway occurs in 25%-30% of patients with advanced TNBC, and AKT inhibitors have been shown to extend survival in these patients. Data show, for instance, that adding capivasertib to first-line paclitaxel therapy in patients with metastatic TNBC led to longer overall survival – 19.1 months vs. 12.6 with placebo plus paclitaxel – with better survival results in patients with PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN altered tumors.

But there’s more to learn about treating metastatic TNBC. “Relapses tend to occur early in TNBC, and some tumors are inherently resistant to chemotherapy from the get-go,” said Charles Shapiro, MD, medical oncologist, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. “Understanding the causes of drug response and resistance in patients with metastatic TNBC represents the holy grail.”

Dr. Nanda agreed, noting that advancing treatments for TNBC will hinge on identifying the key factors driving metastasis. “For TNBC, we are still trying to elucidate the best molecular targets, while at the same time trying to identify robust biomarkers to predict benefit from therapies we already have available,” she said.

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

Treating triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), one of the more lethal breast cancer subtypes, remains a challenge. By definition, TNBC lacks the three telltale molecular signatures known to spur tumor growth: estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2). A growing amount of literature shows that these frequently aggressive tumors harbor a rich array of molecular characteristics but no clear oncogenic driver.

“TNBC is incredibly heterogeneous, which makes it challenging to treat,” said Rita Nanda, MD, director of the breast oncology program and associate professor of medicine at the University of Chicago. “We have subsets of TNBC that don’t respond to currently available therapies and, as of yet, have no identifiable therapeutic targets.”

Overall, about 40% of patients with TNBC show a pathologic complete response after first-line neoadjuvant chemotherapy – typically anthracycline and taxane-based agents. But for 50% of patients, chemotherapy leaves behind substantial residual cancer tissue. These patients subsequently face a 40%-80% risk for recurrence and progression to advanced disease.

When triple-negative disease metastasizes, survival rates plummet. The most recent data from the National Cancer Institute, which tracked patients by stage of diagnosis between 2010 and 2016, showed steep declines in 5-year survival as TNBC progressed from local (91.2%) to regional (65%) to advanced-stage disease (11.5%).

Experts have started to make headway identifying and targeting different molecular features of advanced TNBC. These approaches often focus on three key areas: targeting cell surface proteins or oncogenes, stimulating an anticancer immune response, or inhibiting an overactive signaling pathway.

“For a patient with metastatic breast cancer, finding a molecular target or an oncogenic driver is essential,” said Kelly McCann, MD, PhD, a hematologist/oncologist in the department of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles. “Because TNBC encompasses many different molecular subsets of breast cancer, the development of effective new therapeutics is going to depend on subdividing TNBC into categories with more clear targets.”
 

A targeted strategy

The Food and Drug Administration’s approval of sacituzumab govitecan, the first antibody-drug conjugate to treat metastatic TNBC, marked an important addition to the TNBC drug armamentarium. “Sacituzumab govitecan is one of the most exciting drugs available for the treatment of metastatic disease,” Dr. Nanda said.

Sacituzumab govitecan, approved as third-line therapy for metastatic TNBC, works by targeting the cell surface protein TROP2, expressed in about 88% of TNBC tumors but rarely in healthy cells.

In the phase 1/2 ASCENT trial, the median progression-free survival was 5.5 months and overall survival was 13.0 months in 108 patients with metastatic TNBC who had received at least two therapies prior to sacituzumab govitecan.

A subsequent phase 3 trial showed progression-free survival of 5.6 months with sacituzumab govitecan and 1.7 months with physician’s choice of chemotherapy. The median overall survival was 12.1 months and 6.7 months, respectively.

But, according to the analysis, TROP2 expression did not necessarily predict who would benefit from sacituzumab govitecan. A biomarker study revealed that although patients with moderate to high TROP2 expression exhibited the strongest treatment response, those with low TROP2 expression also survived longer when given sacituzumab govitecan, compared with chemotherapy alone.

In other words, “patients did better on sacituzumab govitecan regardless of TROP2 expression, which suggests we do not have a good biomarker for identifying who will benefit,” Dr. Nanda said.

Two other investigational antibody-drug conjugates, trastuzumab deruxtecan and ladiratuzumab vedotin, show promise in the metastatic space as well. For instance, the recent phase 2 trial evaluating trastuzumab deruxtecan in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer reported treatment response in 44% of patients with HER2-low tumors.

Given that about 36.6% of TNBC tumors exhibit low levels of HER2 expression, “trastuzumab deruxtecan represents potential in treating HER2-low TNBC,” said Yuan Yuan, MD, PhD, medical oncologist at City of Hope, a comprehensive cancer center in Los Angeles County.

Early results from a phase 1b study showed that trastuzumab deruxtecan produced a response rate of 37% in patients with HER2-low breast cancer.

Investigators are now recruiting for an open-label phase 3 trial to determine whether trastuzumab deruxtecan extends survival in patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancers.
 

Immunotherapy advances

Immune checkpoint inhibitors represent another promising treatment avenue for metastatic TNBC. Pembrolizumab and atezolizumab, recently approved by the FDA, show moderate progression-free and overall survival benefits in patients with metastatic TNBC expressing PD-L1. Estimates of PD-L1 immune cells present in TNBC tumors vary widely, from about 20% to 65%.

Yet, data on which patients will benefit are not so clear-cut. “These drugs give us more choices and represent the fast-evolving therapeutic landscape in TNBC, but they also leave a lot of unanswered questions about PD-L1 as a biomarker,” Dr. Yuan said.

Take two recent phase 3 trials evaluating atezolizumab: IMpassion130 and IMpassion131. In IMpassion130, patients with PDL1–positive tumors exhibited significantly longer median overall survival on atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel (25.0 months) compared with nab-paclitaxel alone (15.5 months). As with the trend observed in the TROP2 data for sacituzumab govitecan, all patients survived longer on atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel regardless of PD-L1 status: 21.3 months vs. 17.6 months with nab-paclitaxel alone.

However, in IMpassion131, neither progression-free survival nor overall survival significantly improved in the PD-L1–positive group receiving atezolizumab plus paclitaxel compared with paclitaxel alone: Progression-free survival was 5.7 months vs. 6 months, respectively, and overall survival was 28.3 months vs. 22.1 months.

“It is unclear why this study failed to demonstrate a significant improvement in progression-free survival with the addition of atezolizumab to paclitaxel,” Dr. Nanda said. “Perhaps the negative finding has to do with how the trial was conducted, or perhaps the PD-L1 assay used is an unreliable biomarker of immunotherapy benefit.”
 

Continued efforts to understand TNBC

Given the diversity of metastatic TNBC and the absence of clear molecular targets, researchers are exploring a host of therapeutic strategies in addition to antibody-drug conjugates and immunotherapies.

On the oncogene front, researchers are investigating common mutations in TNBC. About 11% of TNBC tumors, for instance, carry germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2. These tumors may be more likely to respond to platinum agents and PARP inhibitors, such as FDA-approved olaparib. In a phase 3 trial, patients with metastatic HER2-negative breast cancer and a germline BRCA mutation who received olaparib exhibited a 2.8-month longer median progression-free survival and a 42% reduced risk for disease progression or death compared with those on standard chemotherapy.

When considering signaling pathways, the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway has been the target of numerous clinical trials. Dysregulation of signaling through the PI3K and AKT signaling pathway occurs in 25%-30% of patients with advanced TNBC, and AKT inhibitors have been shown to extend survival in these patients. Data show, for instance, that adding capivasertib to first-line paclitaxel therapy in patients with metastatic TNBC led to longer overall survival – 19.1 months vs. 12.6 with placebo plus paclitaxel – with better survival results in patients with PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN altered tumors.

