Children and adolescents who receive positive COVID-19 test results are not only more likely to have been in close contact with someone with a confirmed case of the virus but also are less likely to have reported consistent mask use among students and staff inside the school they attended, reported Charlotte V. Hobbs, MD, and colleagues at the University of Mississippi, Jackson.

FluxFactory/E+

Nearly two-thirds reported that exposure came from family members

Of the total study participants observed, 82 (21%) were under 4 years of age; 214 (54%) were female; 217 (55%) were non-Hispanic black, and 145 (37%) were non-Hispanic white. More than half (53%) sought testing because of COVID-19 symptoms. Of those who tested positive, 66% reported having come into close contact with a COVID-19 case, and 64% reported that those contacts were family members, compared with 15% of contacts who were schoolmates and 27% who were child care classmates.

All participants completed in-person school or child care attendance less than 14 days before testing positive for the virus, including 62% of patients testing positive and 68% of those testing negative. The authors noted that school attendance itself was not found to be associated with any positive test results. In fact, parents in 64% of positive cases and 76% of negative cases reported mask wearing among children and staff inside places of learning.

Of those study participants testing positive who did come into close contact with someone with COVID-19, the contacts were more likely to be family members than school or child care classmates. Specifically, they were more likely, in the 2-week period preceding testing, to have attended gatherings with individuals outside their immediate households, including social events and activities with other children. Parents of students testing positive were also less likely to report consistent indoor mask use among their children older than 2 years and school staff members.

School attendance was not found to increase likelihood of testing positive

Attending in-person school or child care during the 2 weeks before the SARS-CoV-2 test was not associated with greater likelihood of testing positive, the study authors noted, adding that the majority of study respondents reported universal mask use inside school and child care facilities, consistent with Mississippi State Department of Health recommended guidelines.

Dr. Hobbs and colleagues reported at least four limitations of the study. They noted that the study participants may not be representative of youth in other geographic regions of the country. They considered the possibility of unmeasured confounding of participant behaviors that may not have been factored into the study. No attempt was made to verify parent claims of mask use at schools and child care programs. Lastly, they acknowledged that “case or control status might be subject to misclassification because of imperfect sensitivity or specificity of PCR-based testing.

As of Dec. 14, 2020, the CDC reported that 10.2% of all COVID-19 cases in the United States were in children and adolescents under the age of 18.

“Continued efforts to prevent transmission at schools and child care programs are important, as are assessments of various types of activities and exposures to identify risk factors for COVID-19 as children engage in classroom and social interactions.” Promoting behaviors to reduce exposures to the virus among youth in the household, the community, schools, and child care programs is important to preventing outbreaks of the virus at schools, the authors cautioned.

In a separate interview with this news organization, Karalyn Kinsella, MD, general pediatrician in a small group private practice in Cheshire, Conn., said, “What this report tells me is that COVID cases are more common when mask use is inconsistent in schools and at home and in schools that don’t properly adhere to CDC guidelines. Overall, so long as social distancing guidelines are followed, schools are pretty safe places for kids during this pandemic.”

This finding is important, since many families are keeping their children out of school over fears of contracting the virus, she added. Some of the consequences these children are suffering include a lack of social connection and structure, which in some cases is leading to worsening anxiety and depression, and for those with disabilities, such as those who receive physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech or have IEPs, they’re not getting the full benefit of the services that they would otherwise receive in person, she observed.

“I don’t think families really understand the risks of getting together with family or friends “in their bubble” or the risk of continuing sports participation. This is where the majority of COVID cases are coming from,” she said, adding that it is important to discuss this risk with them at appointments. So, when families ask us what we think of in-person learning, I think we should feel fairly confident that the benefit may outweigh the risk.”

Dr. Hobbs and colleagues, and Dr. Kinsella, had no conflicts of interest to report.

[email protected]

SOURCE: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020;69:1925-9. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6950e3.

Children and adolescents who receive positive COVID-19 test results are not only more likely to have been in close contact with someone with a confirmed case of the virus but also are less likely to have reported consistent mask use among students and staff inside the school they attended, reported Charlotte V. Hobbs, MD, and colleagues at the University of Mississippi, Jackson.

FluxFactory/E+

Nearly two-thirds reported that exposure came from family members

Of the total study participants observed, 82 (21%) were under 4 years of age; 214 (54%) were female; 217 (55%) were non-Hispanic black, and 145 (37%) were non-Hispanic white. More than half (53%) sought testing because of COVID-19 symptoms. Of those who tested positive, 66% reported having come into close contact with a COVID-19 case, and 64% reported that those contacts were family members, compared with 15% of contacts who were schoolmates and 27% who were child care classmates.

All participants completed in-person school or child care attendance less than 14 days before testing positive for the virus, including 62% of patients testing positive and 68% of those testing negative. The authors noted that school attendance itself was not found to be associated with any positive test results. In fact, parents in 64% of positive cases and 76% of negative cases reported mask wearing among children and staff inside places of learning.

Of those study participants testing positive who did come into close contact with someone with COVID-19, the contacts were more likely to be family members than school or child care classmates. Specifically, they were more likely, in the 2-week period preceding testing, to have attended gatherings with individuals outside their immediate households, including social events and activities with other children. Parents of students testing positive were also less likely to report consistent indoor mask use among their children older than 2 years and school staff members.

School attendance was not found to increase likelihood of testing positive

Attending in-person school or child care during the 2 weeks before the SARS-CoV-2 test was not associated with greater likelihood of testing positive, the study authors noted, adding that the majority of study respondents reported universal mask use inside school and child care facilities, consistent with Mississippi State Department of Health recommended guidelines.

Dr. Hobbs and colleagues reported at least four limitations of the study. They noted that the study participants may not be representative of youth in other geographic regions of the country. They considered the possibility of unmeasured confounding of participant behaviors that may not have been factored into the study. No attempt was made to verify parent claims of mask use at schools and child care programs. Lastly, they acknowledged that “case or control status might be subject to misclassification because of imperfect sensitivity or specificity of PCR-based testing.

As of Dec. 14, 2020, the CDC reported that 10.2% of all COVID-19 cases in the United States were in children and adolescents under the age of 18.

“Continued efforts to prevent transmission at schools and child care programs are important, as are assessments of various types of activities and exposures to identify risk factors for COVID-19 as children engage in classroom and social interactions.” Promoting behaviors to reduce exposures to the virus among youth in the household, the community, schools, and child care programs is important to preventing outbreaks of the virus at schools, the authors cautioned.

In a separate interview with this news organization, Karalyn Kinsella, MD, general pediatrician in a small group private practice in Cheshire, Conn., said, “What this report tells me is that COVID cases are more common when mask use is inconsistent in schools and at home and in schools that don’t properly adhere to CDC guidelines. Overall, so long as social distancing guidelines are followed, schools are pretty safe places for kids during this pandemic.”

This finding is important, since many families are keeping their children out of school over fears of contracting the virus, she added. Some of the consequences these children are suffering include a lack of social connection and structure, which in some cases is leading to worsening anxiety and depression, and for those with disabilities, such as those who receive physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech or have IEPs, they’re not getting the full benefit of the services that they would otherwise receive in person, she observed.

“I don’t think families really understand the risks of getting together with family or friends “in their bubble” or the risk of continuing sports participation. This is where the majority of COVID cases are coming from,” she said, adding that it is important to discuss this risk with them at appointments. So, when families ask us what we think of in-person learning, I think we should feel fairly confident that the benefit may outweigh the risk.”

Dr. Hobbs and colleagues, and Dr. Kinsella, had no conflicts of interest to report.

[email protected]

SOURCE: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020;69:1925-9. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6950e3.

Children and adolescents who receive positive COVID-19 test results are not only more likely to have been in close contact with someone with a confirmed case of the virus but also are less likely to have reported consistent mask use among students and staff inside the school they attended, reported Charlotte V. Hobbs, MD, and colleagues at the University of Mississippi, Jackson.

FluxFactory/E+

Nearly two-thirds reported that exposure came from family members

Of the total study participants observed, 82 (21%) were under 4 years of age; 214 (54%) were female; 217 (55%) were non-Hispanic black, and 145 (37%) were non-Hispanic white. More than half (53%) sought testing because of COVID-19 symptoms. Of those who tested positive, 66% reported having come into close contact with a COVID-19 case, and 64% reported that those contacts were family members, compared with 15% of contacts who were schoolmates and 27% who were child care classmates.

All participants completed in-person school or child care attendance less than 14 days before testing positive for the virus, including 62% of patients testing positive and 68% of those testing negative. The authors noted that school attendance itself was not found to be associated with any positive test results. In fact, parents in 64% of positive cases and 76% of negative cases reported mask wearing among children and staff inside places of learning.

Of those study participants testing positive who did come into close contact with someone with COVID-19, the contacts were more likely to be family members than school or child care classmates. Specifically, they were more likely, in the 2-week period preceding testing, to have attended gatherings with individuals outside their immediate households, including social events and activities with other children. Parents of students testing positive were also less likely to report consistent indoor mask use among their children older than 2 years and school staff members.

School attendance was not found to increase likelihood of testing positive

Attending in-person school or child care during the 2 weeks before the SARS-CoV-2 test was not associated with greater likelihood of testing positive, the study authors noted, adding that the majority of study respondents reported universal mask use inside school and child care facilities, consistent with Mississippi State Department of Health recommended guidelines.

Dr. Hobbs and colleagues reported at least four limitations of the study. They noted that the study participants may not be representative of youth in other geographic regions of the country. They considered the possibility of unmeasured confounding of participant behaviors that may not have been factored into the study. No attempt was made to verify parent claims of mask use at schools and child care programs. Lastly, they acknowledged that “case or control status might be subject to misclassification because of imperfect sensitivity or specificity of PCR-based testing.

As of Dec. 14, 2020, the CDC reported that 10.2% of all COVID-19 cases in the United States were in children and adolescents under the age of 18.

“Continued efforts to prevent transmission at schools and child care programs are important, as are assessments of various types of activities and exposures to identify risk factors for COVID-19 as children engage in classroom and social interactions.” Promoting behaviors to reduce exposures to the virus among youth in the household, the community, schools, and child care programs is important to preventing outbreaks of the virus at schools, the authors cautioned.

In a separate interview with this news organization, Karalyn Kinsella, MD, general pediatrician in a small group private practice in Cheshire, Conn., said, “What this report tells me is that COVID cases are more common when mask use is inconsistent in schools and at home and in schools that don’t properly adhere to CDC guidelines. Overall, so long as social distancing guidelines are followed, schools are pretty safe places for kids during this pandemic.”

This finding is important, since many families are keeping their children out of school over fears of contracting the virus, she added. Some of the consequences these children are suffering include a lack of social connection and structure, which in some cases is leading to worsening anxiety and depression, and for those with disabilities, such as those who receive physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech or have IEPs, they’re not getting the full benefit of the services that they would otherwise receive in person, she observed.

“I don’t think families really understand the risks of getting together with family or friends “in their bubble” or the risk of continuing sports participation. This is where the majority of COVID cases are coming from,” she said, adding that it is important to discuss this risk with them at appointments. So, when families ask us what we think of in-person learning, I think we should feel fairly confident that the benefit may outweigh the risk.”

Dr. Hobbs and colleagues, and Dr. Kinsella, had no conflicts of interest to report.

[email protected]

SOURCE: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020;69:1925-9. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6950e3.

There was no evidence of an abscopal effect with the addition of limited radiation therapy to nivolumab in patients with metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, according to new results from a randomized trial. 

The phase 2, single-center study was conducted in 62 patients with head and neck cancer and at least two metastatic lesions. They were randomly assigned to receive nivolumab with or without additional radiation, delivered as stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), but directed at only one of the metastatic lesions.

The results showed a similar rate of tumor shrinkage and disappearance in both groups (34.5% for nivolumab vs. 29.0% for the combination; P = .86) reported Sean McBride, MD, MPH, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, and colleagues in a paper published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The finding indicates that there was no abscopal effect, the team concluded.

The abscopal (from the Latin ab “away from” and scopus “target”) effect, first described in the 1950s, is a hypothetical result of radiation, whereby tumors situated outside the radiation field are reduced or eliminated by an assumed reaction mediated by the immune system.

This study is only the second randomized controlled trial to look at this effect. A previous trial in lung cancer (JAMA Oncol. 2019;5:1276) also failed to show a significant difference in objective response rate, the primary outcome.

In both studies, there was also no improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) with the addition of radiation.

“There are still die-hard proponents of the existence of an abscopal response, but it is clear from our data – there is no abscopal response,” lead study author Nancy Lee, MD, said in an interview.

Dr. Lee, also from Memorial Sloan Kettering, was referring to this trial in head and neck cancer specifically. But previous nonrandomized studies have also reported response rates for the combination of SBRT and immunotherapy that are similar to monotherapy, the authors point out. Overall, the collective data in oncology suggest that the abscopal response is “relatively rare,” the team comments.

A more emphatic statement comes from a pair of oncologists in an accompanying editorial.

The new study “provides the clearest evidence so far that the abscopal effect, contrary to widely held perception in the field, remains exceedingly rare,” wrote Tanguy Seiwert, MD, medical oncologist, and Ana Kiess, MD, PhD, radiation oncologist, both at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

This is a “well-executed study that has broader implications beyond head and neck cancer and speaks to larger issues of combination therapies in the era of cancer immunotherapy,” they also wrote.

The practice of using limited SBRT on any tumor type – along with anti–PD-1/PD-L1 therapy – “should not be pursued for the sole purpose of induction of an abscopal effect until we have better data to support any benefit,” the editorialists added.

It’s time to put the abscopal effect to rest, suggested Dr. Lee.

“Instead of focusing on whether an abscopal response exists or not, as it clearly did not in our phase 2 study, our focus should shift to the broader picture. What is the optimal timing of PD-1 or PD-L1 therapy in relation to radiotherapy?” she said.

The answer appears to be sequentially – and not concurrently, which is how radiation has been used to induce the would-be abscopal effect, she explained. “I personally feel that immunotherapy should not be given concurrently with radiation therapy.”

Damning data for the concurrent approach come from the phase 3 Javelin Head and Neck 100 trial, she said. In March, trial sponsors announced that the trial was terminated as it was unlikely to meet its primary endpoint. Specifically, adding an anti–PD-L1 therapy to chemoradiotherapy was not superior to chemoradiotherapy alone.

On the other hand, in the phase 3 lung cancer study known as PACIFIC, chemoradiotherapy followed by sequential anti–PD-L1 therapy showed “dramatic” improvements in PFS and OS, the editorialists pointed out.
 

Radiation and immunotherapy combinations

Despite the failure of this trial, radiation has “significant potential for combination with immunotherapy,” observed Dr. Seiwert and Dr. Kiess.

There are at least three potential roles of radiation therapy in combination with anti–PD-1/PD-L1 therapy, they wrote.

They explained that the first is single-site palliative radiation therapy/SBRT, which can control local symptoms. The second is “consolidation” of all tumor sites with radiation therapy/SBRT, which may decrease tumor burden and heterogeneity. And the third potential role is definitive locoregional radiation therapy to achieve long-term locoregional tumor control.

Thus, the editorialists, like Dr. Lee, believed the question of concurrent versus sequential immunotherapy is “important.” But the field of oncology has an abundance of treatments that can now be aimed at a cancer, in a variety of potential combinations, they observed.

The editorialists concluded their commentary with a long list of needed work: “We should take this study to guide us to explore promising approaches in rigorous clinical trials, with a focus on sequential approaches such as definitive RT followed by immunotherapy, consolidative SBRT of all tumor sites in combination with immunotherapy, and trials that incorporate surrogate immunotherapy-relevant biomarkers to assess earlier and more efficiently the impact of an intervention.”

The study was partly supported by a grant from the National Cancer Institute. Bristol-Myers Squibb provided the study drug and funded tumor staining.

Multiple study authors have financial ties to industry, including two with ties to Bristol-Myers Squibb. Both editorialists have ties to industry, including Dr. Seiwert’s ties to Bristol-Myers Squibb.

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

There was no evidence of an abscopal effect with the addition of limited radiation therapy to nivolumab in patients with metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, according to new results from a randomized trial. 

The phase 2, single-center study was conducted in 62 patients with head and neck cancer and at least two metastatic lesions. They were randomly assigned to receive nivolumab with or without additional radiation, delivered as stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), but directed at only one of the metastatic lesions.

The results showed a similar rate of tumor shrinkage and disappearance in both groups (34.5% for nivolumab vs. 29.0% for the combination; P = .86) reported Sean McBride, MD, MPH, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, and colleagues in a paper published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The finding indicates that there was no abscopal effect, the team concluded.

The abscopal (from the Latin ab “away from” and scopus “target”) effect, first described in the 1950s, is a hypothetical result of radiation, whereby tumors situated outside the radiation field are reduced or eliminated by an assumed reaction mediated by the immune system.

This study is only the second randomized controlled trial to look at this effect. A previous trial in lung cancer (JAMA Oncol. 2019;5:1276) also failed to show a significant difference in objective response rate, the primary outcome.

In both studies, there was also no improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) with the addition of radiation.

“There are still die-hard proponents of the existence of an abscopal response, but it is clear from our data – there is no abscopal response,” lead study author Nancy Lee, MD, said in an interview.

Dr. Lee, also from Memorial Sloan Kettering, was referring to this trial in head and neck cancer specifically. But previous nonrandomized studies have also reported response rates for the combination of SBRT and immunotherapy that are similar to monotherapy, the authors point out. Overall, the collective data in oncology suggest that the abscopal response is “relatively rare,” the team comments.

A more emphatic statement comes from a pair of oncologists in an accompanying editorial.

The new study “provides the clearest evidence so far that the abscopal effect, contrary to widely held perception in the field, remains exceedingly rare,” wrote Tanguy Seiwert, MD, medical oncologist, and Ana Kiess, MD, PhD, radiation oncologist, both at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

This is a “well-executed study that has broader implications beyond head and neck cancer and speaks to larger issues of combination therapies in the era of cancer immunotherapy,” they also wrote.

The practice of using limited SBRT on any tumor type – along with anti–PD-1/PD-L1 therapy – “should not be pursued for the sole purpose of induction of an abscopal effect until we have better data to support any benefit,” the editorialists added.

It’s time to put the abscopal effect to rest, suggested Dr. Lee.

“Instead of focusing on whether an abscopal response exists or not, as it clearly did not in our phase 2 study, our focus should shift to the broader picture. What is the optimal timing of PD-1 or PD-L1 therapy in relation to radiotherapy?” she said.

The answer appears to be sequentially – and not concurrently, which is how radiation has been used to induce the would-be abscopal effect, she explained. “I personally feel that immunotherapy should not be given concurrently with radiation therapy.”

Damning data for the concurrent approach come from the phase 3 Javelin Head and Neck 100 trial, she said. In March, trial sponsors announced that the trial was terminated as it was unlikely to meet its primary endpoint. Specifically, adding an anti–PD-L1 therapy to chemoradiotherapy was not superior to chemoradiotherapy alone.

On the other hand, in the phase 3 lung cancer study known as PACIFIC, chemoradiotherapy followed by sequential anti–PD-L1 therapy showed “dramatic” improvements in PFS and OS, the editorialists pointed out.
 

Radiation and immunotherapy combinations

Despite the failure of this trial, radiation has “significant potential for combination with immunotherapy,” observed Dr. Seiwert and Dr. Kiess.

There are at least three potential roles of radiation therapy in combination with anti–PD-1/PD-L1 therapy, they wrote.

They explained that the first is single-site palliative radiation therapy/SBRT, which can control local symptoms. The second is “consolidation” of all tumor sites with radiation therapy/SBRT, which may decrease tumor burden and heterogeneity. And the third potential role is definitive locoregional radiation therapy to achieve long-term locoregional tumor control.

Thus, the editorialists, like Dr. Lee, believed the question of concurrent versus sequential immunotherapy is “important.” But the field of oncology has an abundance of treatments that can now be aimed at a cancer, in a variety of potential combinations, they observed.

The editorialists concluded their commentary with a long list of needed work: “We should take this study to guide us to explore promising approaches in rigorous clinical trials, with a focus on sequential approaches such as definitive RT followed by immunotherapy, consolidative SBRT of all tumor sites in combination with immunotherapy, and trials that incorporate surrogate immunotherapy-relevant biomarkers to assess earlier and more efficiently the impact of an intervention.”

The study was partly supported by a grant from the National Cancer Institute. Bristol-Myers Squibb provided the study drug and funded tumor staining.

Multiple study authors have financial ties to industry, including two with ties to Bristol-Myers Squibb. Both editorialists have ties to industry, including Dr. Seiwert’s ties to Bristol-Myers Squibb.

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

There was no evidence of an abscopal effect with the addition of limited radiation therapy to nivolumab in patients with metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, according to new results from a randomized trial. 

The phase 2, single-center study was conducted in 62 patients with head and neck cancer and at least two metastatic lesions. They were randomly assigned to receive nivolumab with or without additional radiation, delivered as stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), but directed at only one of the metastatic lesions.

The results showed a similar rate of tumor shrinkage and disappearance in both groups (34.5% for nivolumab vs. 29.0% for the combination; P = .86) reported Sean McBride, MD, MPH, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, and colleagues in a paper published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The finding indicates that there was no abscopal effect, the team concluded.

The abscopal (from the Latin ab “away from” and scopus “target”) effect, first described in the 1950s, is a hypothetical result of radiation, whereby tumors situated outside the radiation field are reduced or eliminated by an assumed reaction mediated by the immune system.

This study is only the second randomized controlled trial to look at this effect. A previous trial in lung cancer (JAMA Oncol. 2019;5:1276) also failed to show a significant difference in objective response rate, the primary outcome.

In both studies, there was also no improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) with the addition of radiation.

“There are still die-hard proponents of the existence of an abscopal response, but it is clear from our data – there is no abscopal response,” lead study author Nancy Lee, MD, said in an interview.

Dr. Lee, also from Memorial Sloan Kettering, was referring to this trial in head and neck cancer specifically. But previous nonrandomized studies have also reported response rates for the combination of SBRT and immunotherapy that are similar to monotherapy, the authors point out. Overall, the collective data in oncology suggest that the abscopal response is “relatively rare,” the team comments.

A more emphatic statement comes from a pair of oncologists in an accompanying editorial.

The new study “provides the clearest evidence so far that the abscopal effect, contrary to widely held perception in the field, remains exceedingly rare,” wrote Tanguy Seiwert, MD, medical oncologist, and Ana Kiess, MD, PhD, radiation oncologist, both at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

This is a “well-executed study that has broader implications beyond head and neck cancer and speaks to larger issues of combination therapies in the era of cancer immunotherapy,” they also wrote.

The practice of using limited SBRT on any tumor type – along with anti–PD-1/PD-L1 therapy – “should not be pursued for the sole purpose of induction of an abscopal effect until we have better data to support any benefit,” the editorialists added.

It’s time to put the abscopal effect to rest, suggested Dr. Lee.

“Instead of focusing on whether an abscopal response exists or not, as it clearly did not in our phase 2 study, our focus should shift to the broader picture. What is the optimal timing of PD-1 or PD-L1 therapy in relation to radiotherapy?” she said.

The answer appears to be sequentially – and not concurrently, which is how radiation has been used to induce the would-be abscopal effect, she explained. “I personally feel that immunotherapy should not be given concurrently with radiation therapy.”

Damning data for the concurrent approach come from the phase 3 Javelin Head and Neck 100 trial, she said. In March, trial sponsors announced that the trial was terminated as it was unlikely to meet its primary endpoint. Specifically, adding an anti–PD-L1 therapy to chemoradiotherapy was not superior to chemoradiotherapy alone.

On the other hand, in the phase 3 lung cancer study known as PACIFIC, chemoradiotherapy followed by sequential anti–PD-L1 therapy showed “dramatic” improvements in PFS and OS, the editorialists pointed out.
 

Radiation and immunotherapy combinations

Despite the failure of this trial, radiation has “significant potential for combination with immunotherapy,” observed Dr. Seiwert and Dr. Kiess.

There are at least three potential roles of radiation therapy in combination with anti–PD-1/PD-L1 therapy, they wrote.

They explained that the first is single-site palliative radiation therapy/SBRT, which can control local symptoms. The second is “consolidation” of all tumor sites with radiation therapy/SBRT, which may decrease tumor burden and heterogeneity. And the third potential role is definitive locoregional radiation therapy to achieve long-term locoregional tumor control.

Thus, the editorialists, like Dr. Lee, believed the question of concurrent versus sequential immunotherapy is “important.” But the field of oncology has an abundance of treatments that can now be aimed at a cancer, in a variety of potential combinations, they observed.

The editorialists concluded their commentary with a long list of needed work: “We should take this study to guide us to explore promising approaches in rigorous clinical trials, with a focus on sequential approaches such as definitive RT followed by immunotherapy, consolidative SBRT of all tumor sites in combination with immunotherapy, and trials that incorporate surrogate immunotherapy-relevant biomarkers to assess earlier and more efficiently the impact of an intervention.”

The study was partly supported by a grant from the National Cancer Institute. Bristol-Myers Squibb provided the study drug and funded tumor staining.

Multiple study authors have financial ties to industry, including two with ties to Bristol-Myers Squibb. Both editorialists have ties to industry, including Dr. Seiwert’s ties to Bristol-Myers Squibb.

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

Saliva spit tests stack up well against the gold standard for molecular COVID-19 tests – the back-of-the-nose deep swab – without the discomfort and induced coughing or sneezing of the test taker, updated guidelines indicate.

In a press briefing on Jan. 6, the Infectious Diseases Society of America explained the findings of an expert panel that reviewed the literature since the IDSA released its first guidelines in May.

The panel found that saliva tests were especially effective if the test included instructions to cough or clear the throat before spitting into the tube, said panel chair Kimberly E. Hanson, MD, MHS, of University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City.
 

Throat swab alone less effective

Using a throat swab alone was less effective and missed more cases than the other methods, she said.

The IDSA has updated its recommendation: A saliva test or swabs from either the middle or front of the nose front are preferred to a throat swab alone.

A combination of saliva and swabs from the front and middle of the nose and throat together “looked pretty much equivalent” to the gold-standard deep swab, the panel found.

She acknowledged, however, that multiple swabs exacerbate already challenging supply issues.

Saliva samples do come with challenges, Dr. Hanson noted. A laboratory must validate that its systems can handle the stickier material. And asking a patient to cough necessitates more personal protective equipment for the health care professional.

Each center will have to tailor the specimen type it chooses, based on what resources it has available and the setting – whether in a hospital or a drive-through operation, for instance, she said.
 

Rapid testing vs. standard

Panel member Angela M. Caliendo, MD, PhD, of Brown University, Providence, R.I., said the panel preferred rapid polymerase chain reaction tests and standard, laboratory-based PCR tests over a rapid isothermal test.

The panel defined rapid tests as those for which results are available within an hour after a test provider has the specimen in hand. They excluded home tests for this category.

The only rapid isothermal test that had enough data on which to issue a recommendation was the ID NOW test (Abbott Labs), she noted. 

Rapid PCR tests performed just as well as the standard laboratory-based tests, she said, with a high sensitivity of “97% on average and a very high specificity.”

But the rapid isothermal test had an average sensitivity of only about 80%, compared with the lab-based PCR test, Dr. Caliendo said, yielding a substantial number of false-negative results.

Testing centers will have to weigh the considerable advantages of having results in 15 minutes with a rapid isothermal test and being able to educate positive patients about immediate isolation against the potential for false negatives, which could send positive patients home thinking they don’t have the virus – and thus potentially spreading the disease.

And if a clinician gets a negative result with the rapid isothermal test, but has a strong suspicion the person has COVID or lives in an area with high prevalence, a backup test with a rapid PCR or laboratory-based test should be administered.

“You will miss a certain percentage of people using this rapid isothermal test,” she said.

However, Dr. Caliendo said, if the only available option is the isothermal test, “you should definitely use it because it’s certainly better than not testing at all.”

On a positive note, she said, all the varieties of tests have high specificity, so “you’re not going to see a lot of false-positive results.”

The guidelines back in May didn’t make recommendations on rapid tests, she said, because there weren’t enough data in the literature.

Dr. Caliendo noted that most of the available data were for symptomatic patients, but there are some data that show the amount of virus in the respiratory tract is similar for people with and without symptoms. The panel, therefore, expects that the performance of the various assays would be similar whether or not a person had symptoms.
 

Testing the immunocompromised

Dr. Hanson said the original recommendation in May was to do molecular testing for asymptomatic people who were awaiting a transplant or were waiting to start immunosuppressive therapy for cancer or an autoimmune disease. Now the current guidelines “make no recommendation for or against screening” in those cases.

Dr. Hanson added that the panel feels that patients awaiting bone marrow and solid organ transplants should have the testing because of the high risks that will result if patients have contracted the virus.

But for those with cancer or an autoimmune disease, the panel decided to leave it up to each physician to assess individual risk and determine whether the patient should be tested.
 

Home testing

The IDSA guidelines didn’t weigh in on home testing because the products are so new and studies so far have included fewer than 200 patients. But Dr. Caliendo said they clearly perform better earlier in the disease phase – the first 5-7 days – when the amount of the virus is higher.

Dr. Hanson and Dr. Caliendo also fielded a question about what the new virus variant, first discovered in the United Kingdom and now spreading to other countries (including the United States) means for diagnostic testing.

“So far we think with the majority of tests that are [emergency use] authorized, it doesn’t look like this new variant should really affect test performance,” Dr. Hanson said.

The variant has differences in the spike gene, and many of the current tests detect and identify SARS-CoV-2 without the spike gene so they wouldn’t be affected, she added.

Dr. Caliendo agreed: “I think the vast majority of our tests should be in good shape.”

Dr. Hanson and Dr. Caliendo disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Saliva spit tests stack up well against the gold standard for molecular COVID-19 tests – the back-of-the-nose deep swab – without the discomfort and induced coughing or sneezing of the test taker, updated guidelines indicate.

In a press briefing on Jan. 6, the Infectious Diseases Society of America explained the findings of an expert panel that reviewed the literature since the IDSA released its first guidelines in May.

The panel found that saliva tests were especially effective if the test included instructions to cough or clear the throat before spitting into the tube, said panel chair Kimberly E. Hanson, MD, MHS, of University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City.
 

Throat swab alone less effective

Using a throat swab alone was less effective and missed more cases than the other methods, she said.

The IDSA has updated its recommendation: A saliva test or swabs from either the middle or front of the nose front are preferred to a throat swab alone.

A combination of saliva and swabs from the front and middle of the nose and throat together “looked pretty much equivalent” to the gold-standard deep swab, the panel found.

She acknowledged, however, that multiple swabs exacerbate already challenging supply issues.

Saliva samples do come with challenges, Dr. Hanson noted. A laboratory must validate that its systems can handle the stickier material. And asking a patient to cough necessitates more personal protective equipment for the health care professional.

Each center will have to tailor the specimen type it chooses, based on what resources it has available and the setting – whether in a hospital or a drive-through operation, for instance, she said.
 

Rapid testing vs. standard

Panel member Angela M. Caliendo, MD, PhD, of Brown University, Providence, R.I., said the panel preferred rapid polymerase chain reaction tests and standard, laboratory-based PCR tests over a rapid isothermal test.

The panel defined rapid tests as those for which results are available within an hour after a test provider has the specimen in hand. They excluded home tests for this category.

The only rapid isothermal test that had enough data on which to issue a recommendation was the ID NOW test (Abbott Labs), she noted. 

Rapid PCR tests performed just as well as the standard laboratory-based tests, she said, with a high sensitivity of “97% on average and a very high specificity.”

But the rapid isothermal test had an average sensitivity of only about 80%, compared with the lab-based PCR test, Dr. Caliendo said, yielding a substantial number of false-negative results.

Testing centers will have to weigh the considerable advantages of having results in 15 minutes with a rapid isothermal test and being able to educate positive patients about immediate isolation against the potential for false negatives, which could send positive patients home thinking they don’t have the virus – and thus potentially spreading the disease.

And if a clinician gets a negative result with the rapid isothermal test, but has a strong suspicion the person has COVID or lives in an area with high prevalence, a backup test with a rapid PCR or laboratory-based test should be administered.

“You will miss a certain percentage of people using this rapid isothermal test,” she said.

However, Dr. Caliendo said, if the only available option is the isothermal test, “you should definitely use it because it’s certainly better than not testing at all.”

On a positive note, she said, all the varieties of tests have high specificity, so “you’re not going to see a lot of false-positive results.”

The guidelines back in May didn’t make recommendations on rapid tests, she said, because there weren’t enough data in the literature.

Dr. Caliendo noted that most of the available data were for symptomatic patients, but there are some data that show the amount of virus in the respiratory tract is similar for people with and without symptoms. The panel, therefore, expects that the performance of the various assays would be similar whether or not a person had symptoms.
 

Testing the immunocompromised

Dr. Hanson said the original recommendation in May was to do molecular testing for asymptomatic people who were awaiting a transplant or were waiting to start immunosuppressive therapy for cancer or an autoimmune disease. Now the current guidelines “make no recommendation for or against screening” in those cases.

Dr. Hanson added that the panel feels that patients awaiting bone marrow and solid organ transplants should have the testing because of the high risks that will result if patients have contracted the virus.

But for those with cancer or an autoimmune disease, the panel decided to leave it up to each physician to assess individual risk and determine whether the patient should be tested.
 

Home testing

The IDSA guidelines didn’t weigh in on home testing because the products are so new and studies so far have included fewer than 200 patients. But Dr. Caliendo said they clearly perform better earlier in the disease phase – the first 5-7 days – when the amount of the virus is higher.

Dr. Hanson and Dr. Caliendo also fielded a question about what the new virus variant, first discovered in the United Kingdom and now spreading to other countries (including the United States) means for diagnostic testing.

“So far we think with the majority of tests that are [emergency use] authorized, it doesn’t look like this new variant should really affect test performance,” Dr. Hanson said.

The variant has differences in the spike gene, and many of the current tests detect and identify SARS-CoV-2 without the spike gene so they wouldn’t be affected, she added.

Dr. Caliendo agreed: “I think the vast majority of our tests should be in good shape.”

Dr. Hanson and Dr. Caliendo disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Saliva spit tests stack up well against the gold standard for molecular COVID-19 tests – the back-of-the-nose deep swab – without the discomfort and induced coughing or sneezing of the test taker, updated guidelines indicate.

In a press briefing on Jan. 6, the Infectious Diseases Society of America explained the findings of an expert panel that reviewed the literature since the IDSA released its first guidelines in May.

The panel found that saliva tests were especially effective if the test included instructions to cough or clear the throat before spitting into the tube, said panel chair Kimberly E. Hanson, MD, MHS, of University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City.
 

Throat swab alone less effective

Using a throat swab alone was less effective and missed more cases than the other methods, she said.

The IDSA has updated its recommendation: A saliva test or swabs from either the middle or front of the nose front are preferred to a throat swab alone.

A combination of saliva and swabs from the front and middle of the nose and throat together “looked pretty much equivalent” to the gold-standard deep swab, the panel found.

She acknowledged, however, that multiple swabs exacerbate already challenging supply issues.

Saliva samples do come with challenges, Dr. Hanson noted. A laboratory must validate that its systems can handle the stickier material. And asking a patient to cough necessitates more personal protective equipment for the health care professional.

Each center will have to tailor the specimen type it chooses, based on what resources it has available and the setting – whether in a hospital or a drive-through operation, for instance, she said.
 

Rapid testing vs. standard

Panel member Angela M. Caliendo, MD, PhD, of Brown University, Providence, R.I., said the panel preferred rapid polymerase chain reaction tests and standard, laboratory-based PCR tests over a rapid isothermal test.

The panel defined rapid tests as those for which results are available within an hour after a test provider has the specimen in hand. They excluded home tests for this category.

The only rapid isothermal test that had enough data on which to issue a recommendation was the ID NOW test (Abbott Labs), she noted. 

Rapid PCR tests performed just as well as the standard laboratory-based tests, she said, with a high sensitivity of “97% on average and a very high specificity.”

But the rapid isothermal test had an average sensitivity of only about 80%, compared with the lab-based PCR test, Dr. Caliendo said, yielding a substantial number of false-negative results.

Testing centers will have to weigh the considerable advantages of having results in 15 minutes with a rapid isothermal test and being able to educate positive patients about immediate isolation against the potential for false negatives, which could send positive patients home thinking they don’t have the virus – and thus potentially spreading the disease.

And if a clinician gets a negative result with the rapid isothermal test, but has a strong suspicion the person has COVID or lives in an area with high prevalence, a backup test with a rapid PCR or laboratory-based test should be administered.

“You will miss a certain percentage of people using this rapid isothermal test,” she said.

However, Dr. