Income inequality corresponds to higher COVID-19 incidence and mortality beyond the effects of race and ethnicity, according to an analysis of U.S. county-level data.

Courtesy NIAID

The study, published in JAMA Network Open (2021 Jan 20. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.34578), was led by Tim F. Liao, PhD, of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and Fernando de Maio, of DePaul University, Chicago. They wrote: “This analysis confirms the association between racial/ethnic composition and COVID-19 incidence and mortality. A higher level of Black or Hispanic composition in a county is associated with a higher COVID-19 incidence and mortality; a higher level of economic inequality is also associated with a higher level of incidence and mortality.”

The analysis, which examined data from the first 200 days of the pandemic from January to August 2020, examined the joint associations between income inequality and racial and ethnic composition. Researchers mined data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Census Bureau, the Kaiser Family Foundation, and other sources for 3,142 U.S. counties.

Income inequality was measured with the Gini index, on a 0-100 scale, with zero meaning perfect income equality (everyone has the same income) and 100 meaning perfect inequality (only one person or group has all of the income). The average Gini score across all the counties was 44.5, with a range of 25.6-66.5.

Researchers found that, for every 1.0% increase in a county’s Black population, there was a 1.9% increase in COVID-19 incidence (risk ratio, 1.019; 95% confidence interval, 1.016-1.022) and a 2.6% increase in COVID-19 mortality (RR, 1.026; 95% CI, 1.020-1.033). For every 1.0% increase in a county’s Hispanic population, there was a 2.4% increase in incidence (RR, 1.024; 95% CI, 1.012-1.025) and a 1.9% increase in mortality (RR, 1.019; 95% CI, 1.012-1.025).

Income inequality had an even greater effect on COVID-19 incidence and mortality. For each 1.0% rise in a county’s income inequality, there was a 2.0% rise in incidence (RR, 1.020; 95% CI, 1.012-1.027), and a 3.0% rise in mortality (RR, 1.030; 95% CI, 1.012-1.047).

In counties with lower percentages of Black and Hispanic population – up to about 50% for blacks and about 20%-30% for Hispanics – greater income inequality was correlated with higher COVID-19 incidence and mortality. But as the proportion of the Black and Hispanic population increased, race and ethnic population became the much more dominant predictive factor. In other words, the researchers said, income inequality seems to become less of a factor in COVID-related health as the minority population number grows in a given county.

“This finding implies that counties with relatively low proportions of Black or Hispanic residents may experience health effects of income inequality associated with the neomaterial pathway, which connects income inequality to population health through the breakdown of public infrastructure,” such as education, transportation and health care, the researchers said.

The study also examined the interaction between these factors and political attributes of a county, such as whether a governor faced a term limit, was Republican, or was male, and these were found to have no effect on COVID-19 incidence and mortality. Counties in states participating in Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act had a 32% lower COVID-19 incidence rate, researchers found, but there was no correlation with mortality rates.

“This analysis found racial/ethnic composition, while important, does not reveal the full complexity of the story,” the researchers wrote. “Income inequality – a measure not typically included in public health county-level surveillance – also needs to be considered as a driver of the disproportionate burden borne by minoritized communities across the United States.”

The findings, they said, support using composite variables that “measure both income inequality and racial/ethnic composition simultaneously.”

The investigators had no disclosures.

Income inequality corresponds to higher COVID-19 incidence and mortality beyond the effects of race and ethnicity, according to an analysis of U.S. county-level data.

Courtesy NIAID

The study, published in JAMA Network Open (2021 Jan 20. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.34578), was led by Tim F. Liao, PhD, of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and Fernando de Maio, of DePaul University, Chicago. They wrote: “This analysis confirms the association between racial/ethnic composition and COVID-19 incidence and mortality. A higher level of Black or Hispanic composition in a county is associated with a higher COVID-19 incidence and mortality; a higher level of economic inequality is also associated with a higher level of incidence and mortality.”

The analysis, which examined data from the first 200 days of the pandemic from January to August 2020, examined the joint associations between income inequality and racial and ethnic composition. Researchers mined data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Census Bureau, the Kaiser Family Foundation, and other sources for 3,142 U.S. counties.

Income inequality was measured with the Gini index, on a 0-100 scale, with zero meaning perfect income equality (everyone has the same income) and 100 meaning perfect inequality (only one person or group has all of the income). The average Gini score across all the counties was 44.5, with a range of 25.6-66.5.

Researchers found that, for every 1.0% increase in a county’s Black population, there was a 1.9% increase in COVID-19 incidence (risk ratio, 1.019; 95% confidence interval, 1.016-1.022) and a 2.6% increase in COVID-19 mortality (RR, 1.026; 95% CI, 1.020-1.033). For every 1.0% increase in a county’s Hispanic population, there was a 2.4% increase in incidence (RR, 1.024; 95% CI, 1.012-1.025) and a 1.9% increase in mortality (RR, 1.019; 95% CI, 1.012-1.025).

Income inequality had an even greater effect on COVID-19 incidence and mortality. For each 1.0% rise in a county’s income inequality, there was a 2.0% rise in incidence (RR, 1.020; 95% CI, 1.012-1.027), and a 3.0% rise in mortality (RR, 1.030; 95% CI, 1.012-1.047).

In counties with lower percentages of Black and Hispanic population – up to about 50% for blacks and about 20%-30% for Hispanics – greater income inequality was correlated with higher COVID-19 incidence and mortality. But as the proportion of the Black and Hispanic population increased, race and ethnic population became the much more dominant predictive factor. In other words, the researchers said, income inequality seems to become less of a factor in COVID-related health as the minority population number grows in a given county.

“This finding implies that counties with relatively low proportions of Black or Hispanic residents may experience health effects of income inequality associated with the neomaterial pathway, which connects income inequality to population health through the breakdown of public infrastructure,” such as education, transportation and health care, the researchers said.

The study also examined the interaction between these factors and political attributes of a county, such as whether a governor faced a term limit, was Republican, or was male, and these were found to have no effect on COVID-19 incidence and mortality. Counties in states participating in Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act had a 32% lower COVID-19 incidence rate, researchers found, but there was no correlation with mortality rates.

“This analysis found racial/ethnic composition, while important, does not reveal the full complexity of the story,” the researchers wrote. “Income inequality – a measure not typically included in public health county-level surveillance – also needs to be considered as a driver of the disproportionate burden borne by minoritized communities across the United States.”

The findings, they said, support using composite variables that “measure both income inequality and racial/ethnic composition simultaneously.”

The investigators had no disclosures.

Income inequality corresponds to higher COVID-19 incidence and mortality beyond the effects of race and ethnicity, according to an analysis of U.S. county-level data.

Courtesy NIAID

The study, published in JAMA Network Open (2021 Jan 20. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.34578), was led by Tim F. Liao, PhD, of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and Fernando de Maio, of DePaul University, Chicago. They wrote: “This analysis confirms the association between racial/ethnic composition and COVID-19 incidence and mortality. A higher level of Black or Hispanic composition in a county is associated with a higher COVID-19 incidence and mortality; a higher level of economic inequality is also associated with a higher level of incidence and mortality.”

The analysis, which examined data from the first 200 days of the pandemic from January to August 2020, examined the joint associations between income inequality and racial and ethnic composition. Researchers mined data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Census Bureau, the Kaiser Family Foundation, and other sources for 3,142 U.S. counties.

Income inequality was measured with the Gini index, on a 0-100 scale, with zero meaning perfect income equality (everyone has the same income) and 100 meaning perfect inequality (only one person or group has all of the income). The average Gini score across all the counties was 44.5, with a range of 25.6-66.5.

Researchers found that, for every 1.0% increase in a county’s Black population, there was a 1.9% increase in COVID-19 incidence (risk ratio, 1.019; 95% confidence interval, 1.016-1.022) and a 2.6% increase in COVID-19 mortality (RR, 1.026; 95% CI, 1.020-1.033). For every 1.0% increase in a county’s Hispanic population, there was a 2.4% increase in incidence (RR, 1.024; 95% CI, 1.012-1.025) and a 1.9% increase in mortality (RR, 1.019; 95% CI, 1.012-1.025).

Income inequality had an even greater effect on COVID-19 incidence and mortality. For each 1.0% rise in a county’s income inequality, there was a 2.0% rise in incidence (RR, 1.020; 95% CI, 1.012-1.027), and a 3.0% rise in mortality (RR, 1.030; 95% CI, 1.012-1.047).

In counties with lower percentages of Black and Hispanic population – up to about 50% for blacks and about 20%-30% for Hispanics – greater income inequality was correlated with higher COVID-19 incidence and mortality. But as the proportion of the Black and Hispanic population increased, race and ethnic population became the much more dominant predictive factor. In other words, the researchers said, income inequality seems to become less of a factor in COVID-related health as the minority population number grows in a given county.

“This finding implies that counties with relatively low proportions of Black or Hispanic residents may experience health effects of income inequality associated with the neomaterial pathway, which connects income inequality to population health through the breakdown of public infrastructure,” such as education, transportation and health care, the researchers said.

The study also examined the interaction between these factors and political attributes of a county, such as whether a governor faced a term limit, was Republican, or was male, and these were found to have no effect on COVID-19 incidence and mortality. Counties in states participating in Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act had a 32% lower COVID-19 incidence rate, researchers found, but there was no correlation with mortality rates.

“This analysis found racial/ethnic composition, while important, does not reveal the full complexity of the story,” the researchers wrote. “Income inequality – a measure not typically included in public health county-level surveillance – also needs to be considered as a driver of the disproportionate burden borne by minoritized communities across the United States.”

The findings, they said, support using composite variables that “measure both income inequality and racial/ethnic composition simultaneously.”

The investigators had no disclosures.

Mounting evidence confirms what many clinicians have suspected for years: That daily moisturizers are the bedrock of atopic dermatitis management.

In an updated review of clinical evidence on the topic, Adelaide A. Hebert, MD, Noreen Heer Nicol, PhD, RN, FNP, and colleagues evaluated 13 trials that assessed daily moisturization for the treatment of AD published between 2006 and 2019. “The bottom line is, daily moisturization increased skin hydration and it decreased transepidermal water loss in all children and adults in the 13 studies we looked at,” Dr. Nicol, associate dean and associate professor of nursing at the University of Colorado, Denver, said at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis symposium.

Based on published evidence in the review, she and her coauthors assembled six points regarding the importance of essential skin repair in AD:

1. It strengthens the barrier that protects against environmental triggers such as skin irritants aeroallergens, dust mites, and pet dander.

2. It decreases moisture loss that perpetuates damage and can provoke inflammatory processes.

3. It promotes a healthy microbiome via induction of antimicrobial peptides.

4. It maintains stratum corneum acidification, which protects against pathogens.

5. It reduces recurrence of flares when used daily.

6. It prevents the onset of AD when applied early in life to at-risk children.

A separate review of optimal AD care authored by Dr. Nicol underscores the importance of foundational management, “meaning that we want you to use hydration and daily moisturizers as part of your everyday management,” she said. “Without good barrier repair, infections and allergens can break through. The intention is to have that barrier repair a key point of moisturizer use.”

In a 2014 published study, researchers investigated the role of proactive emollient therapy in preventing AD in 124 neonates in the United States and the United Kingdom with a first-degree relative with a history of allergic rhinitis, asthma, or AD. The treatment group received daily total body application of Aquaphor Healing Ointment, Cetaphil Cream, or sunflower seed oil, starting at 3 weeks of age, while the control group received no moisturizers. They found that daily emollient therapy significantly reduced the cumulative incidence of AD at 6 months (22% vs. 42% among controls). A follow-up study confirmed a protective but nonsignificant effect of daily moisturizer use at 12 months (AD was diagnosed in 13.2% of those in the treatment group vs. 25% in the control group), most likely due to the study being underpowered.

“The message here is simple,” Dr. Nicol said. “Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we could reduce the burden of AD by doing something as straightforward as moisturizer use in our neonates?”

With so many moisturizers on the market today, considerations include active ingredients, side effects, absorption, and amount required for efficacy. “On the average adult, head to toe, front to back, one time it takes about 30 grams or one ounce of something to cover them completely, so you want to make sure people are using enough,” Dr. Nicol said. “You don’t want to be prescribing people 15- and 30-gram tubes of product and hoping they have enough to cover their bodies multiple times.”

Ten years ago, a randomized, controlled trial found that Aquaphor Healing Ointment was 47 times more cost-effective than prescription barrier creams Atopiclair nonsteroidal cream and EpiCeram controlled release skin barrier emulsion. “The most expensive things do not have to be the best things to be used,” Dr. Nicol said. “Recognize what the properties of these products are and what the benefit is.”

A basic principle of skin care for AD patients recommended by Dr. Nicol and colleagues at National Jewish Health, Denver, includes applying a fragrance-free moisturizer within 3 minutes of finishing a bath or a shower. They recommend products sold in 1-pound jars or large tubes, such as Aquaphor Healing Ointment, Vaniply Ointment, Eucerin Creme (various formulations), Vanicream, CeraVe Cream, or Cetaphil cream. “Vaseline is a good occlusive preparation to seal in but is most effective after bath or shower,” the recommendations continue. “Topical maintenance medications may be used in place of moisturizers or sealer when prescribed.”

She recommends including a list of preferred moisturizers for patients to use into written action plans for skin care. “This adds a lot of benefit to patients,” she said. “Always put the patient at the center of your decision-making. Spend time listening to them, give them options of things that they are willing to use so that they can trust you.”

Dr. Nicol disclosed that she has served as an advisory board member for Eli Lilly & Co.

[email protected]

Mounting evidence confirms what many clinicians have suspected for years: That daily moisturizers are the bedrock of atopic dermatitis management.

In an updated review of clinical evidence on the topic, Adelaide A. Hebert, MD, Noreen Heer Nicol, PhD, RN, FNP, and colleagues evaluated 13 trials that assessed daily moisturization for the treatment of AD published between 2006 and 2019. “The bottom line is, daily moisturization increased skin hydration and it decreased transepidermal water loss in all children and adults in the 13 studies we looked at,” Dr. Nicol, associate dean and associate professor of nursing at the University of Colorado, Denver, said at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis symposium.

Based on published evidence in the review, she and her coauthors assembled six points regarding the importance of essential skin repair in AD:

1. It strengthens the barrier that protects against environmental triggers such as skin irritants aeroallergens, dust mites, and pet dander.

2. It decreases moisture loss that perpetuates damage and can provoke inflammatory processes.

3. It promotes a healthy microbiome via induction of antimicrobial peptides.

4. It maintains stratum corneum acidification, which protects against pathogens.

5. It reduces recurrence of flares when used daily.

6. It prevents the onset of AD when applied early in life to at-risk children.

A separate review of optimal AD care authored by Dr. Nicol underscores the importance of foundational management, “meaning that we want you to use hydration and daily moisturizers as part of your everyday management,” she said. “Without good barrier repair, infections and allergens can break through. The intention is to have that barrier repair a key point of moisturizer use.”

In a 2014 published study, researchers investigated the role of proactive emollient therapy in preventing AD in 124 neonates in the United States and the United Kingdom with a first-degree relative with a history of allergic rhinitis, asthma, or AD. The treatment group received daily total body application of Aquaphor Healing Ointment, Cetaphil Cream, or sunflower seed oil, starting at 3 weeks of age, while the control group received no moisturizers. They found that daily emollient therapy significantly reduced the cumulative incidence of AD at 6 months (22% vs. 42% among controls). A follow-up study confirmed a protective but nonsignificant effect of daily moisturizer use at 12 months (AD was diagnosed in 13.2% of those in the treatment group vs. 25% in the control group), most likely due to the study being underpowered.

“The message here is simple,” Dr. Nicol said. “Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we could reduce the burden of AD by doing something as straightforward as moisturizer use in our neonates?”

With so many moisturizers on the market today, considerations include active ingredients, side effects, absorption, and amount required for efficacy. “On the average adult, head to toe, front to back, one time it takes about 30 grams or one ounce of something to cover them completely, so you want to make sure people are using enough,” Dr. Nicol said. “You don’t want to be prescribing people 15- and 30-gram tubes of product and hoping they have enough to cover their bodies multiple times.”

Ten years ago, a randomized, controlled trial found that Aquaphor Healing Ointment was 47 times more cost-effective than prescription barrier creams Atopiclair nonsteroidal cream and EpiCeram controlled release skin barrier emulsion. “The most expensive things do not have to be the best things to be used,” Dr. Nicol said. “Recognize what the properties of these products are and what the benefit is.”

A basic principle of skin care for AD patients recommended by Dr. Nicol and colleagues at National Jewish Health, Denver, includes applying a fragrance-free moisturizer within 3 minutes of finishing a bath or a shower. They recommend products sold in 1-pound jars or large tubes, such as Aquaphor Healing Ointment, Vaniply Ointment, Eucerin Creme (various formulations), Vanicream, CeraVe Cream, or Cetaphil cream. “Vaseline is a good occlusive preparation to seal in but is most effective after bath or shower,” the recommendations continue. “Topical maintenance medications may be used in place of moisturizers or sealer when prescribed.”

She recommends including a list of preferred moisturizers for patients to use into written action plans for skin care. “This adds a lot of benefit to patients,” she said. “Always put the patient at the center of your decision-making. Spend time listening to them, give them options of things that they are willing to use so that they can trust you.”

Dr. Nicol disclosed that she has served as an advisory board member for Eli Lilly & Co.

[email protected]

Mounting evidence confirms what many clinicians have suspected for years: That daily moisturizers are the bedrock of atopic dermatitis management.

In an updated review of clinical evidence on the topic, Adelaide A. Hebert, MD, Noreen Heer Nicol, PhD, RN, FNP, and colleagues evaluated 13 trials that assessed daily moisturization for the treatment of AD published between 2006 and 2019. “The bottom line is, daily moisturization increased skin hydration and it decreased transepidermal water loss in all children and adults in the 13 studies we looked at,” Dr. Nicol, associate dean and associate professor of nursing at the University of Colorado, Denver, said at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis symposium.

Based on published evidence in the review, she and her coauthors assembled six points regarding the importance of essential skin repair in AD:

1. It strengthens the barrier that protects against environmental triggers such as skin irritants aeroallergens, dust mites, and pet dander.

2. It decreases moisture loss that perpetuates damage and can provoke inflammatory processes.

3. It promotes a healthy microbiome via induction of antimicrobial peptides.

4. It maintains stratum corneum acidification, which protects against pathogens.

5. It reduces recurrence of flares when used daily.

6. It prevents the onset of AD when applied early in life to at-risk children.

A separate review of optimal AD care authored by Dr. Nicol underscores the importance of foundational management, “meaning that we want you to use hydration and daily moisturizers as part of your everyday management,” she said. “Without good barrier repair, infections and allergens can break through. The intention is to have that barrier repair a key point of moisturizer use.”

In a 2014 published study, researchers investigated the role of proactive emollient therapy in preventing AD in 124 neonates in the United States and the United Kingdom with a first-degree relative with a history of allergic rhinitis, asthma, or AD. The treatment group received daily total body application of Aquaphor Healing Ointment, Cetaphil Cream, or sunflower seed oil, starting at 3 weeks of age, while the control group received no moisturizers. They found that daily emollient therapy significantly reduced the cumulative incidence of AD at 6 months (22% vs. 42% among controls). A follow-up study confirmed a protective but nonsignificant effect of daily moisturizer use at 12 months (AD was diagnosed in 13.2% of those in the treatment group vs. 25% in the control group), most likely due to the study being underpowered.

“The message here is simple,” Dr. Nicol said. “Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we could reduce the burden of AD by doing something as straightforward as moisturizer use in our neonates?”

With so many moisturizers on the market today, considerations include active ingredients, side effects, absorption, and amount required for efficacy. “On the average adult, head to toe, front to back, one time it takes about 30 grams or one ounce of something to cover them completely, so you want to make sure people are using enough,” Dr. Nicol said. “You don’t want to be prescribing people 15- and 30-gram tubes of product and hoping they have enough to cover their bodies multiple times.”

Ten years ago, a randomized, controlled trial found that Aquaphor Healing Ointment was 47 times more cost-effective than prescription barrier creams Atopiclair nonsteroidal cream and EpiCeram controlled release skin barrier emulsion. “The most expensive things do not have to be the best things to be used,” Dr. Nicol said. “Recognize what the properties of these products are and what the benefit is.”

A basic principle of skin care for AD patients recommended by Dr. Nicol and colleagues at National Jewish Health, Denver, includes applying a fragrance-free moisturizer within 3 minutes of finishing a bath or a shower. They recommend products sold in 1-pound jars or large tubes, such as Aquaphor Healing Ointment, Vaniply Ointment, Eucerin Creme (various formulations), Vanicream, CeraVe Cream, or Cetaphil cream. “Vaseline is a good occlusive preparation to seal in but is most effective after bath or shower,” the recommendations continue. “Topical maintenance medications may be used in place of moisturizers or sealer when prescribed.”

She recommends including a list of preferred moisturizers for patients to use into written action plans for skin care. “This adds a lot of benefit to patients,” she said. “Always put the patient at the center of your decision-making. Spend time listening to them, give them options of things that they are willing to use so that they can trust you.”

Dr. Nicol disclosed that she has served as an advisory board member for Eli Lilly & Co.

[email protected]

Many patients are receiving inadequate eradication therapy for Helicobacter pylori infection, according to analysis of a European registry.

In their analysis, published in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, Olga P. Nyssen, BSc, PhD, of the Autonomous University of Madrid and colleagues discussed seven errors, which included prescribing a triple instead of quadruple regimen, prescribing therapy for too short of a duration, and prescribing a low dose of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs).

“[E]ven after more than 30 years of experience in H. pylori treatment, the ideal regimen to treat this infection remains undefined,” the investigators wrote. The European Registry on Helicobacter pylori management “represents a good mapping overview of the current situation regarding H. pylori management, allowing not only continuous assessment of the integration of clinical recommendations agreed on medical consensus, but also of the possible strategies for improvement.”

Patient data were drawn from registry-participating countries that each had more than 1,000 cases of H. pylori available; most came from Spain, followed by Russia, Italy, Slovenia, and Lithuania. Of these patients, data for 26,340 patients were analyzed, which ultimately represented 80% of the total registry from 2013 to 2019.

The first mistake discussed in the paper regarded use of less-effective triple therapies (typically PPI plus two antibiotics); one review showed that these regimens fail in 20%-40% of cases. Increasing antibiotic resistances have only worsened the success rate. According to this study, a triple regimen was given as first-line treatment in 46% of cases. Overall, frequency of triple-therapy prescriptions decreased from more than 50% in 2013 to about 40% in 2019. More significant improvements in this area were achieved in Spain, where use of triple therapies decreased from 24% in 2014 to 0% in 2019. According to the investigators, this finding serves as a “paradigmatic example of improvement with time.”

The authors pointed out that “overwhelming evidence” supports 14-day treatment; however, 69% of triple-therapy durations and 58% of quadruple therapy cases were for 7 or 10 days. Triple therapy at this duration showed only 81% cure rate, while it was 88% with 14 days, and quadruple therapy was only 80% effective at 7-10 days but 90% effective at 14 days.

“Fortunately,” the investigators wrote, “this mistake was progressively found less frequently and, at present, the prescription of 7-day standard triple therapy regimens has almost disappeared.”

The authors noted acid suppression via PPIs improves cure rates: In one meta-analysis, the cure rate of triple therapy regimens increased by 6%-10% with high doses of PPIs. However, the current study found that 48% of triple therapies included low-dose PPIs. This number decreased over time, the authors noted: from 67% in 2013 to 20% in 2019.

“From another perspective, the daily PPI dose has increased from a dose equivalent to 54 mg of omeprazole in 2013 to 104 mg in 2019,” they wrote.

The other four errors they discussed were failing to adequately consider penicillin allergies in prescription choices, failing to consider the importance of treatment compliance, repeating certain antibiotics after failures, and not checking eradication success after treatment.

Based on these findings, Dr. Nyssen and colleagues suggested that “penetration of recommendations in the participating European countries is still poor and delayed, even though some improvements from guidelines have been partially incorporated.”

According to Grigorios I. Leontiadis, MD, PhD, of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., who coauthored the 2017 American College of Gastroenterology H. pylori management guidelines and the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology “Toronto Consensus” in 2016, “This study is important and timely given the steadily increasing antibiotic resistance of H. pylori worldwide.”

Although Dr. Leontiadias described the results as “suboptimal,” he was partially reassured by the improvements over time, “especially following publication of the 2016 European clinical practice guidelines.” He also noted that some older clinical practice guidelines issued conditional recommendations, which could “justify the lower adherence seen in the early period of this study.”

“The unanswered question,” Dr. Leontiadias went on, “is whether the practice of gastroenterologists who volunteered to participate in this prospective registry is truly representative of how H. pylori is managed in Europe. Most likely it isn’t. Nonparticipating gastroenterologists and nongastroenterologist health care practitioners are probably less aware of and less adherent to clinical practice guidelines. This means that the actual situation in the real world is probably grimmer than what this study shows.”

William D. Chey, MD, Nostrant Collegiate Professor of Gastroenterology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, considered the results “not entirely surprising, but nonetheless, noteworthy.”

Dr. Chey noted that the United States lacks a similar registry to compare real-world H. pylori management; even so, he suggested several findings that “bear reiteration” for clinicians in the United States.