But there’s more to learn about treating metastatic TNBC. “Relapses tend to occur early in TNBC, and some tumors are inherently resistant to chemotherapy from the get-go,” said Charles Shapiro, MD, medical oncologist, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. “Understanding the causes of drug response and resistance in patients with metastatic TNBC represents the holy grail.”

Dr. Nanda agreed, noting that advancing treatments for TNBC will hinge on identifying the key factors driving metastasis. “For TNBC, we are still trying to elucidate the best molecular targets, while at the same time trying to identify robust biomarkers to predict benefit from therapies we already have available,” she said.

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

Treating triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), one of the more lethal breast cancer subtypes, remains a challenge. By definition, TNBC lacks the three telltale molecular signatures known to spur tumor growth: estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2). A growing amount of literature shows that these frequently aggressive tumors harbor a rich array of molecular characteristics but no clear oncogenic driver.

“TNBC is incredibly heterogeneous, which makes it challenging to treat,” said Rita Nanda, MD, director of the breast oncology program and associate professor of medicine at the University of Chicago. “We have subsets of TNBC that don’t respond to currently available therapies and, as of yet, have no identifiable therapeutic targets.”

Overall, about 40% of patients with TNBC show a pathologic complete response after first-line neoadjuvant chemotherapy – typically anthracycline and taxane-based agents. But for 50% of patients, chemotherapy leaves behind substantial residual cancer tissue. These patients subsequently face a 40%-80% risk for recurrence and progression to advanced disease.

When triple-negative disease metastasizes, survival rates plummet. The most recent data from the National Cancer Institute, which tracked patients by stage of diagnosis between 2010 and 2016, showed steep declines in 5-year survival as TNBC progressed from local (91.2%) to regional (65%) to advanced-stage disease (11.5%).

Experts have started to make headway identifying and targeting different molecular features of advanced TNBC. These approaches often focus on three key areas: targeting cell surface proteins or oncogenes, stimulating an anticancer immune response, or inhibiting an overactive signaling pathway.

“For a patient with metastatic breast cancer, finding a molecular target or an oncogenic driver is essential,” said Kelly McCann, MD, PhD, a hematologist/oncologist in the department of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles. “Because TNBC encompasses many different molecular subsets of breast cancer, the development of effective new therapeutics is going to depend on subdividing TNBC into categories with more clear targets.”
 

A targeted strategy

The Food and Drug Administration’s approval of sacituzumab govitecan, the first antibody-drug conjugate to treat metastatic TNBC, marked an important addition to the TNBC drug armamentarium. “Sacituzumab govitecan is one of the most exciting drugs available for the treatment of metastatic disease,” Dr. Nanda said.

Sacituzumab govitecan, approved as third-line therapy for metastatic TNBC, works by targeting the cell surface protein TROP2, expressed in about 88% of TNBC tumors but rarely in healthy cells.

In the phase 1/2 ASCENT trial, the median progression-free survival was 5.5 months and overall survival was 13.0 months in 108 patients with metastatic TNBC who had received at least two therapies prior to sacituzumab govitecan.

A subsequent phase 3 trial showed progression-free survival of 5.6 months with sacituzumab govitecan and 1.7 months with physician’s choice of chemotherapy. The median overall survival was 12.1 months and 6.7 months, respectively.

But, according to the analysis, TROP2 expression did not necessarily predict who would benefit from sacituzumab govitecan. A biomarker study revealed that although patients with moderate to high TROP2 expression exhibited the strongest treatment response, those with low TROP2 expression also survived longer when given sacituzumab govitecan, compared with chemotherapy alone.

In other words, “patients did better on sacituzumab govitecan regardless of TROP2 expression, which suggests we do not have a good biomarker for identifying who will benefit,” Dr. Nanda said.

Two other investigational antibody-drug conjugates, trastuzumab deruxtecan and ladiratuzumab vedotin, show promise in the metastatic space as well. For instance, the recent phase 2 trial evaluating trastuzumab deruxtecan in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer reported treatment response in 44% of patients with HER2-low tumors.

Given that about 36.6% of TNBC tumors exhibit low levels of HER2 expression, “trastuzumab deruxtecan represents potential in treating HER2-low TNBC,” said Yuan Yuan, MD, PhD, medical oncologist at City of Hope, a comprehensive cancer center in Los Angeles County.

Early results from a phase 1b study showed that trastuzumab deruxtecan produced a response rate of 37% in patients with HER2-low breast cancer.

Investigators are now recruiting for an open-label phase 3 trial to determine whether trastuzumab deruxtecan extends survival in patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancers.
 

Immunotherapy advances

Immune checkpoint inhibitors represent another promising treatment avenue for metastatic TNBC. Pembrolizumab and atezolizumab, recently approved by the FDA, show moderate progression-free and overall survival benefits in patients with metastatic TNBC expressing PD-L1. Estimates of PD-L1 immune cells present in TNBC tumors vary widely, from about 20% to 65%.

Yet, data on which patients will benefit are not so clear-cut. “These drugs give us more choices and represent the fast-evolving therapeutic landscape in TNBC, but they also leave a lot of unanswered questions about PD-L1 as a biomarker,” Dr. Yuan said.

Take two recent phase 3 trials evaluating atezolizumab: IMpassion130 and IMpassion131. In IMpassion130, patients with PDL1–positive tumors exhibited significantly longer median overall survival on atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel (25.0 months) compared with nab-paclitaxel alone (15.5 months). As with the trend observed in the TROP2 data for sacituzumab govitecan, all patients survived longer on atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel regardless of PD-L1 status: 21.3 months vs. 17.6 months with nab-paclitaxel alone.

However, in IMpassion131, neither progression-free survival nor overall survival significantly improved in the PD-L1–positive group receiving atezolizumab plus paclitaxel compared with paclitaxel alone: Progression-free survival was 5.7 months vs. 6 months, respectively, and overall survival was 28.3 months vs. 22.1 months.

“It is unclear why this study failed to demonstrate a significant improvement in progression-free survival with the addition of atezolizumab to paclitaxel,” Dr. Nanda said. “Perhaps the negative finding has to do with how the trial was conducted, or perhaps the PD-L1 assay used is an unreliable biomarker of immunotherapy benefit.”
 

Continued efforts to understand TNBC

Given the diversity of metastatic TNBC and the absence of clear molecular targets, researchers are exploring a host of therapeutic strategies in addition to antibody-drug conjugates and immunotherapies.

On the oncogene front, researchers are investigating common mutations in TNBC. About 11% of TNBC tumors, for instance, carry germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2. These tumors may be more likely to respond to platinum agents and PARP inhibitors, such as FDA-approved olaparib. In a phase 3 trial, patients with metastatic HER2-negative breast cancer and a germline BRCA mutation who received olaparib exhibited a 2.8-month longer median progression-free survival and a 42% reduced risk for disease progression or death compared with those on standard chemotherapy.

When considering signaling pathways, the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway has been the target of numerous clinical trials. Dysregulation of signaling through the PI3K and AKT signaling pathway occurs in 25%-30% of patients with advanced TNBC, and AKT inhibitors have been shown to extend survival in these patients. Data show, for instance, that adding capivasertib to first-line paclitaxel therapy in patients with metastatic TNBC led to longer overall survival – 19.1 months vs. 12.6 with placebo plus paclitaxel – with better survival results in patients with PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN altered tumors.

But there’s more to learn about treating metastatic TNBC. “Relapses tend to occur early in TNBC, and some tumors are inherently resistant to chemotherapy from the get-go,” said Charles Shapiro, MD, medical oncologist, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. “Understanding the causes of drug response and resistance in patients with metastatic TNBC represents the holy grail.”

Dr. Nanda agreed, noting that advancing treatments for TNBC will hinge on identifying the key factors driving metastasis. “For TNBC, we are still trying to elucidate the best molecular targets, while at the same time trying to identify robust biomarkers to predict benefit from therapies we already have available,” she said.

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

This article has been updated to reflect new US Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations to pause administration of the Johnson and Johnson Jansen (JNJ-78436735) COVID-19 vaccine.¹

Since the outbreak of the pandemic caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2),a plethora of studies have been performed to increase our knowledge of its associated illness COVID-19.² There is no cure for COVID-19, which can be lethal. In the absence of a cure, preventive measures are of vital importance. In order to help prevent the spread of the virus, the Centers for Diseases Control and Prevention (CDC) advocates for: (1) the use of a face mask over the mouth and nose; (2) a minimum of 6-foot distance between individuals; and (3) avoidance of gatherings.As of March 2021, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved 3 vaccines for the prevention of COVID-19, under an emergency use authorization (EUA).^3-5

COVID-19 and Multiple Sclerosis

Since the beginning of the pandemic, neurologists have faced a new challenge—determining whether persons with multiple sclerosis (pwMS) were more at risk than others of becoming ill from COVID-19 or were destined for a worse outcome. The National MS Society has advised a personalized approach in relation to particularly vulnerable persons when needed and has also initiated worldwide registries to collect information regarding incidence and outcome of COVID-19 in pwMS. Accordingly, through the MS Center of Excellence (MSCoE), the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has established a national registry assembling data regarding COVID-19 in veterans with MS.

A recent descriptive literature review summarized the outcomes of 873 persons with both MS and COVID-19 and reported that about 36% of COVID-19 cases were treated with B-cell depleting therapies (ocrelizumab or rituximab).⁶ This proportion was relatively higher when compared with other disease modifying agents. Of those who became infected with SARS-CoV-2, death from COVID-19 occurred in about 4%, and an additional 3% required assisted invasive or noninvasive ventilation. Persons reported to have passed away from COVID-19 generally were older; had progressive MS; or had associated comorbidities such as obesity, hypertension, heart or lung conditions, or cancers. Of these, 50% were not on any disease modifying agent, 25% were on B-cell depleting therapies (ocrelizumab or rituximab), and the remaining 25% were on various medications for MS. It is important to highlight that no formal statistical analyses were performed in this review. On the contrary, in the recently published Italian report on 844 pwMS who had suspected or confirmed COVID-19, the authors used univariate and multivariate models to analyze their findings and noted that the use of ocrelizumab was significantly associated with a worse clinical outcome.⁷ These authors also identified age, sex, disability score, and recent (within 1 month) use of steroids as risk factors for a severe COVID-19 outcome. The incidence of death from COVID-19 in this cohort was 1.54%.

The recently published data from the North American Registry of the National MS Society based on 1,626 patients reported a 3.3% incidence of death from COVID-19.⁸ The following factors were identified as risks for worse outcome: male sex, nonambulatory status, age, Black race, and cardiovascular disease. The use of rituximab, ocrelizumab, and steroids (the latter medication over the preceding 2 months) increased the risks of hospitalization for COVID-19.

COVID-19 Vaccines

Of the 3 available vaccines, the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 (BNT162b2) vaccine is approved for individuals aged ≥ 16 years, while the Moderna COVID-19 (mRNA-1273) and the Johnson and Johnson/Jannsen COVID-19 (JNJ-78436735) vaccines are approved for individuals aged ≥ 18 years, though the latter vaccine has been temporarily suspended.^1,3-5 The EUAs were released following the disclosure of the results of 3 phase 3 clinical trials and several phase 1 and 2 clinical trials.^9-16

The BNT162b2 vaccine from Pfizer-BioNTech encodes the SARS-CoV-2 full-length spike protein (S) in prefusion conformation locked by the mutation in 2 prolines.⁹ Differently from the BNT162b2 vaccine, the BNT162b1 vaccine encodes a secreted trimerized SARS-CoV-2 receptor–binding domain. The S-glycoprotein is required for viral entry, as implicated in host cell attachment, and is the target of the neutralizing antibodies. In a phase 1 clinical study on 195 volunteers treated with BNT162b1 (10 mg, 20 mg, 30 mg, or 100 mg doses) or BNT162b2 (10 mg, 20 mg, or 30 mg doses) vaccines or placebo 21 days apart, both the binding and neutralizing antibody response was found to be age and “somewhat” dose dependent.⁹

Higher neutralization titers were measured at day 28 and 35 (7 and 14 days after the second dose, respectively) and compared with titers of persons who recovered from a COVID-19 infection.⁹ Serum neutralization was measured using a fluorescence-based high-throughput neutralization assay, while binding activity was assessed using the receptor-binding domain (RBD)–binding or S1-binding IgG direct Luminex immunoassays.

The overall reactogenicity/immunogenicity profile of BNT162b2 administered twice (30 mg each time) led to its selection for the phase 3 clinical trial.^9,10 In a large phase 3 clinical trial on 43,458 participants, the BNT162b2 vaccine given at 30 mg doses 21 days apart conferred 95% clinical efficacy in reducing the likelihood of being affected by symptomatic COVID-19.¹⁰ No safety concerns to stop the trial were identified, though related severe and life-threatening events were reported in 0.3% and 0.1% of the volunteers, respectively. We note that these incidence rates were the same for the treated and the placebo group.

The mRNA-1273 vaccine from Moderna also encodes the SARS-CoV-2 S-glycoprotein. In a dose escalation phase 1 trial of 45 participants aged between 18 and 55 years (25 mg, 100 mg or 250 mg, given at days 1 and 29) and 40 participants aged ≥ 57 years (25 mg and 100 mg, given at days 1 and 29), a dose-dependent effect was observed for both binding (receptor-binding domain and S-2p IgG on enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay [ELISA])and neutralizing antibodies (SARS-CoV-2 nanoluciferase high-throughput neutralization assay, focus reduction neutralization test mNeonGreen and SARS-CoV-2 plaque-reduction neutralization testing assay) development.^11,12 The geometric mean of both binding and neutralizing antibodies declined over time but persisted high as late as 119 days after the first burst of 100 mg dose.¹³ The same dose of the vaccine also elicited a strong T helper-1 response with little T helper-2 response across all ages.¹¹ The strength of the memory cellular response remains to be defined and is the subject of ongoing investigations. In a large phase 3 clinical trial with 30,420 participants, the Moderna COVID-19 mRNA-1273 vaccine, given 28 days apart at the dose of 100 mg, met 94.1% clinical efficacy in reducing the likelihood of being affected by symptomatic COVID-19.¹⁴

Less than 0.1% of volunteers in both groups withdrew from the trial due to adverse effects (AEs); 0.5% in the placebo group and 0.3% in the treated group had AEs after the first dose, which precluded receiving the second dose.¹⁴

The Johnson and Johnson/Jannsen JNJ-78436735 vaccine is based upon a recombinant, replication-incompetent adenovirus serotype 26 (Ad26) vector, which encodes the full-length, stabilized S-glycoprotein of SARS-CoV-2. The currently reported results of the phase 1 and 2 clinical study indicated that 805 volunteers (402 participants between ages 18 and 55 years and 403 individuals aged ≥ 65 years) were randomized to receive a single or double dose of either 5 x 10¹⁰ viral particles per 0.5 mL (low dose) or 1 x 10¹¹ viral particles per 0.5 mL (high dose), each compared with a placebo group. Incidence of seroconversion to binding antibodies against the full-length stabilized S-glycoprotein, as measured by ELISA, showed ≥ 96% seroconversion by day 29 after the first dose. The incidence of seroconversion to neutralizing antibodies was ≥ 90% as early as early as 29 days after the first of either dose. In this study, neutralization activity was measured using the wild-type virus microneutralization assay based on the Victoria/1/2020/ SARS-CoV-2 strain.¹⁵ We note that the data related to this study have been partially reported and additional information will be available when each participant will have received the second dose.

In a large phase 3 clinical trial with 40,000 participants aged between 18 and 100 years, the Johnson and Johnson/Jannsen JNJ-78436735 vaccine, given as single dose of 5 x 10¹⁰ viral particles per 0.5 mL, met 65.5% clinical efficacy in the likelihood of being affected by symptomatic COVID-19 ≥ 28 days postimmunization.¹⁶ In this study, the vaccine efficacy was found to have a geographic distribution with highest efficacy in the US (74.4%), followed by Latin America (64.7%) where Brazil showed a predominance of the P2 COVID-19 lineage (64.7%), and Africa (52%) where the B.1.351 lineage was most frequent (94.5%). The vaccine also proved to be effective in reducing the likelihood of asymptomatic seroconversion, as measured by the level of a non-S protein, eg, 0.7% of positive cases in the vaccine group vs 2.8% in the placebo group. Immunological data indicated that the vaccine response was mainly driven by T-helper 1 lymphocytes. As of April 13, 2021 the FDA has recommend suspending the administration of the Johnson and Johnson/Janssen vaccine due to the occurrence of severe blood clots reported in a 6 subjects out of ~6.8 millions administered doses.¹

It is noteworthy to highlight that all vaccines reduced the likelihood of hospitalizations and deaths due to COVID-19.

As of April 17, 2021, the CDC reports that more than 130 million (40%) Americans, nearly 1/3 of the population, have received at least 1 dose of any of the 3 available vaccines, including 4.6 million at the VHA.¹⁷ Using the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System and v-safe, the US is conducting what has been defined the most “intense and comprehensive safety monitoring in the US history.”¹⁸ Thus far, data affirm the overall safety of the available vaccines against COVID-19. Individuals should not receive the COVID-19 vaccines if they have had a severe allergic reaction to any ingredient in the vaccine or a severe allergic reaction to a prior dose of the vaccine. Additionally, individuals who have received convalescent plasma should wait 90 days before getting the COVID-19 vaccine.

Vaccination for Persons with MS

PwMS or those on immunosuppressive medications were excluded from the clinical trial led by Pfizer-BioNTech. There is no mention of MS as comorbidity in the study from Moderna, although this condition is not listed as an exclusion criterion either. The results of the phase 3 clinical trial for the Johnson and Johnson/Janssen vaccine are not fully public yet, thus this information is not known as well. As a result, the use of this vaccine in pwMS under immunomodulatory agents is based on previous knowledge of other vaccines. Evidence is growing for the safety of the BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccination in pwMS.¹⁹ Data regarding COVID-19 efficacy and safety are still largely based on previous knowledge on other vaccines.^20,21

Immunization of pwMS is considered safe and should proceed with confidence in those persons who have no other contraindication to receive a vaccine. A fundamental problem for pwMS treated with immunomodulatory or immunosuppressive medications is whether the vaccine will remain safe or be able to solicit an adequate immune response.^20,21 As of the time of publication 2021, there is consensus that mRNA based or inactivated vaccines are also considered safe in pwMS undergoing immunomodulatory or immunosuppressive treatments.^20-23 We advise a one-on-one conversation between each veteran with MS and their primary neurologist to understand the importance of the vaccination, the minimal risks associated with it and if any specific treatment modification should be made.

To provide guidance, the National MS Society released a position statement that is regularly updated.²² Given the risks associated with discontinuation of disease modifying agents, pwMS opting to receive a COVID-19 vaccine should continue taking their medications unless recommended otherwise by their primary neurologist. In addition, on the basis of available literature and the American Academy of Neurology recommendations on the use of vaccines in general, the following recommendations are proposed.^20-23

Recommendation 1: injections, orals, and natalizumab. Given the risks associated with discontinuation of disease modifying agents, pwMS opting to receive a COVID-19 vaccine should continue taking their medications unless recommended otherwise by their primary neurologist. Neither delay in start nor adjustments in dosing or timing of administration are advised for pwMS taking currently available either generic or brand formulations of β interferons, glatiramer acetate, teriflunomide, dimethyl or monomethyl fumarate, or natalizumab.²²

Recommendation 2: anti-CD20 monoclonal infusions. As an attenuated humoral response is predicted in pwMS treated with anti-CD20 monoclonal infusions, coordinating the timing of vaccination with treatment schedule may maximize efficacy of the vaccine. Whenever possible, it is advised to be vaccinated ≥ 12 weeks after the last infusion and to resume infusion 4 weeks after the last dose of the vaccine. PwMS starting anti-CD20 monoclonal infusions are advised to be fully vaccinated first and start these medications ≥ 2 to 4 weeks later.²²

Recommendation 3: alemtuzumab infusion. Given its effect on CD52+ cells, it is advised to be vaccinated ≥ 24 weeks after the last infusion and to resume infusion 4 weeks after the last dose of the vaccine. PwMS starting alemtuzumab infusions are advised to get fully vaccinated first and start this medication 4 weeks or more after completing the vaccine.²²

Recommendation 4: sphingosine 1 phosphate receptor modulators, oral cladribine, and ofatumumab. PwMS starting any of these medications are advised to be fully vaccinated first and start these medications 2 to 4 weeks after completing the vaccine. PwMS already on those medications are not advised to change the schedule of administration. When possible, though, one should resume the dose of cladribine or ofatumumab 2 to 4 weeks after the last dose of the vaccine. ²⁰

Notably, all these recommendations hold true when there is enough disease stability to allow delaying treatment. We also add that it remains unclear if persons with an overall very low number of lymphocytes will be able to elicit a strong reaction to the vaccine. Blood collection and analysis of white blood cell count and lymphocyte subset estimates should be obtained in those persons with a markedly suppressed immune system. Whenever possible, to maximize outcome, timing the vaccination with treatment should be considered in those persons with a markedly reduced number of T-helper 1 cells.

Vaccination for Veterans

Currently the VHA is offering to veterans the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines with FDA EUAs. In accordance with FDA regulations, the VHA has paused administration of the Johnson and Johnson/Janssen vaccine. The VHA has launched its vaccination program in December 2020 by first providing the vaccine to health care personnel, nursing home patients, spinal cord injury patients, chemotherapy patients, dialysis and transplant patients, as well as homeless veterans. Most VA health care systems have passed this phase and are now able to provide vaccines to veterans with MS.

In December 2020, the MSCoE released a position statement regarding the importance and safety of the COVID-19 vaccine for veterans with MS.²⁴ This statement will be updated on a regular basis as new information becomes available from major organizations like the National MS Society, FDA, CDC, and World Health Organization (WHO) or relevant literature.

Conclusions

Older veterans with progressive MS and associated comorbidities are at higher risk of death should they be infected by COVID-19. Fortunately, we live in a time where vaccines are recognized as a critical tool to prevent this infection and to significantly reduce its morbidity and mortality. Yet, hesitancy to vaccinate has been identified as one of the most important threats to public health by the WHO in 2019.²⁵ Understandably such hesitancy is even more profound for the COVID-19 vaccine, which is being administered under an EUA. In light of this indecision, and given the current state of the pandemic, we urge health care providers to educate every veteran about the benefits of being vaccinated against COVID-19. Within the VHA, a solid campaign of vaccination has been put in place at an unprecedented speed.

Health care providers interacting with veterans with MS are encouraged to use the MSCoE website (www.va.gov/ms) for any questions or concerns, or to reach out to MSCoE staff. It is vitally important that our community of veterans receives appropriate education on the importance of this vaccination for their own safety, for that of their household and society.

This article has been updated to reflect new US Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations to pause administration of the Johnson and Johnson Jansen (JNJ-78436735) COVID-19 vaccine.¹

Since the outbreak of the pandemic caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2),a plethora of studies have been performed to increase our knowledge of its associated illness COVID-19.² There is no cure for COVID-19, which can be lethal. In the absence of a cure, preventive measures are of vital importance. In order to help prevent the spread of the virus, the Centers for Diseases Control and Prevention (CDC) advocates for: (1) the use of a face mask over the mouth and nose; (2) a minimum of 6-foot distance between individuals; and (3) avoidance of gatherings.As of March 2021, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved 3 vaccines for the prevention of COVID-19, under an emergency use authorization (EUA).^3-5

COVID-19 and Multiple Sclerosis

Since the beginning of the pandemic, neurologists have faced a new challenge—determining whether persons with multiple sclerosis (pwMS) were more at risk than others of becoming ill from COVID-19 or were destined for a worse outcome. The National MS Society has advised a personalized approach in relation to particularly vulnerable persons when needed and has also initiated worldwide registries to collect information regarding incidence and outcome of COVID-19 in pwMS. Accordingly, through the MS Center of Excellence (MSCoE), the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has established a national registry assembling data regarding COVID-19 in veterans with MS.

A recent descriptive literature review summarized the outcomes of 873 persons with both MS and COVID-19 and reported that about 36% of COVID-19 cases were treated with B-cell depleting therapies (ocrelizumab or rituximab).⁶ This proportion was relatively higher when compared with other disease modifying agents. Of those who became infected with SARS-CoV-2, death from COVID-19 occurred in about 4%, and an additional 3% required assisted invasive or noninvasive ventilation. Persons reported to have passed away from COVID-19 generally were older; had progressive MS; or had associated comorbidities such as obesity, hypertension, heart or lung conditions, or cancers. Of these, 50% were not on any disease modifying agent, 25% were on B-cell depleting therapies (ocrelizumab or rituximab), and the remaining 25% were on various medications for MS. It is important to highlight that no formal statistical analyses were performed in this review. On the contrary, in the recently published Italian report on 844 pwMS who had suspected or confirmed COVID-19, the authors used univariate and multivariate models to analyze their findings and noted that the use of ocrelizumab was significantly associated with a worse clinical outcome.⁷ These authors also identified age, sex, disability score, and recent (within 1 month) use of steroids as risk factors for a severe COVID-19 outcome. The incidence of death from COVID-19 in this cohort was 1.54%.

The recently published data from the North American Registry of the National MS Society based on 1,626 patients reported a 3.3% incidence of death from COVID-19.⁸ The following factors were identified as risks for worse outcome: male sex, nonambulatory status, age, Black race, and cardiovascular disease. The use of rituximab, ocrelizumab, and steroids (the latter medication over the preceding 2 months) increased the risks of hospitalization for COVID-19.

COVID-19 Vaccines

Of the 3 available vaccines, the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 (BNT162b2) vaccine is approved for individuals aged ≥ 16 years, while the Moderna COVID-19 (mRNA-1273) and the Johnson and Johnson/Jannsen COVID-19 (JNJ-78436735) vaccines are approved for individuals aged ≥ 18 years, though the latter vaccine has been temporarily suspended.^1,3-5 The EUAs were released following the disclosure of the results of 3 phase 3 clinical trials and several phase 1 and 2 clinical trials.^9-16

The BNT162b2 vaccine from Pfizer-BioNTech encodes the SARS-CoV-2 full-length spike protein (S) in prefusion conformation locked by the mutation in 2 prolines.⁹ Differently from the BNT162b2 vaccine, the BNT162b1 vaccine encodes a secreted trimerized SARS-CoV-2 receptor–binding domain. The S-glycoprotein is required for viral entry, as implicated in host cell attachment, and is the target of the neutralizing antibodies. In a phase 1 clinical study on 195 volunteers treated with BNT162b1 (10 mg, 20 mg, 30 mg, or 100 mg doses) or BNT162b2 (10 mg, 20 mg, or 30 mg doses) vaccines or placebo 21 days apart, both the binding and neutralizing antibody response was found to be age and “somewhat” dose dependent.⁹

Higher neutralization titers were measured at day 28 and 35 (7 and 14 days after the second dose, respectively) and compared with titers of persons who recovered from a COVID-19 infection.⁹ Serum neutralization was measured using a fluorescence-based high-throughput neutralization assay, while binding activity was assessed using the receptor-binding domain (RBD)–binding or S1-binding IgG direct Luminex immunoassays.

The overall reactogenicity/immunogenicity profile of BNT162b2 administered twice (30 mg each time) led to its selection for the phase 3 clinical trial.^9,10 In a large phase 3 clinical trial on 43,458 participants, the BNT162b2 vaccine given at 30 mg doses 21 days apart conferred 95% clinical efficacy in reducing the likelihood of being affected by symptomatic COVID-19.¹⁰ No safety concerns to stop the trial were identified, though related severe and life-threatening events were reported in 0.3% and 0.1% of the volunteers, respectively. We note that these incidence rates were the same for the treated and the placebo group.

The mRNA-1273 vaccine from Moderna also encodes the SARS-CoV-2 S-glycoprotein. In a dose escalation phase 1 trial of 45 participants aged between 18 and 55 years (25 mg, 100 mg or 250 mg, given at days 1 and 29) and 40 participants aged ≥ 57 years (25 mg and 100 mg, given at days 1 and 29), a dose-dependent effect was observed for both binding (receptor-binding domain and S-2p IgG on enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay [ELISA])and neutralizing antibodies (SARS-CoV-2 nanoluciferase high-throughput neutralization assay, focus reduction neutralization test mNeonGreen and SARS-CoV-2 plaque-reduction neutralization testing assay) development.^11,12 The geometric mean of both binding and neutralizing antibodies declined over time but persisted high as late as 119 days after the first burst of 100 mg dose.¹³ The same dose of the vaccine also elicited a strong T helper-1 response with little T helper-2 response across all ages.¹¹ The strength of the memory cellular response remains to be defined and is the subject of ongoing investigations. In a large phase 3 clinical trial with 30,420 participants, the Moderna COVID-19 mRNA-1273 vaccine, given 28 days apart at the dose of 100 mg, met 94.1% clinical efficacy in reducing the likelihood of being affected by symptomatic COVID-19.¹⁴

Less than 0.1% of volunteers in both groups withdrew from the trial due to adverse effects (AEs); 0.5% in the placebo group and 0.3% in the treated group had AEs after the first dose, which precluded receiving the second dose.¹⁴

The Johnson and Johnson/Jannsen JNJ-78436735 vaccine is based upon a recombinant, replication-incompetent adenovirus serotype 26 (Ad26) vector, which encodes the full-length, stabilized S-glycoprotein of SARS-CoV-2. The currently reported results of the phase 1 and 2 clinical study indicated that 805 volunteers (402 participants between ages 18 and 55 years and 403 individuals aged ≥ 65 years) were randomized to receive a single or double dose of either 5 x 10¹⁰ viral particles per 0.5 mL (low dose) or 1 x 10¹¹ viral particles per 0.5 mL (high dose), each compared with a placebo group. Incidence of seroconversion to binding antibodies against the full-length stabilized S-glycoprotein, as measured by ELISA, showed ≥ 96% seroconversion by day 29 after the first dose. The incidence of seroconversion to neutralizing antibodies was ≥ 90% as early as early as 29 days after the first of either dose. In this study, neutralization activity was measured using the wild-type virus microneutralization assay based on the Victoria/1/2020/ SARS-CoV-2 strain.¹⁵ We note that the data related to this study have been partially reported and additional information will be available when each participant will have received the second dose.

In a large phase 3 clinical trial with 40,000 participants aged between 18 and 100 years, the Johnson and Johnson/Jannsen JNJ-78436735 vaccine, given as single dose of 5 x 10¹⁰ viral particles per 0.5 mL, met 65.5% clinical efficacy in the likelihood of being affected by symptomatic COVID-19 ≥ 28 days postimmunization.¹⁶ In this study, the vaccine efficacy was found to have a geographic distribution with highest efficacy in the US (74.4%), followed by Latin America (64.7%) where Brazil showed a predominance of the P2 COVID-19 lineage (64.7%), and Africa (52%) where the B.1.351 lineage was most frequent (94.5%). The vaccine also proved to be effective in reducing the likelihood of asymptomatic seroconversion, as measured by the level of a non-S protein, eg, 0.7% of positive cases in the vaccine group vs 2.8% in the placebo group. Immunological data indicated that the vaccine response was mainly driven by T-helper 1 lymphocytes. As of April 13, 2021 the FDA has recommend suspending the administration of the Johnson and Johnson/Janssen vaccine due to the occurrence of severe blood clots reported in a 6 subjects out of ~6.8 millions administered doses.¹

It is noteworthy to highlight that all vaccines reduced the likelihood of hospitalizations and deaths due to COVID-19.

As of April 17, 2021, the CDC reports that more than 130 million (40%) Americans, nearly 1/3 of the population, have received at least 1 dose of any of the 3 available vaccines, including 4.6 million at the VHA.¹⁷ Using the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System and v-safe, the US is conducting what has been defined the most “intense and comprehensive safety monitoring in the US history.”¹⁸ Thus far, data affirm the overall safety of the available vaccines against COVID-19. Individuals should not receive the COVID-19 vaccines if they have had a severe allergic reaction to any ingredient in the vaccine or a severe allergic reaction to a prior dose of the vaccine. Additionally, individuals who have received convalescent plasma should wait 90 days before getting the COVID-19 vaccine.

Vaccination for Persons with MS

PwMS or those on immunosuppressive medications were excluded from the clinical trial led by Pfizer-BioNTech. There is no mention of MS as comorbidity in the study from Moderna, although this condition is not listed as an exclusion criterion either. The results of the phase 3 clinical trial for the Johnson and Johnson/Janssen vaccine are not fully public yet, thus this information is not known as well. As a result, the use of this vaccine in pwMS under immunomodulatory agents is based on previous knowledge of other vaccines. Evidence is growing for the safety of the BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccination in pwMS.¹⁹ Data regarding COVID-19 efficacy and safety are still largely based on previous knowledge on other vaccines.^20,21

Immunization of pwMS is considered safe and should proceed with confidence in those persons who have no other contraindication to receive a vaccine. A fundamental problem for pwMS treated with immunomodulatory or immunosuppressive medications is whether the vaccine will remain safe or be able to solicit an adequate immune response.^20,21 As of the time of publication 2021, there is consensus that mRNA based or inactivated vaccines are also considered safe in pwMS undergoing immunomodulatory or immunosuppressive treatments.^20-23 We advise a one-on-one conversation between each veteran with MS and their primary neurologist to understand the importance of the vaccination, the minimal risks associated with it and if any specific treatment modification should be made.

To provide guidance, the National MS Society released a position statement that is regularly updated.²² Given the risks associated with discontinuation of disease modifying agents, pwMS opting to receive a COVID-19 vaccine should continue taking their medications unless recommended otherwise by their primary neurologist. In addition, on the basis of available literature and the American Academy of Neurology recommendations on the use of vaccines in general, the following recommendations are proposed.^20-23

Recommendation 1: injections, orals, and natalizumab. Given the risks associated with discontinuation of disease modifying agents, pwMS opting to receive a COVID-19 vaccine should continue taking their medications unless recommended otherwise by their primary neurologist. Neither delay in start nor adjustments in dosing or timing of administration are advised for pwMS taking currently available either generic or brand formulations of β interferons, glatiramer acetate, teriflunomide, dimethyl or monomethyl fumarate, or natalizumab.²²

Recommendation 2: anti-CD20 monoclonal infusions. As an attenuated humoral response is predicted in pwMS treated with anti-CD20 monoclonal infusions, coordinating the timing of vaccination with treatment schedule may maximize efficacy of the vaccine. Whenever possible, it is advised to be vaccinated ≥ 12 weeks after the last infusion and to resume infusion 4 weeks after the last dose of the vaccine. PwMS starting anti-CD20 monoclonal infusions are advised to be fully vaccinated first and start these medications ≥ 2 to 4 weeks later.²²

Recommendation 3: alemtuzumab infusion. Given its effect on CD52+ cells, it is advised to be vaccinated ≥ 24 weeks after the last infusion and to resume infusion 4 weeks after the last dose of the vaccine. PwMS starting alemtuzumab infusions are advised to get fully vaccinated first and start this medication 4 weeks or more after completing the vaccine.²²

Recommendation 4: sphingosine 1 phosphate receptor modulators, oral cladribine, and ofatumumab. PwMS starting any of these medications are advised to be fully vaccinated first and start these medications 2 to 4 weeks after completing the vaccine. PwMS already on those medications are not advised to change the schedule of administration. When possible, though, one should resume the dose of cladribine or ofatumumab 2 to 4 weeks after the last dose of the vaccine. ²⁰

Notably, all these recommendations hold true when there is enough disease stability to allow delaying treatment. We also add that it remains unclear if persons with an overall very low number of lymphocytes will be able to elicit a strong reaction to the vaccine. Blood collection and analysis of white blood cell count and lymphocyte subset estimates should be obtained in those persons with a markedly suppressed immune system. Whenever possible, to maximize outcome, timing the vaccination with treatment should be considered in those persons with a markedly reduced number of T-helper 1 cells.

Vaccination for Veterans

Currently the VHA is offering to veterans the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines with FDA EUAs. In accordance with FDA regulations, the VHA has paused administration of the Johnson and Johnson/Janssen vaccine. The VHA has launched its vaccination program in December 2020 by first providing the vaccine to health care personnel, nursing home patients, spinal cord injury patients, chemotherapy patients, dialysis and transplant patients, as well as homeless veterans. Most VA health care systems have passed this phase and are now able to provide vaccines to veterans with MS.

In December 2020, the MSCoE released a position statement regarding the importance and safety of the COVID-19 vaccine for veterans with MS.²⁴ This statement will be updated on a regular basis as new information becomes available from major organizations like the National MS Society, FDA, CDC, and World Health Organization (WHO) or relevant literature.

Conclusions

Older veterans with progressive MS and associated comorbidities are at higher risk of death should they be infected by COVID-19. Fortunately, we live in a time where vaccines are recognized as a critical tool to prevent this infection and to significantly reduce its morbidity and mortality. Yet, hesitancy to vaccinate has been identified as one of the most important threats to public health by the WHO in 2019.²⁵ Understandably such hesitancy is even more profound for the COVID-19 vaccine, which is being administered under an EUA. In light of this indecision, and given the current state of the pandemic, we urge health care providers to educate every veteran about the benefits of being vaccinated against COVID-19. Within the VHA, a solid campaign of vaccination has been put in place at an unprecedented speed.

Health care providers interacting with veterans with MS are encouraged to use the MSCoE website (www.va.gov/ms) for any questions or concerns, or to reach out to MSCoE staff. It is vitally important that our community of veterans receives appropriate education on the importance of this vaccination for their own safety, for that of their household and society.

This article has been updated to reflect new US Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations to pause administration of the Johnson and Johnson Jansen (JNJ-78436735) COVID-19 vaccine.¹

Since the outbreak of the pandemic caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2),a plethora of studies have been performed to increase our knowledge of its associated illness COVID-19.² There is no cure for COVID-19, which can be lethal. In the absence of a cure, preventive measures are of vital importance. In order to help prevent the spread of the virus, the Centers for Diseases Control and Prevention (CDC) advocates for: (1) the use of a face mask over the mouth and nose; (2) a minimum of 6-foot distance between individuals; and (3) avoidance of gatherings.As of March 2021, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved 3 vaccines for the prevention of COVID-19, under an emergency use authorization (EUA).^3-5

COVID-19 and Multiple Sclerosis

Since the beginning of the pandemic, neurologists have faced a new challenge—determining whether persons with multiple sclerosis (pwMS) were more at risk than others of becoming ill from COVID-19 or were destined for a worse outcome. The National MS Society has advised a personalized approach in relation to particularly vulnerable persons when needed and has also initiated worldwide registries to collect information regarding incidence and outcome of COVID-19 in pwMS. Accordingly, through the MS Center of Excellence (MSCoE), the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has established a national registry assembling data regarding COVID-19 in veterans with MS.

A recent descriptive literature review summarized the outcomes of 873 persons with both MS and COVID-19 and reported that about 36% of COVID-19 cases were treated with B-cell depleting therapies (ocrelizumab or rituximab).⁶ This proportion was relatively higher when compared with other disease modifying agents. Of those who became infected with SARS-CoV-2, death from COVID-19 occurred in about 4%, and an additional 3% required assisted invasive or noninvasive ventilation. Persons reported to have passed away from COVID-19 generally were older; had progressive MS; or had associated comorbidities such as obesity, hypertension, heart or lung conditions, or cancers. Of these, 50% were not on any disease modifying agent, 25% were on B-cell depleting therapies (ocrelizumab or rituximab), and the remaining 25% were on various medications for MS. It is important to highlight that no formal statistical analyses were performed in this review. On the contrary, in the recently published Italian report on 844 pwMS who had suspected or confirmed COVID-19, the authors used univariate and multivariate models to analyze their findings and noted that the use of ocrelizumab was significantly associated with a worse clinical outcome.⁷ These authors also identified age, sex, disability score, and recent (within 1 month) use of steroids as risk factors for a severe COVID-19 outcome. The incidence of death from COVID-19 in this cohort was 1.54%.

The recently published data from the North American Registry of the National MS Society based on 1,626 patients reported a 3.3% incidence of death from COVID-19.⁸ The following factors were identified as risks for worse outcome: male sex, nonambulatory status, age, Black race, and cardiovascular disease. The use of rituximab, ocrelizumab, and steroids (the latter medication over the preceding 2 months) increased the risks of hospitalization for COVID-19.

COVID-19 Vaccines

Of the 3 available vaccines, the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 (BNT162b2) vaccine is approved for individuals aged ≥ 16 years, while the Moderna COVID-19 (mRNA-1273) and the Johnson and Johnson/Jannsen COVID-19 (JNJ-78436735) vaccines are approved for individuals aged ≥ 18 years, though the latter vaccine has been temporarily suspended.^1,3-5 The EUAs were released following the disclosure of the results of 3 phase 3 clinical trials and several phase 1 and 2 clinical trials.^9-16

The BNT162b2 vaccine from Pfizer-BioNTech encodes the SARS-CoV-2 full-length spike protein (S) in prefusion conformation locked by the mutation in 2 prolines.⁹ Differently from the BNT162b2 vaccine, the BNT162b1 vaccine encodes a secreted trimerized SARS-CoV-2 receptor–binding domain. The S-glycoprotein is required for viral entry, as implicated in host cell attachment, and is the target of the neutralizing antibodies. In a phase 1 clinical study on 195 volunteers treated with BNT162b1 (10 mg, 20 mg, 30 mg, or 100 mg doses) or BNT162b2 (10 mg, 20 mg, or 30 mg doses) vaccines or placebo 21 days apart, both the binding and neutralizing antibody response was found to be age and “somewhat” dose dependent.⁹

Higher neutralization titers were measured at day 28 and 35 (7 and 14 days after the second dose, respectively) and compared with titers of persons who recovered from a COVID-19 infection.⁹ Serum neutralization was measured using a fluorescence-based high-throughput neutralization assay, while binding activity was assessed using the receptor-binding domain (RBD)–binding or S1-binding IgG direct Luminex immunoassays.

The overall reactogenicity/immunogenicity profile of BNT162b2 administered twice (30 mg each time) led to its selection for the phase 3 clinical trial.^9,10 In a large phase 3 clinical trial on 43,458 participants, the BNT162b2 vaccine given at 30 mg doses 21 days apart conferred 95% clinical efficacy in reducing the likelihood of being affected by symptomatic COVID-19.¹⁰ No safety concerns to stop the trial were identified, though related severe and life-threatening events were reported in 0.3% and 0.1% of the volunteers, respectively. We note that these incidence rates were the same for the treated and the placebo group.

The mRNA-1273 vaccine from Moderna also encodes the SARS-CoV-2 S-glycoprotein. In a dose escalation phase 1 trial of 45 participants aged between 18 and 55 years (25 mg, 100 mg or 250 mg, given at days 1 and 29) and 40 participants aged ≥ 57 years (25 mg and 100 mg, given at days 1 and 29), a dose-dependent effect was observed for both binding (receptor-binding domain and S-2p IgG on enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay [ELISA])and neutralizing antibodies (SARS-CoV-2 nanoluciferase high-throughput neutralization assay, focus reduction neutralization test mNeonGreen and SARS-CoV-2 plaque-reduction neutralization testing assay) development.^11,12 The geometric mean of both binding and neutralizing antibodies declined over time but persisted high as late as 119 days after the first burst of 100 mg dose.¹³ The same dose of the vaccine also elicited a strong T helper-1 response with little T helper-2 response across all ages.¹¹ The strength of the memory cellular response remains to be defined and is the subject of ongoing investigations. In a large phase 3 clinical trial with 30,420 participants, the Moderna COVID-19 mRNA-1273 vaccine, given 28 days apart at the dose of 100 mg, met 94.1% clinical efficacy in reducing the likelihood of being affected by symptomatic COVID-19.¹⁴

Less than 0.1% of volunteers in both groups withdrew from the trial due to adverse effects (AEs); 0.5% in the placebo group and 0.3% in the treated group had AEs after the first dose, which precluded receiving the second dose.¹⁴

The Johnson and Johnson/Jannsen JNJ-78436735 vaccine is based upon a recombinant, replication-incompetent adenovirus serotype 26 (Ad26) vector, which encodes the full-length, stabilized S-glycoprotein of SARS-CoV-2. The currently reported results of the phase 1 and 2 clinical study indicated that 805 volunteers (402 participants between ages 18 and 55 years and 403 individuals aged ≥ 65 years) were randomized to receive a single or double dose of either 5 x 10¹⁰ viral particles per 0.5 mL (low dose) or 1 x 10¹¹ viral particles per 0.5 mL (high dose), each compared with a placebo group. Incidence of seroconversion to binding antibodies against the full-length stabilized S-glycoprotein, as measured by ELISA, showed ≥ 96% seroconversion by day 29 after the first dose. The incidence of seroconversion to neutralizing antibodies was ≥ 90% as early as early as 29 days after the first of either dose. In this study, neutralization activity was measured using the wild-type virus microneutralization assay based on the Victoria/1/2020/ SARS-CoV-2 strain.¹⁵ We note that the data related to this study have been partially reported and additional information will be available when each participant will have received the second dose.

In a large phase 3 clinical trial with 40,000 participants aged between 18 and 100 years, the Johnson and Johnson/Jannsen JNJ-78436735 vaccine, given as single dose of 5 x 10¹⁰ viral particles per 0.5 mL, met 65.5% clinical efficacy in the likelihood of being affected by symptomatic COVID-19 ≥ 28 days postimmunization.¹⁶ In this study, the vaccine efficacy was found to have a geographic distribution with highest efficacy in the US (74.4%), followed by Latin America (64.7%) where Brazil showed a predominance of the P2 COVID-19 lineage (64.7%), and Africa (52%) where the B.1.351 lineage was most frequent (94.5%). The vaccine also proved to be effective in reducing the likelihood of asymptomatic seroconversion, as measured by the level of a non-S protein, eg, 0.7% of positive cases in the vaccine group vs 2.8% in the placebo group. Immunological data indicated that the vaccine response was mainly driven by T-helper 1 lymphocytes. As of April 13, 2021 the FDA has recommend suspending the administration of the Johnson and Johnson/Janssen vaccine due to the occurrence of severe blood clots reported in a 6 subjects out of ~6.8 millions administered doses.¹

It is noteworthy to highlight that all vaccines reduced the likelihood of hospitalizations and deaths due to COVID-19.

As of April 17, 2021, the CDC reports that more than 130 million (40%) Americans, nearly 1/3 of the population, have received at least 1 dose of any of the 3 available vaccines, including 4.6 million at the VHA.¹⁷ Using the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System and v-safe, the US is conducting what has been defined the most “intense and comprehensive safety monitoring in the US history.”¹⁸ Thus far, data affirm the overall safety of the available vaccines against COVID-19. Individuals should not receive the COVID-19 vaccines if they have had a severe allergic reaction to any ingredient in the vaccine or a severe allergic reaction to a prior dose of the vaccine. Additionally, individuals who have received convalescent plasma should wait 90 days before getting the COVID-19 vaccine.

Vaccination for Persons with MS

PwMS or those on immunosuppressive medications were excluded from the clinical trial led by Pfizer-BioNTech. There is no mention of MS as comorbidity in the study from Moderna, although this condition is not listed as an exclusion criterion either. The results of the phase 3 clinical trial for the Johnson and Johnson/Janssen vaccine are not fully public yet, thus this information is not known as well. As a result, the use of this vaccine in pwMS under immunomodulatory agents is based on previous knowledge of other vaccines. Evidence is growing for the safety of the BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccination in pwMS.¹⁹ Data regarding COVID-19 efficacy and safety are still largely based on previous knowledge on other vaccines.^20,21

Immunization of pwMS is considered safe and should proceed with confidence in those persons who have no other contraindication to receive a vaccine. A fundamental problem for pwMS treated with immunomodulatory or immunosuppressive medications is whether the vaccine will remain safe or be able to solicit an adequate immune response.^20,21 As of the time of publication 2021, there is consensus that mRNA based or inactivated vaccines are also considered safe in pwMS undergoing immunomodulatory or immunosuppressive treatments.^20-23 We advise a one-on-one conversation between each veteran with MS and their primary neurologist to understand the importance of the vaccination, the minimal risks associated with it and if any specific treatment modification should be made.

To provide guidance, the National MS Society released a position statement that is regularly updated.²² Given the risks associated with discontinuation of disease modifying agents, pwMS opting to receive a COVID-19 vaccine should continue taking their medications unless recommended otherwise by their primary neurologist. In addition, on the basis of available literature and the American Academy of Neurology recommendations on the use of vaccines in general, the following recommendations are proposed.^20-23

Recommendation 1: injections, orals, and natalizumab. Given the risks associated with discontinuation of disease modifying agents, pwMS opting to receive a COVID-19 vaccine should continue taking their medications unless recommended otherwise by their primary neurologist. Neither delay in start nor adjustments in dosing or timing of administration are advised for pwMS taking currently available either generic or brand formulations of β interferons, glatiramer acetate, teriflunomide, dimethyl or monomethyl fumarate, or natalizumab.²²

Recommendation 2: anti-CD20 monoclonal infusions. As an attenuated humoral response is predicted in pwMS treated with anti-CD20 monoclonal infusions, coordinating the timing of vaccination with treatment schedule may maximize efficacy of the vaccine. Whenever possible, it is advised to be vaccinated ≥ 12 weeks after the last infusion and to resume infusion 4 weeks after the last dose of the vaccine. PwMS starting anti-CD20 monoclonal infusions are advised to be fully vaccinated first and start these medications ≥ 2 to 4 weeks later.²²

Recommendation 3: alemtuzumab infusion. Given its effect on CD52+ cells, it is advised to be vaccinated ≥ 24 weeks after the last infusion and to resume infusion 4 weeks after the last dose of the vaccine. PwMS starting alemtuzumab infusions are advised to get fully vaccinated first and start this medication 4 weeks or more after completing the vaccine.²²

Recommendation 4: sphingosine 1 phosphate receptor modulators, oral cladribine, and ofatumumab. PwMS starting any of these medications are advised to be fully vaccinated first and start these medications 2 to 4 weeks after completing the vaccine. PwMS already on those medications are not advised to change the schedule of administration. When possible, though, one should resume the dose of cladribine or ofatumumab 2 to 4 weeks after the last dose of the vaccine. ²⁰

Notably, all these recommendations hold true when there is enough disease stability to allow delaying treatment. We also add that it remains unclear if persons with an overall very low number of lymphocytes will be able to elicit a strong reaction to the vaccine. Blood collection and analysis of white blood cell count and lymphocyte subset estimates should be obtained in those persons with a markedly suppressed immune system. Whenever possible, to maximize outcome, timing the vaccination with treatment should be considered in those persons with a markedly reduced number of T-helper 1 cells.

Vaccination for Veterans

Currently the VHA is offering to veterans the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines with FDA EUAs. In accordance with FDA regulations, the VHA has paused administration of the Johnson and Johnson/Janssen vaccine. The VHA has launched its vaccination program in December 2020 by first providing the vaccine to health care personnel, nursing home patients, spinal cord injury patients, chemotherapy patients, dialysis and transplant patients, as well as homeless veterans. Most VA health care systems have passed this phase and are now able to provide vaccines to veterans with MS.

In December 2020, the MSCoE released a position statement regarding the importance and safety of the COVID-19 vaccine for veterans with MS.²⁴ This statement will be updated on a regular basis as new information becomes available from major organizations like the National MS Society, FDA, CDC, and World Health Organization (WHO) or relevant literature.

Conclusions

Older veterans with progressive MS and associated comorbidities are at higher risk of death should they be infected by COVID-19. Fortunately, we live in a time where vaccines are recognized as a critical tool to prevent this infection and to significantly reduce its morbidity and mortality. Yet, hesitancy to vaccinate has been identified as one of the most important threats to public health by the WHO in 2019.²⁵ Understandably such hesitancy is even more profound for the COVID-19 vaccine, which is being administered under an EUA. In light of this indecision, and given the current state of the pandemic, we urge health care providers to educate every veteran about the benefits of being vaccinated against COVID-19. Within the VHA, a solid campaign of vaccination has been put in place at an unprecedented speed.

Health care providers interacting with veterans with MS are encouraged to use the MSCoE website (www.va.gov/ms) for any questions or concerns, or to reach out to MSCoE staff. It is vitally important that our community of veterans receives appropriate education on the importance of this vaccination for their own safety, for that of their household and society.