“U.S. providers should consider regimens other than clarithromycin triple therapy when treating H. pylori infection,” Dr. Chey said. “Since U.S. providers do not have reliable data on H. pylori antimicrobial resistance, it is useful to ask about prior macrolide antibiotic exposure, and if a patient has received a macrolide for any reason, clarithromycin triple therapy should be avoided. Bismuth quadruple therapy remains a reliable first-line treatment option in the U.S. Another recently approved first-line treatment option is the combination of a proton pump inhibitor, rifabutin, and amoxicillin. Treatment regimens in the U.S. should be given for a minimum of 10 days and, preferably, for 14 days. Another point made by the article is that providers should be maximizing gastric acid suppression by using higher doses of proton pump inhibitors when treating H. pylori.”

Dr. Chey also noted an emerging treatment option that could soon be available. “Results from phase 3 trials in North America and Europe with the potassium-competitive acid blocker vonoprazan combined with amoxicillin, with and without clarithromycin, are expected in 2021 and may provide another novel first-line treatment option.”

Dr. Nyssen and colleagues disclosed relationships with Allergan, Mayoly, Janssen, and others. Dr. Chey is a consultant for Redhill, Phathom, and Takeda, which is developing vonoprazan. Dr. Leontiadias disclosed no conflicts of interest.

This article was updated 2/16/21.

Many patients are receiving inadequate eradication therapy for Helicobacter pylori infection, according to analysis of a European registry.

In their analysis, published in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, Olga P. Nyssen, BSc, PhD, of the Autonomous University of Madrid and colleagues discussed seven errors, which included prescribing a triple instead of quadruple regimen, prescribing therapy for too short of a duration, and prescribing a low dose of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs).

“[E]ven after more than 30 years of experience in H. pylori treatment, the ideal regimen to treat this infection remains undefined,” the investigators wrote. The European Registry on Helicobacter pylori management “represents a good mapping overview of the current situation regarding H. pylori management, allowing not only continuous assessment of the integration of clinical recommendations agreed on medical consensus, but also of the possible strategies for improvement.”

Patient data were drawn from registry-participating countries that each had more than 1,000 cases of H. pylori available; most came from Spain, followed by Russia, Italy, Slovenia, and Lithuania. Of these patients, data for 26,340 patients were analyzed, which ultimately represented 80% of the total registry from 2013 to 2019.

The first mistake discussed in the paper regarded use of less-effective triple therapies (typically PPI plus two antibiotics); one review showed that these regimens fail in 20%-40% of cases. Increasing antibiotic resistances have only worsened the success rate. According to this study, a triple regimen was given as first-line treatment in 46% of cases. Overall, frequency of triple-therapy prescriptions decreased from more than 50% in 2013 to about 40% in 2019. More significant improvements in this area were achieved in Spain, where use of triple therapies decreased from 24% in 2014 to 0% in 2019. According to the investigators, this finding serves as a “paradigmatic example of improvement with time.”

The authors pointed out that “overwhelming evidence” supports 14-day treatment; however, 69% of triple-therapy durations and 58% of quadruple therapy cases were for 7 or 10 days. Triple therapy at this duration showed only 81% cure rate, while it was 88% with 14 days, and quadruple therapy was only 80% effective at 7-10 days but 90% effective at 14 days.

“Fortunately,” the investigators wrote, “this mistake was progressively found less frequently and, at present, the prescription of 7-day standard triple therapy regimens has almost disappeared.”

The authors noted acid suppression via PPIs improves cure rates: In one meta-analysis, the cure rate of triple therapy regimens increased by 6%-10% with high doses of PPIs. However, the current study found that 48% of triple therapies included low-dose PPIs. This number decreased over time, the authors noted: from 67% in 2013 to 20% in 2019.

“From another perspective, the daily PPI dose has increased from a dose equivalent to 54 mg of omeprazole in 2013 to 104 mg in 2019,” they wrote.

The other four errors they discussed were failing to adequately consider penicillin allergies in prescription choices, failing to consider the importance of treatment compliance, repeating certain antibiotics after failures, and not checking eradication success after treatment.

Based on these findings, Dr. Nyssen and colleagues suggested that “penetration of recommendations in the participating European countries is still poor and delayed, even though some improvements from guidelines have been partially incorporated.”

According to Grigorios I. Leontiadis, MD, PhD, of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., who coauthored the 2017 American College of Gastroenterology H. pylori management guidelines and the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology “Toronto Consensus” in 2016, “This study is important and timely given the steadily increasing antibiotic resistance of H. pylori worldwide.”

Although Dr. Leontiadias described the results as “suboptimal,” he was partially reassured by the improvements over time, “especially following publication of the 2016 European clinical practice guidelines.” He also noted that some older clinical practice guidelines issued conditional recommendations, which could “justify the lower adherence seen in the early period of this study.”

“The unanswered question,” Dr. Leontiadias went on, “is whether the practice of gastroenterologists who volunteered to participate in this prospective registry is truly representative of how H. pylori is managed in Europe. Most likely it isn’t. Nonparticipating gastroenterologists and nongastroenterologist health care practitioners are probably less aware of and less adherent to clinical practice guidelines. This means that the actual situation in the real world is probably grimmer than what this study shows.”

William D. Chey, MD, Nostrant Collegiate Professor of Gastroenterology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, considered the results “not entirely surprising, but nonetheless, noteworthy.”

Dr. Chey noted that the United States lacks a similar registry to compare real-world H. pylori management; even so, he suggested several findings that “bear reiteration” for clinicians in the United States.

“U.S. providers should consider regimens other than clarithromycin triple therapy when treating H. pylori infection,” Dr. Chey said. “Since U.S. providers do not have reliable data on H. pylori antimicrobial resistance, it is useful to ask about prior macrolide antibiotic exposure, and if a patient has received a macrolide for any reason, clarithromycin triple therapy should be avoided. Bismuth quadruple therapy remains a reliable first-line treatment option in the U.S. Another recently approved first-line treatment option is the combination of a proton pump inhibitor, rifabutin, and amoxicillin. Treatment regimens in the U.S. should be given for a minimum of 10 days and, preferably, for 14 days. Another point made by the article is that providers should be maximizing gastric acid suppression by using higher doses of proton pump inhibitors when treating H. pylori.”

Dr. Chey also noted an emerging treatment option that could soon be available. “Results from phase 3 trials in North America and Europe with the potassium-competitive acid blocker vonoprazan combined with amoxicillin, with and without clarithromycin, are expected in 2021 and may provide another novel first-line treatment option.”

Dr. Nyssen and colleagues disclosed relationships with Allergan, Mayoly, Janssen, and others. Dr. Chey is a consultant for Redhill, Phathom, and Takeda, which is developing vonoprazan. Dr. Leontiadias disclosed no conflicts of interest.

This article was updated 2/16/21.

Many patients are receiving inadequate eradication therapy for Helicobacter pylori infection, according to analysis of a European registry.

In their analysis, published in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, Olga P. Nyssen, BSc, PhD, of the Autonomous University of Madrid and colleagues discussed seven errors, which included prescribing a triple instead of quadruple regimen, prescribing therapy for too short of a duration, and prescribing a low dose of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs).

“[E]ven after more than 30 years of experience in H. pylori treatment, the ideal regimen to treat this infection remains undefined,” the investigators wrote. The European Registry on Helicobacter pylori management “represents a good mapping overview of the current situation regarding H. pylori management, allowing not only continuous assessment of the integration of clinical recommendations agreed on medical consensus, but also of the possible strategies for improvement.”

Patient data were drawn from registry-participating countries that each had more than 1,000 cases of H. pylori available; most came from Spain, followed by Russia, Italy, Slovenia, and Lithuania. Of these patients, data for 26,340 patients were analyzed, which ultimately represented 80% of the total registry from 2013 to 2019.

The first mistake discussed in the paper regarded use of less-effective triple therapies (typically PPI plus two antibiotics); one review showed that these regimens fail in 20%-40% of cases. Increasing antibiotic resistances have only worsened the success rate. According to this study, a triple regimen was given as first-line treatment in 46% of cases. Overall, frequency of triple-therapy prescriptions decreased from more than 50% in 2013 to about 40% in 2019. More significant improvements in this area were achieved in Spain, where use of triple therapies decreased from 24% in 2014 to 0% in 2019. According to the investigators, this finding serves as a “paradigmatic example of improvement with time.”

The authors pointed out that “overwhelming evidence” supports 14-day treatment; however, 69% of triple-therapy durations and 58% of quadruple therapy cases were for 7 or 10 days. Triple therapy at this duration showed only 81% cure rate, while it was 88% with 14 days, and quadruple therapy was only 80% effective at 7-10 days but 90% effective at 14 days.

“Fortunately,” the investigators wrote, “this mistake was progressively found less frequently and, at present, the prescription of 7-day standard triple therapy regimens has almost disappeared.”

The authors noted acid suppression via PPIs improves cure rates: In one meta-analysis, the cure rate of triple therapy regimens increased by 6%-10% with high doses of PPIs. However, the current study found that 48% of triple therapies included low-dose PPIs. This number decreased over time, the authors noted: from 67% in 2013 to 20% in 2019.

“From another perspective, the daily PPI dose has increased from a dose equivalent to 54 mg of omeprazole in 2013 to 104 mg in 2019,” they wrote.

The other four errors they discussed were failing to adequately consider penicillin allergies in prescription choices, failing to consider the importance of treatment compliance, repeating certain antibiotics after failures, and not checking eradication success after treatment.

Based on these findings, Dr. Nyssen and colleagues suggested that “penetration of recommendations in the participating European countries is still poor and delayed, even though some improvements from guidelines have been partially incorporated.”

According to Grigorios I. Leontiadis, MD, PhD, of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., who coauthored the 2017 American College of Gastroenterology H. pylori management guidelines and the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology “Toronto Consensus” in 2016, “This study is important and timely given the steadily increasing antibiotic resistance of H. pylori worldwide.”

Although Dr. Leontiadias described the results as “suboptimal,” he was partially reassured by the improvements over time, “especially following publication of the 2016 European clinical practice guidelines.” He also noted that some older clinical practice guidelines issued conditional recommendations, which could “justify the lower adherence seen in the early period of this study.”

“The unanswered question,” Dr. Leontiadias went on, “is whether the practice of gastroenterologists who volunteered to participate in this prospective registry is truly representative of how H. pylori is managed in Europe. Most likely it isn’t. Nonparticipating gastroenterologists and nongastroenterologist health care practitioners are probably less aware of and less adherent to clinical practice guidelines. This means that the actual situation in the real world is probably grimmer than what this study shows.”

William D. Chey, MD, Nostrant Collegiate Professor of Gastroenterology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, considered the results “not entirely surprising, but nonetheless, noteworthy.”

Dr. Chey noted that the United States lacks a similar registry to compare real-world H. pylori management; even so, he suggested several findings that “bear reiteration” for clinicians in the United States.

“U.S. providers should consider regimens other than clarithromycin triple therapy when treating H. pylori infection,” Dr. Chey said. “Since U.S. providers do not have reliable data on H. pylori antimicrobial resistance, it is useful to ask about prior macrolide antibiotic exposure, and if a patient has received a macrolide for any reason, clarithromycin triple therapy should be avoided. Bismuth quadruple therapy remains a reliable first-line treatment option in the U.S. Another recently approved first-line treatment option is the combination of a proton pump inhibitor, rifabutin, and amoxicillin. Treatment regimens in the U.S. should be given for a minimum of 10 days and, preferably, for 14 days. Another point made by the article is that providers should be maximizing gastric acid suppression by using higher doses of proton pump inhibitors when treating H. pylori.”

Dr. Chey also noted an emerging treatment option that could soon be available. “Results from phase 3 trials in North America and Europe with the potassium-competitive acid blocker vonoprazan combined with amoxicillin, with and without clarithromycin, are expected in 2021 and may provide another novel first-line treatment option.”

Dr. Nyssen and colleagues disclosed relationships with Allergan, Mayoly, Janssen, and others. Dr. Chey is a consultant for Redhill, Phathom, and Takeda, which is developing vonoprazan. Dr. Leontiadias disclosed no conflicts of interest.

This article was updated 2/16/21.

Physicians with difficult patient scenarios regularly bring their questions to the AGA Community to seek advice from colleagues about therapy and disease management options, best practices, and diagnoses. The upgraded networking platform now features a newsfeed for difficult patient scenarios and regularly scheduled Roundtable discussions with experts in the field.

In case you missed it, here are some clinical discussions and Roundtables in the newsfeed this month:

• COVID-19 vaccine and IBD patients (https://community.gastro.org/posts/23449)
• Simethicone use (https://community.gastro.org/posts/23448)
• COVID-19 vaccine – are you getting it or not? (https://community.gastro.org/posts/23442)
• Patient case: Unexplained jaundice in an established cirrhotic (https://community.gastro.org/posts/23244)
• Patient case: 76 year old male with recurrent / persistent NET in proximal stomach (https://community.gastro.org/posts/23243)
• Patient case: Entyvio and chemotherapy (https://community.gastro.org/posts/23238)
• Discharge instructions for moderate sedation (https://community.gastro.org/posts/23193)

View all discussions in the AGA Community at https://community.gastro.org.

Physicians with difficult patient scenarios regularly bring their questions to the AGA Community to seek advice from colleagues about therapy and disease management options, best practices, and diagnoses. The upgraded networking platform now features a newsfeed for difficult patient scenarios and regularly scheduled Roundtable discussions with experts in the field.

In case you missed it, here are some clinical discussions and Roundtables in the newsfeed this month:

• COVID-19 vaccine and IBD patients (https://community.gastro.org/posts/23449)
• Simethicone use (https://community.gastro.org/posts/23448)
• COVID-19 vaccine – are you getting it or not? (https://community.gastro.org/posts/23442)
• Patient case: Unexplained jaundice in an established cirrhotic (https://community.gastro.org/posts/23244)
• Patient case: 76 year old male with recurrent / persistent NET in proximal stomach (https://community.gastro.org/posts/23243)
• Patient case: Entyvio and chemotherapy (https://community.gastro.org/posts/23238)
• Discharge instructions for moderate sedation (https://community.gastro.org/posts/23193)

View all discussions in the AGA Community at https://community.gastro.org.

Physicians with difficult patient scenarios regularly bring their questions to the AGA Community to seek advice from colleagues about therapy and disease management options, best practices, and diagnoses. The upgraded networking platform now features a newsfeed for difficult patient scenarios and regularly scheduled Roundtable discussions with experts in the field.

In case you missed it, here are some clinical discussions and Roundtables in the newsfeed this month:

• COVID-19 vaccine and IBD patients (https://community.gastro.org/posts/23449)
• Simethicone use (https://community.gastro.org/posts/23448)
• COVID-19 vaccine – are you getting it or not? (https://community.gastro.org/posts/23442)
• Patient case: Unexplained jaundice in an established cirrhotic (https://community.gastro.org/posts/23244)
• Patient case: 76 year old male with recurrent / persistent NET in proximal stomach (https://community.gastro.org/posts/23243)
• Patient case: Entyvio and chemotherapy (https://community.gastro.org/posts/23238)
• Discharge instructions for moderate sedation (https://community.gastro.org/posts/23193)

View all discussions in the AGA Community at https://community.gastro.org.

Surgery to remove colorectal polyps is often unnecessary according to recent research, which has found it can lead to adverse postoperative events and increased rates of hospital readmissions.

To support GIs on how to best approach polyp removal, the American Gastroenterological Association has launched a new on-demand course, “Appropriate Referral for Endoscopic Polyp Removal.” The program guides you with three interactive modules and a decision-support tool on the best course of action with education on how to differentiate between a simple and complex polyp and when or if to refer patients for surgery.

Endoscopic resection of polyps can eliminate the need for surgery more than 90% of the time. In fact, surgery almost doubles the risk of an adverse event. In the second module of the program, learn about risk factors related to surgery. Other modules focus on how to distinguish between lesions suitable for endoscopic mucosal resection, lesions that should be referred for surgery, and the benefits of endoscopic resection of tumors. Take the course and earn 0.75 American Medical Association PRA Category 1 credit ™ on completion.

www.gastro.org/Polypectomy
 

Surgery to remove colorectal polyps is often unnecessary according to recent research, which has found it can lead to adverse postoperative events and increased rates of hospital readmissions.

To support GIs on how to best approach polyp removal, the American Gastroenterological Association has launched a new on-demand course, “Appropriate Referral for Endoscopic Polyp Removal.” The program guides you with three interactive modules and a decision-support tool on the best course of action with education on how to differentiate between a simple and complex polyp and when or if to refer patients for surgery.

Endoscopic resection of polyps can eliminate the need for surgery more than 90% of the time. In fact, surgery almost doubles the risk of an adverse event. In the second module of the program, learn about risk factors related to surgery. Other modules focus on how to distinguish between lesions suitable for endoscopic mucosal resection, lesions that should be referred for surgery, and the benefits of endoscopic resection of tumors. Take the course and earn 0.75 American Medical Association PRA Category 1 credit ™ on completion.

www.gastro.org/Polypectomy
 

Surgery to remove colorectal polyps is often unnecessary according to recent research, which has found it can lead to adverse postoperative events and increased rates of hospital readmissions.

To support GIs on how to best approach polyp removal, the American Gastroenterological Association has launched a new on-demand course, “Appropriate Referral for Endoscopic Polyp Removal.” The program guides you with three interactive modules and a decision-support tool on the best course of action with education on how to differentiate between a simple and complex polyp and when or if to refer patients for surgery.

Endoscopic resection of polyps can eliminate the need for surgery more than 90% of the time. In fact, surgery almost doubles the risk of an adverse event. In the second module of the program, learn about risk factors related to surgery. Other modules focus on how to distinguish between lesions suitable for endoscopic mucosal resection, lesions that should be referred for surgery, and the benefits of endoscopic resection of tumors. Take the course and earn 0.75 American Medical Association PRA Category 1 credit ™ on completion.

www.gastro.org/Polypectomy
 

Combining an EGFR inhibitor with a pair of checkpoint inhibitors can produce “promising” activity in certain patients with colorectal cancer (CRC), according to an investigator from a phase 2 trial.

The trial was designed to test the combination of panitumumab, ipilimumab, and nivolumab in patients with previously treated, unresectable and/or metastatic, microsatellite stable or mismatch repair–proficient CRC without mutations in KRAS, NRAS, or BRAF.

Among 49 evaluable patients treated with the triplet, 35% had a partial response at 12 weeks of follow-up, which met the trial’s primary response endpoint, according to investigator Michael S. Lee, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

“Though toxicities were, of course, observed, they were consistent overall with the expected adverse event profiles of anti-EGFR therapy and combination ipilimumab and nivolumab. Correlative studies are ongoing to identify potential biomarkers of response,” Dr. Lee said when presenting the trial results at the 2021 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium (Abstract 7).

Immune activation?

The rationale for adding panitumumab to immune checkpoint inhibitors comes, in part, from a trial published in 2014 in The Lancet Oncology. The trial showed that panitumumab was noninferior to cetuximab. Panitumumab was associated with a 22% response rate in patients with KRAS wild-type, metastatic CRC that was refractory to chemotherapy. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were similar between the treatment arms.

In addition, in mouse models of RAS wild-type CRC, treatment with an anti-EGFR antibody induced immunogenic cell death.

“Moreover, translational studies of tumor biopsies from patients who were treated with the anti-EGFR antibody cetuximab showed that responders had significant increases in T-cell infiltration and cytolytic activity within tumors after starting treatment,” Dr. Lee said.

In the latter studies, tumor samples taken at the time of disease progression also showed increased expression of immune checkpoint inhibitor pathways, including PD-L1, the primary target of nivolumab, and CTLA-4, the primary target of ipilimumab.

“Given this, we hypothesized that combining anti–PD-1 and anti–CTLA-4 antibodies with anti-EGFR therapy would be synergistic,” Dr. Lee said.

Single-arm study

Investigators enrolled patients with unresectable and/or metastatic CRC in the trial. All patients had disease that was KRAS, NRAS, and BRAF wild-type, and they had either microsatellite stability or proficient mismatch repair. Patients also had to have received one or two prior lines of therapy, not including an anti-EGFR agent.

The patients received panitumumab at 6 mg/kg IV every 2 weeks, nivolumab at 240 mg IV every 2 weeks, and ipilimumab at 1 mg/kg IV every 6 weeks.

Of all 56 patients enrolled, 28 (50%) had tumors in the left colon, 3 (5%) had tumors in the right colon, 2 (4%) had tumors in the transverse colon, 16 (29%) had rectal tumors, and 7 (13%) were not specified.

As noted before, 49 patients were evaluable, and the trial met its primary endpoint of responses in at least 17 patients (35%) at 12 weeks. All were partial responses.

Of the remaining patients, 21 (43%) had stable disease, and 11 (22%) had disease progression. Of the latter group, five patients did not have documented radiographic progression at 12 weeks, but they discontinued therapy before restaging because of unequivocal clinical progression.

The best response rate (confirmed and unconfirmed) at any time was 41%.

At a median follow-up of 12.1 months, the median PFS was 5.7 months. The OS data were not mature at the time of data cutoff. However, the median OS was 27 months.

There were two deaths on study, one from myocarditis possibly related to the study treatment, and one from colonic perforation, which was deemed unlikely to be treatment related.

Grade 3 or 4 adverse events included hypomagnesemia (n = 6), acneiform rash (n = 6), increased lipase (n = 5), increased amylase (n = 4), alanine aminotransferase elevation (n = 3), aspartate aminotransferase elevation (n = 3), diarrhea (n = 3), hyophosphatemia (n = 3), and maculopapular rash (n = 3).

‘Disappointing PFS’

In the question and answer session following the presentation, moderator Michael J. Hall, MD, of Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia, asked whether the response rate seen with the addition of panitumumab was what the investigators expected, independent of the dual–checkpoint inhibitor therapy, and “with the relatively disappointing PFS you saw, what are the plans moving forward with this regimen?”

“These are great questions and thoughts I’ve had as well,” Dr. Lee replied.

He noted that studies of other anti-EGFR and checkpoint inhibitor combinations have had relatively low response rates, and his group’s study was conducted with “an effort to try and get over this immune-cold environment that we know exists in the tumor microenvironment,” he said.

Dr. Lee also acknowledged that the response rate may have been slightly higher than that seen in other studies because of the preponderance of left colon tumors, which are generally more amenable to systemic therapy.

Regarding PFS, Dr. Lee said the analyses of durability of response are still ongoing, and the median PFS was better than that seen in a trial of single-agent panitumumab in a similar population.

The current study was funded by Amgen and Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Lee disclosed institutional research funding from the companies, consulting/advising for Pfizer, and travel expenses from Genentech/Roche. Dr. Hall disclosed relationships with Ambry Genetics, AstraZeneca, Caris Life Sciences, Foundation Medicine, InVitae, and Myriad Genetics. He also shares a patent with several Fox Chase investigators for a novel method to investigate hereditary CRC genes.

The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

Combining an EGFR inhibitor with a pair of checkpoint inhibitors can produce “promising” activity in certain patients with colorectal cancer (CRC), according to an investigator from a phase 2 trial.

The trial was designed to test the combination of panitumumab, ipilimumab, and nivolumab in patients with previously treated, unresectable and/or metastatic, microsatellite stable or mismatch repair–proficient CRC without mutations in KRAS, NRAS, or BRAF.

Among 49 evaluable patients treated with the triplet, 35% had a partial response at 12 weeks of follow-up, which met the trial’s primary response endpoint, according to investigator Michael S. Lee, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

“Though toxicities were, of course, observed, they were consistent overall with the expected adverse event profiles of anti-EGFR therapy and combination ipilimumab and nivolumab. Correlative studies are ongoing to identify potential biomarkers of response,” Dr. Lee said when presenting the trial results at the 2021 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium (Abstract 7).

Immune activation?

The rationale for adding panitumumab to immune checkpoint inhibitors comes, in part, from a trial published in 2014 in The Lancet Oncology. The trial showed that panitumumab was noninferior to cetuximab. Panitumumab was associated with a 22% response rate in patients with KRAS wild-type, metastatic CRC that was refractory to chemotherapy. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were similar between the treatment arms.

In addition, in mouse models of RAS wild-type CRC, treatment with an anti-EGFR antibody induced immunogenic cell death.

“Moreover, translational studies of tumor biopsies from patients who were treated with the anti-EGFR antibody cetuximab showed that responders had significant increases in T-cell infiltration and cytolytic activity within tumors after starting treatment,” Dr. Lee said.

In the latter studies, tumor samples taken at the time of disease progression also showed increased expression of immune checkpoint inhibitor pathways, including PD-L1, the primary target of nivolumab, and CTLA-4, the primary target of ipilimumab.

“Given this, we hypothesized that combining anti–PD-1 and anti–CTLA-4 antibodies with anti-EGFR therapy would be synergistic,” Dr. Lee said.

Single-arm study

Investigators enrolled patients with unresectable and/or metastatic CRC in the trial. All patients had disease that was KRAS, NRAS, and BRAF wild-type, and they had either microsatellite stability or proficient mismatch repair. Patients also had to have received one or two prior lines of therapy, not including an anti-EGFR agent.

The patients received panitumumab at 6 mg/kg IV every 2 weeks, nivolumab at 240 mg IV every 2 weeks, and ipilimumab at 1 mg/kg IV every 6 weeks.

Of all 56 patients enrolled, 28 (50%) had tumors in the left colon, 3 (5%) had tumors in the right colon, 2 (4%) had tumors in the transverse colon, 16 (29%) had rectal tumors, and 7 (13%) were not specified.

As noted before, 49 patients were evaluable, and the trial met its primary endpoint of responses in at least 17 patients (35%) at 12 weeks. All were partial responses.

Of the remaining patients, 21 (43%) had stable disease, and 11 (22%) had disease progression. Of the latter group, five patients did not have documented radiographic progression at 12 weeks, but they discontinued therapy before restaging because of unequivocal clinical progression.

The best response rate (confirmed and unconfirmed) at any time was 41%.

At a median follow-up of 12.1 months, the median PFS was 5.7 months. The OS data were not mature at the time of data cutoff. However, the median OS was 27 months.

There were two deaths on study, one from myocarditis possibly related to the study treatment, and one from colonic perforation, which was deemed unlikely to be treatment related.

Grade 3 or 4 adverse events included hypomagnesemia (n = 6), acneiform rash (n = 6), increased lipase (n = 5), increased amylase (n = 4), alanine aminotransferase elevation (n = 3), aspartate aminotransferase elevation (n = 3), diarrhea (n = 3), hyophosphatemia (n = 3), and maculopapular rash (n = 3).

‘Disappointing PFS’

In the question and answer session following the presentation, moderator Michael J. Hall, MD, of Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia, asked whether the response rate seen with the addition of panitumumab was what the investigators expected, independent of the dual–checkpoint inhibitor therapy, and “with the relatively disappointing PFS you saw, what are the plans moving forward with this regimen?”

“These are great questions and thoughts I’ve had as well,” Dr. Lee replied.

He noted that studies of other anti-EGFR and checkpoint inhibitor combinations have had relatively low response rates, and his group’s study was conducted with “an effort to try and get over this immune-cold environment that we know exists in the tumor microenvironment,” he said.

Dr. Lee also acknowledged that the response rate may have been slightly higher than that seen in other studies because of the preponderance of left colon tumors, which are generally more amenable to systemic therapy.

Regarding PFS, Dr. Lee said the analyses of durability of response are still ongoing, and the median PFS was better than that seen in a trial of single-agent panitumumab in a similar population.

The current study was funded by Amgen and Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Lee disclosed institutional research funding from the companies, consulting/advising for Pfizer, and travel expenses from Genentech/Roche. Dr. Hall disclosed relationships with Ambry Genetics, AstraZeneca, Caris Life Sciences, Foundation Medicine, InVitae, and Myriad Genetics. He also shares a patent with several Fox Chase investigators for a novel method to investigate hereditary CRC genes.

The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

Combining an EGFR inhibitor with a pair of checkpoint inhibitors can produce “promising” activity in certain patients with colorectal cancer (CRC), according to an investigator from a phase 2 trial.

The trial was designed to test the combination of panitumumab, ipilimumab, and nivolumab in patients with previously treated, unresectable and/or metastatic, microsatellite stable or mismatch repair–proficient CRC without mutations in KRAS, NRAS, or BRAF.

Among 49 evaluable patients treated with the triplet, 35% had a partial response at 12 weeks of follow-up, which met the trial’s primary response endpoint, according to investigator Michael S. Lee, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

“Though toxicities were, of course, observed, they were consistent overall with the expected adverse event profiles of anti-EGFR therapy and combination ipilimumab and nivolumab. Correlative studies are ongoing to identify potential biomarkers of response,” Dr. Lee said when presenting the trial results at the 2021 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium (Abstract 7).

Immune activation?

The rationale for adding panitumumab to immune checkpoint inhibitors comes, in part, from a trial published in 2014 in The Lancet Oncology. The trial showed that panitumumab was noninferior to cetuximab. Panitumumab was associated with a 22% response rate in patients with KRAS wild-type, metastatic CRC that was refractory to chemotherapy. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were similar between the treatment arms.

In addition, in mouse models of RAS wild-type CRC, treatment with an anti-EGFR antibody induced immunogenic cell death.

“Moreover, translational studies of tumor biopsies from patients who were treated with the anti-EGFR antibody cetuximab showed that responders had significant increases in T-cell infiltration and cytolytic activity within tumors after starting treatment,” Dr. Lee said.

In the latter studies, tumor samples taken at the time of disease progression also showed increased expression of immune checkpoint inhibitor pathways, including PD-L1, the primary target of nivolumab, and CTLA-4, the primary target of ipilimumab.

“Given this, we hypothesized that combining anti–PD-1 and anti–CTLA-4 antibodies with anti-EGFR therapy would be synergistic,” Dr. Lee said.

Single-arm study

Investigators enrolled patients with unresectable and/or metastatic CRC in the trial. All patients had disease that was KRAS, NRAS, and BRAF wild-type, and they had either microsatellite stability or proficient mismatch repair. Patients also had to have received one or two prior lines of therapy, not including an anti-EGFR agent.

The patients received panitumumab at 6 mg/kg IV every 2 weeks, nivolumab at 240 mg IV every 2 weeks, and ipilimumab at 1 mg/kg IV every 6 weeks.

Of all 56 patients enrolled, 28 (50%) had tumors in the left colon, 3 (5%) had tumors in the right colon, 2 (4%) had tumors in the transverse colon, 16 (29%) had rectal tumors, and 7 (13%) were not specified.

As noted before, 49 patients were evaluable, and the trial met its primary endpoint of responses in at least 17 patients (35%) at 12 weeks. All were partial responses.

Of the remaining patients, 21 (43%) had stable disease, and 11 (22%) had disease progression. Of the latter group, five patients did not have documented radiographic progression at 12 weeks, but they discontinued therapy before restaging because of unequivocal clinical progression.

The best response rate (confirmed and unconfirmed) at any time was 41%.

At a median follow-up of 12.1 months, the median PFS was 5.7 months. The OS data were not mature at the time of data cutoff. However, the median OS was 27 months.

There were two deaths on study, one from myocarditis possibly related to the study treatment, and one from colonic perforation, which was deemed unlikely to be treatment related.

Grade 3 or 4 adverse events included hypomagnesemia (n = 6), acneiform rash (n = 6), increased lipase (n = 5), increased amylase (n = 4), alanine aminotransferase elevation (n = 3), aspartate aminotransferase elevation (n = 3), diarrhea (n = 3), hyophosphatemia (n = 3), and maculopapular rash (n = 3).

‘Disappointing PFS’

In the question and answer session following the presentation, moderator Michael J. Hall, MD, of Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia, asked whether the response rate seen with the addition of panitumumab was what the investigators expected, independent of the dual–checkpoint inhibitor therapy, and “with the relatively disappointing PFS you saw, what are the plans moving forward with this regimen?”

“These are great questions and thoughts I’ve had as well,” Dr. Lee replied.

He noted that studies of other anti-EGFR and checkpoint inhibitor combinations have had relatively low response rates, and his group’s study was conducted with “an effort to try and get over this immune-cold environment that we know exists in the tumor microenvironment,” he said.

Dr. Lee also acknowledged that the response rate may have been slightly higher than that seen in other studies because of the preponderance of left colon tumors, which are generally more amenable to systemic therapy.

Regarding PFS, Dr. Lee said the analyses of durability of response are still ongoing, and the median PFS was better than that seen in a trial of single-agent panitumumab in a similar population.

The current study was funded by Amgen and Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Lee disclosed institutional research funding from the companies, consulting/advising for Pfizer, and travel expenses from Genentech/Roche. Dr. Hall disclosed relationships with Ambry Genetics, AstraZeneca, Caris Life Sciences, Foundation Medicine, InVitae, and Myriad Genetics. He also shares a patent with several Fox Chase investigators for a novel method to investigate hereditary CRC genes.

The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

The combination of liothyronine (LT₃) with levothyroxine (LT₄) for the treatment of hypothyroidism shows no evidence of any increased risk of breast cancer in a large, long-term study, contrary to concerns raised in some prior trials.

“An increasing number of patients ask their physicians for a prescription of combination therapy, often causing tensions. Thus, the question of whether combination therapy does any harm to patients is crucial,” say Tereza Planck, MD, PhD, of Skane University Hospital, Malmo, Sweden, and colleagues, in their article published online Jan. 5 in Thyroid.

“Our data provide reassuring evidence regarding the risk of cancer and mortality,” they stress.

Asked to comment, Caroline T. Nguyen, MD, agrees that the study results are welcome in light of some previous evidence.

“The findings of these [prior] studies were concerning as they suggested an association between T₃ and breast cancer, breast cancer-specific mortality, and poorer prognosis with potential estrogen-like activity of T₃ on the estrogen receptor,” Dr. Nguyen of the division of endocrinology, diabetes & metabolism at Keck Medical Center of University of Southern California, Los Angeles, told this news organization.

“Therefore, the findings of this paper provide some reassurance, which is important because, as the paper states, the use of T₃ is becoming increasingly common.”
 

Many patients with hypothyroidism opt to add liothyronine

Although the standard treatment for hypothyroidism, levothyroxine, increases free thyroxine (T₄) to high-normal levels, it may potentially lower triiodothyronine (T₃) to relatively low levels. There is speculation that the imbalance in a subset of patients could explain why some fail to have an adequate reduction of symptoms with levothyroxine alone.

To offset the effect, some add liothyronine (a synthetic version of T₃) to levothyroxine treatment as so-called “combination therapy.” However, a long-term study conducted in Scotland showed a borderline significant increase in breast cancer risk with the combination, raising concern.

To further investigate, Dr. Planck and coauthors used Swedish adult population data, identifying 575,461 individuals who had made at least three purchases of thyroid hormone therapy between July 2005 and December 2017, and had no history of breast cancer at the time of their first prescription.

Among the individuals, 11,147 had made at least three purchases of LT₃, including combinations with LT₄. LT₄-only users were an average age of 54.4 years, and the average age of those who also took LT₃ was 44.7 years.

Over a median follow-up of 8.1 years, there was no significantly increased risk of breast cancer among women treated with LT₃ plus LT₄ versus LT₄ alone (hazard ratio, 0.93), after adjusting for differences in age, sex, previous thyroid cancer, previous other cancer, use of antithyroid preparations, use of sex hormones, and dose.

Further evaluation of women as well as men showed those treated with LT₃ also had no increased incidence of any cancer (HR, 0.97).

In dose-adjusted models, LT₃ treatment did, surprisingly, appear to have a protective effect in terms of all-cause mortality (HR, 0.69) and any cancer mortality (HR, 0.78) for men and women.

However, the implications of these latter results remain uncertain, first author Dr. Planck said in an interview.

“We think the data on reduced mortality should be interpreted with caution, as we only observe the differences in the models adjusting for dose,” she noted.

 

LT3 treatment still considered ‘experimental’

Despite the dramatic increase in LT₃ prescribing in recent years noted by the authors, as many as five systematic reviews/meta-analyses have shown no superiority of combination therapy over LT₄ alone in terms of hypothyroid symptoms, quality of life, or patient preference.

As a result, many international guidelines still consider the combination-treatment approach to be experimental.

Other trials that have raised concerns about the combination include previous large, prospective Swedish studies that have linked higher endogenous T₃ levels to breast cancer in postmenopausal women.

As for the mechanism, some small experimental studies have suggested an estrogenlike effect whereby T₃ could enhance the proliferation of breast cancer cells.

On a broader level, thyroid hormones, in general, have been extensively studied in cancer research as possibly promoting cancer cell proliferation in a variety of cancer types.

However, the current findings should lay some of those concerns to rest, Dr. Planck reiterated: “Our data provide reassuring evidence regarding the risk of cancer and mortality.”

“We did not identify any increase in breast cancer incidence, any cancer incidence, all-cause mortality, any cancer mortality, or breast cancer mortality between individuals using LT₃ and LT₄ treatment.”

The authors and Nguyen have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The combination of liothyronine (LT₃) with levothyroxine (LT₄) for the treatment of hypothyroidism shows no evidence of any increased risk of breast cancer in a large, long-term study, contrary to concerns raised in some prior trials.

“An increasing number of patients ask their physicians for a prescription of combination therapy, often causing tensions. Thus, the question of whether combination therapy does any harm to patients is crucial,” say Tereza Planck, MD, PhD, of Skane University Hospital, Malmo, Sweden, and colleagues, in their article published online Jan. 5 in Thyroid.

“Our data provide reassuring evidence regarding the risk of cancer and mortality,” they stress.

Asked to comment, Caroline T. Nguyen, MD, agrees that the study results are welcome in light of some previous evidence.

“The findings of these [prior] studies were concerning as they suggested an association between T₃ and breast cancer, breast cancer-specific mortality, and poorer prognosis with potential estrogen-like activity of T₃ on the estrogen receptor,” Dr. Nguyen of the division of endocrinology, diabetes & metabolism at Keck Medical Center of University of Southern California, Los Angeles, told this news organization.

“Therefore, the findings of this paper provide some reassurance, which is important because, as the paper states, the use of T₃ is becoming increasingly common.”
 

Many patients with hypothyroidism opt to add liothyronine

Although the standard treatment for hypothyroidism, levothyroxine, increases free thyroxine (T₄) to high-normal levels, it may potentially lower triiodothyronine (T₃) to relatively low levels. There is speculation that the imbalance in a subset of patients could explain why some fail to have an adequate reduction of symptoms with levothyroxine alone.

To offset the effect, some add liothyronine (a synthetic version of T₃) to levothyroxine treatment as so-called “combination therapy.” However, a long-term study conducted in Scotland showed a borderline significant increase in breast cancer risk with the combination, raising concern.

To further investigate, Dr. Planck and coauthors used Swedish adult population data, identifying 575,461 individuals who had made at least three purchases of thyroid hormone therapy between July 2005 and December 2017, and had no history of breast cancer at the time of their first prescription.

Among the individuals, 11,147 had made at least three purchases of LT₃, including combinations with LT₄. LT₄-only users were an average age of 54.4 years, and the average age of those who also took LT₃ was 44.7 years.

Over a median follow-up of 8.1 years, there was no significantly increased risk of breast cancer among women treated with LT₃ plus LT₄ versus LT₄ alone (hazard ratio, 0.93), after adjusting for differences in age, sex, previous thyroid cancer, previous other cancer, use of antithyroid preparations, use of sex hormones, and dose.

Further evaluation of women as well as men showed those treated with LT₃ also had no increased incidence of any cancer (HR, 0.97).

In dose-adjusted models, LT₃ treatment did, surprisingly, appear to have a protective effect in terms of all-cause mortality (HR, 0.69) and any cancer mortality (HR, 0.78) for men and women.

However, the implications of these latter results remain uncertain, first author Dr. Planck said in an interview.

“We think the data on reduced mortality should be interpreted with caution, as we only observe the differences in the models adjusting for dose,” she noted.

 

LT3 treatment still considered ‘experimental’

Despite the dramatic increase in LT₃ prescribing in recent years noted by the authors, as many as five systematic reviews/meta-analyses have shown no superiority of combination therapy over LT₄ alone in terms of hypothyroid symptoms, quality of life, or patient preference.

As a result, many international guidelines still consider the combination-treatment approach to be experimental.

Other trials that have raised concerns about the combination include previous large, prospective Swedish studies that have linked higher endogenous T₃ levels to breast cancer in postmenopausal women.

As for the mechanism, some small experimental studies have suggested an estrogenlike effect whereby T₃ could enhance the proliferation of breast cancer cells.

On a broader level, thyroid hormones, in general, have been extensively studied in cancer research as possibly promoting cancer cell proliferation in a variety of cancer types.

However, the current findings should lay some of those concerns to rest, Dr. Planck reiterated: “Our data provide reassuring evidence regarding the risk of cancer and mortality.”

“We did not identify any increase in breast cancer incidence, any cancer incidence, all-cause mortality, any cancer mortality, or breast cancer mortality between individuals using LT₃ and LT₄ treatment.”

The authors and Nguyen have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The combination of liothyronine (LT₃) with levothyroxine (LT₄) for the treatment of hypothyroidism shows no evidence of any increased risk of breast cancer in a large, long-term study, contrary to concerns raised in some prior trials.

“An increasing number of patients ask their physicians for a prescription of combination therapy, often causing tensions. Thus, the question of whether combination therapy does any harm to patients is crucial,” say Tereza Planck, MD, PhD, of Skane University Hospital, Malmo, Sweden, and colleagues, in their article published online Jan. 5 in Thyroid.

“Our data provide reassuring evidence regarding the risk of cancer and mortality,” they stress.

Asked to comment, Caroline T. Nguyen, MD, agrees that the study results are welcome in light of some previous evidence.

“The findings of these [prior] studies were concerning as they suggested an association between T₃ and breast cancer, breast cancer-specific mortality, and poorer prognosis with potential estrogen-like activity of T₃ on the estrogen receptor,” Dr. Nguyen of the division of endocrinology, diabetes & metabolism at Keck Medical Center of University of Southern California, Los Angeles, told this news organization.

“Therefore, the findings of this paper provide some reassurance, which is important because, as the paper states, the use of T₃ is becoming increasingly common.”
 

Many patients with hypothyroidism opt to add liothyronine

Although the standard treatment for hypothyroidism, levothyroxine, increases free thyroxine (T₄) to high-normal levels, it may potentially lower triiodothyronine (T₃) to relatively low levels. There is speculation that the imbalance in a subset of patients could explain why some fail to have an adequate reduction of symptoms with levothyroxine alone.

To offset the effect, some add liothyronine (a synthetic version of T₃) to levothyroxine treatment as so-called “combination therapy.” However, a long-term study conducted in Scotland showed a borderline significant increase in breast cancer risk with the combination, raising concern.

To further investigate, Dr. Planck and coauthors used Swedish adult population data, identifying 575,461 individuals who had made at least three purchases of thyroid hormone therapy between July 2005 and December 2017, and had no history of breast cancer at the time of their first prescription.

Among the individuals, 11,147 had made at least three purchases of LT₃, including combinations with LT₄. LT₄-only users were an average age of 54.4 years, and the average age of those who also took LT₃ was 44.7 years.

Over a median follow-up of 8.1 years, there was no significantly increased risk of breast cancer among women treated with LT₃ plus LT₄ versus LT₄ alone (hazard ratio, 0.93), after adjusting for differences in age, sex, previous thyroid cancer, previous other cancer, use of antithyroid preparations, use of sex hormones, and dose.

Further evaluation of women as well as men showed those treated with LT₃ also had no increased incidence of any cancer (HR, 0.97).

In dose-adjusted models, LT₃ treatment did, surprisingly, appear to have a protective effect in terms of all-cause mortality (HR, 0.69) and any cancer mortality (HR, 0.78) for men and women.

However, the implications of these latter results remain uncertain, first author Dr. Planck said in an interview.

“We think the data on reduced mortality should be interpreted with caution, as we only observe the differences in the models adjusting for dose,” she noted.

 

LT3 treatment still considered ‘experimental’

Despite the dramatic increase in LT₃ prescribing in recent years noted by the authors, as many as five systematic reviews/meta-analyses have shown no superiority of combination therapy over LT₄ alone in terms of hypothyroid symptoms, quality of life, or patient preference.

As a result, many international guidelines still consider the combination-treatment approach to be experimental.

Other trials that have raised concerns about the combination include previous large, prospective Swedish studies that have linked higher endogenous T₃ levels to breast cancer in postmenopausal women.

As for the mechanism, some small experimental studies have suggested an estrogenlike effect whereby T₃ could enhance the proliferation of breast cancer cells.

On a broader level, thyroid hormones, in general, have been extensively studied in cancer research as possibly promoting cancer cell proliferation in a variety of cancer types.

However, the current findings should lay some of those concerns to rest, Dr. Planck reiterated: “Our data provide reassuring evidence regarding the risk of cancer and mortality.”

“We did not identify any increase in breast cancer incidence, any cancer incidence, all-cause mortality, any cancer mortality, or breast cancer mortality between individuals using LT₃ and LT₄ treatment.”

The authors and Nguyen have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A novel blood test has shown promise for colorectal cancer screening.

The “multiomics” test, under development by Freenome, has previously been shown to detect early-stage (I/II) colorectal cancer with a sensitivity of 94% and a specificity of 94%.

A new study shows that it can also detect precancerous lesions, colorectal advanced adenomas (AAs).

“The ability to detect advanced adenomas is incredibly important because we can remove them before they become cancerous,” senior author Aasma Shaukat, MD, MPH, chief of gastroenterology at Minneapolis VA Health Care System and professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, said in a statement.

At the Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium 2021, she presented data showing that the novel test was able to detect AAs with a sensitivity of 41% and a specificity of 90%.

This sensitivity of the new test is better than or similar to that of currently available stool tests, noted study author C. Jimmy Lin, MD, PhD, MHS, chief scientific officer at Freenome.

The new test had almost double the sensitivity for detecting AAs (41% vs. 24%) as the fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and its sensitivity was comparable to that of FIT-DNA testing (41% vs. 42%).

In addition, it showed much higher sensitivity (41% vs 22%) for detecting AAs than the Epi proColon, a screening blood test that has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for detecting methylated septin 9 DNA (mSEPT9).

“What’s special about our company is ... that we use a multinomic technology, meaning we look at DNA, RNA, protein, and other biomarkers – all of these things together,” Dr. Lin told this news organization.

Their platform integrates assays for circulating free DNA, methylation, and proteins using advanced computational biology and machine-learning techniques, which provide a multidimensional view of both tumor- and immune-derived signatures that enable the early detection of cancer.

In contrast to other blood tests that are under development for cancer screening, some of which claim to detect several common cancer types, Freenome is focusing on only colorectal cancer. “There are other companies in the early-detection space, but some of them are doing multicancer screening and have a generalized product,” said Dr. Lin. “Our approach is to focus on a specific cancer type, and we are beginning with colorectal cancer screening, and then will expand to other types.”
 

Better sensitivity

The study that was presented at the meeting evaluated the novel multiomics blood test for AA detection.

Blood samples were obtained from participants in the AI-EMERGE study, a prospective, multicenter study that included primarily average-risk screening patients from 30 clinical sites in the United States and Canada. The study included a total of 542 samples, including 122 histopathologically confirmed AAs and 420 colonoscopy-confirmed negative control samples.

AA sensitivity of the novel test was greater than that with the mSEPT9 test, which is the only blood test currently available for colorectal cancer screening. The new test’s sensitivity was much higher than that of FIT and was comparable to that of FIT-DNA. Sensitivity increased with increasing lesion size and was consistent across location and histology except for serrated lesions, the authors noted in the abstract.

“By combining signatures from both tumor and non–tumor-derived sources, our multiomics signatures detect twice as many AAs as methylation only or single-protein approaches,” Dr. Lin said. “And we have now shown that sensitive AA detection at a level similar to or better than currently available stool tests is achievable in blood, which is necessary for effective early detection and prevention of colorectal cancers.”

The company has begun the regulatory process for having the test approved by the FDA. The company’s goal is to enroll 14,000 participants and have prospectively collected data.

The research was funded by Freenome. Dr. Lin is the chief scientific officer at Freenome and has relationships with Labroots, Natera, and Neon Therapeutics. Dr. Shaukat has relationships with Freenome and Iterative Scopes.

This article was updated 2/2/21.

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

A novel blood test has shown promise for colorectal cancer screening.

The “multiomics” test, under development by Freenome, has previously been shown to detect early-stage (I/II) colorectal cancer with a sensitivity of 94% and a specificity of 94%.

A new study shows that it can also detect precancerous lesions, colorectal advanced adenomas (AAs).

“The ability to detect advanced adenomas is incredibly important because we can remove them before they become cancerous,” senior author Aasma Shaukat, MD, MPH, chief of gastroenterology at Minneapolis VA Health Care System and professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, said in a statement.

At the Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium 2021, she presented data showing that the novel test was able to detect AAs with a sensitivity of 41% and a specificity of 90%.

This sensitivity of the new test is better than or similar to that of currently available stool tests, noted study author C. Jimmy Lin, MD, PhD, MHS, chief scientific officer at Freenome.

The new test had almost double the sensitivity for detecting AAs (41% vs. 24%) as the fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and its sensitivity was comparable to that of FIT-DNA testing (41% vs. 42%).

In addition, it showed much higher sensitivity (41% vs 22%) for detecting AAs than the Epi proColon, a screening blood test that has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for detecting methylated septin 9 DNA (mSEPT9).

“What’s special about our company is ... that we use a multinomic technology, meaning we look at DNA, RNA, protein, and other biomarkers – all of these things together,” Dr. Lin told this news organization.

Their platform integrates assays for circulating free DNA, methylation, and proteins using advanced computational biology and machine-learning techniques, which provide a multidimensional view of both tumor- and immune-derived signatures that enable the early detection of cancer.

In contrast to other blood tests that are under development for cancer screening, some of which claim to detect several common cancer types, Freenome is focusing on only colorectal cancer. “There are other companies in the early-detection space, but some of them are doing multicancer screening and have a generalized product,” said Dr. Lin. “Our approach is to focus on a specific cancer type, and we are beginning with colorectal cancer screening, and then will expand to other types.”
 

Better sensitivity

The study that was presented at the meeting evaluated the novel multiomics blood test for AA detection.

Blood samples were obtained from participants in the AI-EMERGE study, a prospective, multicenter study that included primarily average-risk screening patients from 30 clinical sites in the United States and Canada. The study included a total of 542 samples, including 122 histopathologically confirmed AAs and 420 colonoscopy-confirmed negative control samples.

AA sensitivity of the novel test was greater than that with the mSEPT9 test, which is the only blood test currently available for colorectal cancer screening. The new test’s sensitivity was much higher than that of FIT and was comparable to that of FIT-DNA. Sensitivity increased with increasing lesion size and was consistent across location and histology except for serrated lesions, the authors noted in the abstract.

“By combining signatures from both tumor and non–tumor-derived sources, our multiomics signatures detect twice as many AAs as methylation only or single-protein approaches,” Dr. Lin said. “And we have now shown that sensitive AA detection at a level similar to or better than currently available stool tests is achievable in blood, which is necessary for effective early detection and prevention of colorectal cancers.”

The company has begun the regulatory process for having the test approved by the FDA. The company’s goal is to enroll 14,000 participants and have prospectively collected data.

The research was funded by Freenome. Dr. Lin is the chief scientific officer at Freenome and has relationships with Labroots, Natera, and Neon Therapeutics. Dr. Shaukat has relationships with Freenome and Iterative Scopes.

This article was updated 2/2/21.

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

A novel blood test has shown promise for colorectal cancer screening.

The “multiomics” test, under development by Freenome, has previously been shown to detect early-stage (I/II) colorectal cancer with a sensitivity of 94% and a specificity of 94%.

A new study shows that it can also detect precancerous lesions, colorectal advanced adenomas (AAs).

“The ability to detect advanced adenomas is incredibly important because we can remove them before they become cancerous,” senior author Aasma Shaukat, MD, MPH, chief of gastroenterology at Minneapolis VA Health Care System and professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, said in a statement.

At the Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium 2021, she presented data showing that the novel test was able to detect AAs with a sensitivity of 41% and a specificity of 90%.

This sensitivity of the new test is better than or similar to that of currently available stool tests, noted study author C. Jimmy Lin, MD, PhD, MHS, chief scientific officer at Freenome.

The new test had almost double the sensitivity for detecting AAs (41% vs. 24%) as the fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and its sensitivity was comparable to that of FIT-DNA testing (41% vs. 42%).

In addition, it showed much higher sensitivity (41% vs 22%) for detecting AAs than the Epi proColon, a screening blood test that has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for detecting methylated septin 9 DNA (mSEPT9).

“What’s special about our company is ... that we use a multinomic technology, meaning we look at DNA, RNA, protein, and other biomarkers – all of these things together,” Dr. Lin told this news organization.

Their platform integrates assays for circulating free DNA, methylation, and proteins using advanced computational biology and machine-learning techniques, which provide a multidimensional view of both tumor- and immune-derived signatures that enable the early detection of cancer.

In contrast to other blood tests that are under development for cancer screening, some of which claim to detect several common cancer types, Freenome is focusing on only colorectal cancer. “There are other companies in the early-detection space, but some of them are doing multicancer screening and have a generalized product,” said Dr. Lin. “Our approach is to focus on a specific cancer type, and we are beginning with colorectal cancer screening, and then will expand to other types.”
 

Better sensitivity

The study that was presented at the meeting evaluated the novel multiomics blood test for AA detection.

Blood samples were obtained from participants in the AI-EMERGE study, a prospective, multicenter study that included primarily average-risk screening patients from 30 clinical sites in the United States and Canada. The study included a total of 542 samples, including 122 histopathologically confirmed AAs and 420 colonoscopy-confirmed negative control samples.

AA sensitivity of the novel test was greater than that with the mSEPT9 test, which is the only blood test currently available for colorectal cancer screening. The new test’s sensitivity was much higher than that of FIT and was comparable to that of FIT-DNA. Sensitivity increased with increasing lesion size and was consistent across location and histology except for serrated lesions, the authors noted in the abstract.

“By combining signatures from both tumor and non–tumor-derived sources, our multiomics signatures detect twice as many AAs as methylation only or single-protein approaches,” Dr. Lin said. “And we have now shown that sensitive AA detection at a level similar to or better than currently available stool tests is achievable in blood, which is necessary for effective early detection and prevention of colorectal cancers.”

The company has begun the regulatory process for having the test approved by the FDA. The company’s goal is to enroll 14,000 participants and have prospectively collected data.

The research was funded by Freenome. Dr. Lin is the chief scientific officer at Freenome and has relationships with Labroots, Natera, and Neon Therapeutics. Dr. Shaukat has relationships with Freenome and Iterative Scopes.

This article was updated 2/2/21.

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

About 20 states across the country have detected the more transmissible B.1.1.7 SARS-CoV-2 variant to date. Given the unknowns of the emerging situation, experts with the Infectious Diseases Society of America addressed vaccine effectiveness, how well equipped the United States is to track new mutations, and shared their impressions of President Joe Biden’s COVID-19 executive orders.

One of the major concerns remains the ability of COVID-19 vaccines to work on new strains. “All of our vaccines target the spike protein and try to elicit neutralizing antibodies that bind to that protein,” Mirella Salvatore, MD, assistant professor of medicine and population health sciences at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, said during an IDSA press briefing on Thursday.

The B.1.1.7 mutation occurs in the “very important” spike protein, a component of the SARS-CoV-2 virus necessary for binding, which allows the virus to enter cells, added Dr. Salvatore, an IDSA fellow.

The evidence suggests that SARS-CoV-2 should be capable of producing one or two mutations per month. However, the B.1.1.7 variant surprised investigators in the United Kingdom when they first discovered the strain had 17 mutations, Dr. Salvatore said.

It’s still unknown why this particular strain is more transmissible, but Dr. Salvatore speculated that the mutation gives the virus an advantage and increases binding, allowing it to enter cells more easily. She added that the mutations might have arisen among immunocompromised people infected with SARS-CoV-2, but “that is just a hypothesis.”

On a positive note, Kathryn M. Edwards, MD, another IDSA fellow, explained at the briefing that the existing vaccines target more than one location on the virus’ spike protein. Therefore, “if there is a mutation that changes one structure of the spike protein, there will be other areas where the binding can occur.”

This polyclonal response “is why the vaccine can still be effective against this virus,” added Dr. Edwards, scientific director of the Vanderbilt Vaccine Research Program and professor of pediatrics at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.

Dr. Salvatore emphasized that, although the new variant is more transmissible, it doesn’t appear to be more lethal. “This might affect overall mortality but not for the individual who gets the infection.”
 

Staying one step ahead

When asked for assurance that COVID-19 vaccines will work against emerging variants, Dr. Edwards said, “It may be we will have to change the vaccine so it is more responsive to new variants, but at this point that does not seem to be the case.”

Should the vaccines require an update, the messenger RNA vaccines have an advantage – researchers can rapidly revise them. “All you need to do is put all the little nucleotides together,” Dr. Edwards said.

“A number of us are looking at how this will work, and we look to influenza,” she added. Dr. Edwards drew an analogy to choosing – and sometimes updating – the influenza strains each year for the annual flu vaccine. With appropriate funding, the same system could be replicated to address any evolving changes to SARS-CoV-2.

On funding, Dr. Salvatore said more money would be required to optimize the surveillance system for emerging strains in the United States.

“We actually have this system – there is a wonderful network that sequences the influenza strains,” she said. “The structure exists, we just need the funding.”

“The CDC is getting the system tooled up to get more viruses to be sequenced,” Dr. Edwards said.

Both experts praised the CDC for its website with up-to-date surveillance information on emerging strains of SARS-CoV-2.
 

President Biden’s backing of science

A reporter asked each infectious disease expert to share their impression of President Biden’s newly signed COVID-19 executive orders.

“The biggest takeaway is the role of science and the lessons we’ve learned from masks, handwashing, and distancing,” Dr. Edwards said. “We need to heed the advice ... [especially] with a variant that is more contagious.

“It is encouraging that science will be listened to – that is the overall message,” she added.

Dr. Salvatore agreed, saying that the orders give “the feeling that we can now act by following science.”

“We have plenty of papers that show the effectiveness of masking,” for example, she said. Dr. Salvatore acknowledged that there are “a lot of contrasting ideas about masking” across the United States but stressed their importance.

“We should follow measures that we know work,” she said.

Both experts said more research is needed to stay ahead of this evolving scenario. “We still need a lot of basic science showing how this virus replicates in the cell,” Dr. Salvatore said. “We need to really characterize all these mutations and their functions.”

“We need to be concerned, do follow-up studies,” she added, “but we don’t need to panic.”

This article was based on an Infectious Diseases Society of America Media Briefing on Jan. 21, 2021. Dr. Salvatore disclosed that she is a site principal investigator on a study from Verily Life Sciences/Brin Foundation on Predictors of Severe COVID-19 Outcomes and principal investigator for an investigator-initiated study sponsored by Genentech on combination therapy in influenza. Dr. Edwards disclosed National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention grants; consulting for Bionet and IBM; and being a member of data safety and monitoring committees for Sanofi, X-4 Pharma, Seqirus, Moderna, Pfizer, and Merck.

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

About 20 states across the country have detected the more transmissible B.1.1.7 SARS-CoV-2 variant to date. Given the unknowns of the emerging situation, experts with the Infectious Diseases Society of America addressed vaccine effectiveness, how well equipped the United States is to track new mutations, and shared their impressions of President Joe Biden’s COVID-19 executive orders.

One of the major concerns remains the ability of COVID-19 vaccines to work on new strains. “All of our vaccines target the spike protein and try to elicit neutralizing antibodies that bind to that protein,” Mirella Salvatore, MD, assistant professor of medicine and population health sciences at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, said during an IDSA press briefing on Thursday.

The B.1.1.7 mutation occurs in the “very important” spike protein, a component of the SARS-CoV-2 virus necessary for binding, which allows the virus to enter cells, added Dr. Salvatore, an IDSA fellow.

The evidence suggests that SARS-CoV-2 should be capable of producing one or two mutations per month. However, the B.1.1.7 variant surprised investigators in the United Kingdom when they first discovered the strain had 17 mutations, Dr. Salvatore said.

It’s still unknown why this particular strain is more transmissible, but Dr. Salvatore speculated that the mutation gives the virus an advantage and increases binding, allowing it to enter cells more easily. She added that the mutations might have arisen among immunocompromised people infected with SARS-CoV-2, but “that is just a hypothesis.”

On a positive note, Kathryn M. Edwards, MD, another IDSA fellow, explained at the briefing that the existing vaccines target more than one location on the virus’ spike protein. Therefore, “if there is a mutation that changes one structure of the spike protein, there will be other areas where the binding can occur.”

This polyclonal response “is why the vaccine can still be effective against this virus,” added Dr. Edwards, scientific director of the Vanderbilt Vaccine Research Program and professor of pediatrics at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.

Dr. Salvatore emphasized that, although the new variant is more transmissible, it doesn’t appear to be more lethal. “This might affect overall mortality but not for the individual who gets the infection.”
 

Staying one step ahead

When asked for assurance that COVID-19 vaccines will work against emerging variants, Dr. Edwards said, “It may be we will have to change the vaccine so it is more responsive to new variants, but at this point that does not seem to be the case.”

Should the vaccines require an update, the messenger RNA vaccines have an advantage – researchers can rapidly revise them. “All you need to do is put all the little nucleotides together,” Dr. Edwards said.

“A number of us are looking at how this will work, and we look to influenza,” she added. Dr. Edwards drew an analogy to choosing – and sometimes updating – the influenza strains each year for the annual flu vaccine. With appropriate funding, the same system could be replicated to address any evolving changes to SARS-CoV-2.

On funding, Dr. Salvatore said more money would be required to optimize the surveillance system for emerging strains in the United States.

“We actually have this system – there is a wonderful network that sequences the influenza strains,” she said. “The structure exists, we just need the funding.”

“The CDC is getting the system tooled up to get more viruses to be sequenced,” Dr. Edwards said.

Both experts praised the CDC for its website with up-to-date surveillance information on emerging strains of SARS-CoV-2.
 

President Biden’s backing of science

A reporter asked each infectious disease expert to share their impression of President Biden’s newly signed COVID-19 executive orders.

“The biggest takeaway is the role of science and the lessons we’ve learned from masks, handwashing, and distancing,” Dr. Edwards said. “We need to heed the advice ... [especially] with a variant that is more contagious.

“It is encouraging that science will be listened to – that is the overall message,” she added.

Dr. Salvatore agreed, saying that the orders give “the feeling that we can now act by following science.”

“We have plenty of papers that show the effectiveness of masking,” for example, she said. Dr. Salvatore acknowledged that there are “a lot of contrasting ideas about masking” across the United States but stressed their importance.

“We should follow measures that we know work,” she said.

Both experts said more research is needed to stay ahead of this evolving scenario. “We still need a lot of basic science showing how this virus replicates in the cell,” Dr. Salvatore said. “We need to really characterize all these mutations and their functions.”

“We need to be concerned, do follow-up studies,” she added, “but we don’t need to panic.”

This article was based on an Infectious Diseases Society of America Media Briefing on Jan. 21, 2021. Dr. Salvatore disclosed that she is a site principal investigator on a study from Verily Life Sciences/Brin Foundation on Predictors of Severe COVID-19 Outcomes and principal investigator for an investigator-initiated study sponsored by Genentech on combination therapy in influenza. Dr. Edwards disclosed National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention grants; consulting for Bionet and IBM; and being a member of data safety and monitoring committees for Sanofi, X-4 Pharma, Seqirus, Moderna, Pfizer, and Merck.

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

About 20 states across the country have detected the more transmissible B.1.1.7 SARS-CoV-2 variant to date. Given the unknowns of the emerging situation, experts with the Infectious Diseases Society of America addressed vaccine effectiveness, how well equipped the United States is to track new mutations, and shared their impressions of President Joe Biden’s COVID-19 executive orders.

One of the major concerns remains the ability of COVID-19 vaccines to work on new strains. “All of our vaccines target the spike protein and try to elicit neutralizing antibodies that bind to that protein,” Mirella Salvatore, MD, assistant professor of medicine and population health sciences at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, said during an IDSA press briefing on Thursday.

The B.1.1.7 mutation occurs in the “very important” spike protein, a component of the SARS-CoV-2 virus necessary for binding, which allows the virus to enter cells, added Dr. Salvatore, an IDSA fellow.

The evidence suggests that SARS-CoV-2 should be capable of producing one or two mutations per month. However, the B.1.1.7 variant surprised investigators in the United Kingdom when they first discovered the strain had 17 mutations, Dr. Salvatore said.

It’s still unknown why this particular strain is more transmissible, but Dr. Salvatore speculated that the mutation gives the virus an advantage and increases binding, allowing it to enter cells more easily. She added that the mutations might have arisen among immunocompromised people infected with SARS-CoV-2, but “that is just a hypothesis.”

On a positive note, Kathryn M. Edwards, MD, another IDSA fellow, explained at the briefing that the existing vaccines target more than one location on the virus’ spike protein. Therefore, “if there is a mutation that changes one structure of the spike protein, there will be other areas where the binding can occur.”

This polyclonal response “is why the vaccine can still be effective against this virus,” added Dr. Edwards, scientific director of the Vanderbilt Vaccine Research Program and professor of pediatrics at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.

Dr. Salvatore emphasized that, although the new variant is more transmissible, it doesn’t appear to be more lethal. “This might affect overall mortality but not for the individual who gets the infection.”
 

Staying one step ahead

When asked for assurance that COVID-19 vaccines will work against emerging variants, Dr. Edwards said, “It may be we will have to change the vaccine so it is more responsive to new variants, but at this point that does not seem to be the case.”

Should the vaccines require an update, the messenger RNA vaccines have an advantage – researchers can rapidly revise them. “All you need to do is put all the little nucleotides together,” Dr. Edwards said.

“A number of us are looking at how this will work, and we look to influenza,” she added. Dr. Edwards drew an analogy to choosing – and sometimes updating – the influenza strains each year for the annual flu vaccine. With appropriate funding, the same system could be replicated to address any evolving changes to SARS-CoV-2.

On funding, Dr. Salvatore said more money would be required to optimize the surveillance system for emerging strains in the United States.

“We actually have this system – there is a wonderful network that sequences the influenza strains,” she said. “The structure exists, we just need the funding.”

“The CDC is getting the system tooled up to get more viruses to be sequenced,” Dr. Edwards said.

Both experts praised the CDC for its website with up-to-date surveillance information on emerging strains of SARS-CoV-2.
 

President Biden’s backing of science

A reporter asked each infectious disease expert to share their impression of President Biden’s newly signed COVID-19 executive orders.

“The biggest takeaway is the role of science and the lessons we’ve learned from masks, handwashing, and distancing,” Dr. Edwards said. “We need to heed the advice ... [especially] with a variant that is more contagious.

“It is encouraging that science will be listened to – that is the overall message,” she added.

Dr. Salvatore agreed, saying that the orders give “the feeling that we can now act by following science.”

“We have plenty of papers that show the effectiveness of masking,” for example, she said. Dr. Salvatore acknowledged that there are “a lot of contrasting ideas about masking” across the United States but stressed their importance.

“We should follow measures that we know work,” she said.

Both experts said more research is needed to stay ahead of this evolving scenario. “We still need a lot of basic science showing how this virus replicates in the cell,” Dr. Salvatore said. “We need to really characterize all these mutations and their functions.”

“We need to be concerned, do follow-up studies,” she added, “but we don’t need to panic.”

This article was based on an Infectious Diseases Society of America Media Briefing on Jan. 21, 2021. Dr. Salvatore disclosed that she is a site principal investigator on a study from Verily Life Sciences/Brin Foundation on Predictors of Severe COVID-19 Outcomes and principal investigator for an investigator-initiated study sponsored by Genentech on combination therapy in influenza. Dr. Edwards disclosed National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention grants; consulting for Bionet and IBM; and being a member of data safety and monitoring committees for Sanofi, X-4 Pharma, Seqirus, Moderna, Pfizer, and Merck.

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

In a recent international survey, dermatologists both in the United States and abroad acknowledged major gaps in their competence to provide high-quality care to reproductive-age women with psoriasis, Jenny Murase, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

©monkeybusinessimages/Thinkstock

“In Germany, the UK, and the United States, dermatologists face challenges in discussing pregnancy and child-bearing aspiration with women of reproductive age, in recommending compatible treatments during pregnancy, and engaging patients in the shared decision-making process. These challenges may exist due to suboptimal knowledge, skills, confidence, and attitude in respective areas of care,” said Dr. Murase, a dermatologist at the University of California, San Francisco, and coeditor-in-chief of the International Journal of Women’s Dermatology.

• Forty-seven percent of respondents considered their knowledge of the impact of psoriasis on women’s reproductive health to be suboptimal. This knowledge gap was most common among American dermatologists, 59% of whom rated themselves as having suboptimal knowledge, and least common among German practitioners, only 27% of whom reported deficiencies in this area.

Fifty percent of dermatologists rated themselves as having suboptimal skills in discussing contraceptive methods with their psoriasis patients of childbearing potential.

• Forty-eight percent of respondents – and 59% of the American dermatologists – indicated they prefer to leave pregnancy-related discussions to ob.gyns.
• Fifty-five percent of dermatologists had only limited knowledge of the safety data and indications for prescribing biologic therapies before, during, and after pregnancy. Respondents gave themselves an average score of 58 out of 100 in terms of their confidence in prescribing biologics during pregnancy, compared to 74 out of 100 when prescribing before or after pregnancy.
• Forty-eight percent of participants indicated they had suboptimal skills in helping patients counter obstacles to treatment adherence.

Consideration of treatment of psoriasis in pregnancy requires balancing potential medication risks to the fetus versus the possible maternal and fetal harms of under- or nontreatment of their chronic inflammatory skin disease. It’s a matter that calls for shared decision-making between dermatologist and patient. But the survey showed that shared decision-making was often poorly integrated into clinical practice. Ninety-seven percent of the U.S. dermatologists were unaware of the existence of shared decision-making practice guidelines or models, as were 80% of UK respondents and 85% of the Germans. Of the relatively few dermatologists who were aware of such guidance, nearly half dismissed it as inapplicable to their clinical practice. More than one-third of respondents admitted having suboptimal skills in assessing their patients’ desired level of involvement in medical decisions. And one-third of the German dermatologists and roughly one-quarter of those from the United States and United Kingdom reported feeling pressure to make treatment decisions quickly and without patient input.

Dr. Murase added that the survey findings make a strong case for future interventions designed to help dermatologists appreciate the value of shared decision-making and develop the requisite patient-engagement skills. Dr. Murase reported serving as a paid consultant to UCB Pharma, which funded the survey via an educational grant.

[email protected]

In a recent international survey, dermatologists both in the United States and abroad acknowledged major gaps in their competence to provide high-quality care to reproductive-age women with psoriasis, Jenny Murase, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

©monkeybusinessimages/Thinkstock

“In Germany, the UK, and the United States, dermatologists face challenges in discussing pregnancy and child-bearing aspiration with women of reproductive age, in recommending compatible treatments during pregnancy, and engaging patients in the shared decision-making process. These challenges may exist due to suboptimal knowledge, skills, confidence, and attitude in respective areas of care,” said Dr. Murase, a dermatologist at the University of California, San Francisco, and coeditor-in-chief of the International Journal of Women’s Dermatology.

• Forty-seven percent of respondents considered their knowledge of the impact of psoriasis on women’s reproductive health to be suboptimal. This knowledge gap was most common among American dermatologists, 59% of whom rated themselves as having suboptimal knowledge, and least common among German practitioners, only 27% of whom reported deficiencies in this area.

Fifty percent of dermatologists rated themselves as having suboptimal skills in discussing contraceptive methods with their psoriasis patients of childbearing potential.

• Forty-eight percent of respondents – and 59% of the American dermatologists – indicated they prefer to leave pregnancy-related discussions to ob.gyns.
• Fifty-five percent of dermatologists had only limited knowledge of the safety data and indications for prescribing biologic therapies before, during, and after pregnancy. Respondents gave themselves an average score of 58 out of 100 in terms of their confidence in prescribing biologics during pregnancy, compared to 74 out of 100 when prescribing before or after pregnancy.
• Forty-eight percent of participants indicated they had suboptimal skills in helping patients counter obstacles to treatment adherence.

Consideration of treatment of psoriasis in pregnancy requires balancing potential medication risks to the fetus versus the possible maternal and fetal harms of under- or nontreatment of their chronic inflammatory skin disease. It’s a matter that calls for shared decision-making between dermatologist and patient. But the survey showed that shared decision-making was often poorly integrated into clinical practice. Ninety-seven percent of the U.S. dermatologists were unaware of the existence of shared decision-making practice guidelines or models, as were 80% of UK respondents and 85% of the Germans. Of the relatively few dermatologists who were aware of such guidance, nearly half dismissed it as inapplicable to their clinical practice. More than one-third of respondents admitted having suboptimal skills in assessing their patients’ desired level of involvement in medical decisions. And one-third of the German dermatologists and roughly one-quarter of those from the United States and United Kingdom reported feeling pressure to make treatment decisions quickly and without patient input.

Dr. Murase added that the survey findings make a strong case for future interventions designed to help dermatologists appreciate the value of shared decision-making and develop the requisite patient-engagement skills. Dr. Murase reported serving as a paid consultant to UCB Pharma, which funded the survey via an educational grant.

[email protected]

In a recent international survey, dermatologists both in the United States and abroad acknowledged major gaps in their competence to provide high-quality care to reproductive-age women with psoriasis, Jenny Murase, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

©monkeybusinessimages/Thinkstock

“In Germany, the UK, and the United States, dermatologists face challenges in discussing pregnancy and child-bearing aspiration with women of reproductive age, in recommending compatible treatments during pregnancy, and engaging patients in the shared decision-making process. These challenges may exist due to suboptimal knowledge, skills, confidence, and attitude in respective areas of care,” said Dr. Murase, a dermatologist at the University of California, San Francisco, and coeditor-in-chief of the International Journal of Women’s Dermatology.

• Forty-seven percent of respondents considered their knowledge of the impact of psoriasis on women’s reproductive health to be suboptimal. This knowledge gap was most common among American dermatologists, 59% of whom rated themselves as having suboptimal knowledge, and least common among German practitioners, only 27% of whom reported deficiencies in this area.

Fifty percent of dermatologists rated themselves as having suboptimal skills in discussing contraceptive methods with their psoriasis patients of childbearing potential.

• Forty-eight percent of respondents – and 59% of the American dermatologists – indicated they prefer to leave pregnancy-related discussions to ob.gyns.
• Fifty-five percent of dermatologists had only limited knowledge of the safety data and indications for prescribing biologic therapies before, during, and after pregnancy. Respondents gave themselves an average score of 58 out of 100 in terms of their confidence in prescribing biologics during pregnancy, compared to 74 out of 100 when prescribing before or after pregnancy.
• Forty-eight percent of participants indicated they had suboptimal skills in helping patients counter obstacles to treatment adherence.

Consideration of treatment of psoriasis in pregnancy requires balancing potential medication risks to the fetus versus the possible maternal and fetal harms of under- or nontreatment of their chronic inflammatory skin disease. It’s a matter that calls for shared decision-making between dermatologist and patient. But the survey showed that shared decision-making was often poorly integrated into clinical practice. Ninety-seven percent of the U.S. dermatologists were unaware of the existence of shared decision-making practice guidelines or models, as were 80% of UK respondents and 85% of the Germans. Of the relatively few dermatologists who were aware of such guidance, nearly half dismissed it as inapplicable to their clinical practice. More than one-third of respondents admitted having suboptimal skills in assessing their patients’ desired level of involvement in medical decisions. And one-third of the German dermatologists and roughly one-quarter of those from the United States and United Kingdom reported feeling pressure to make treatment decisions quickly and without patient input.

Dr. Murase added that the survey findings make a strong case for future interventions designed to help dermatologists appreciate the value of shared decision-making and develop the requisite patient-engagement skills. Dr. Murase reported serving as a paid consultant to UCB Pharma, which funded the survey via an educational grant.

[email protected]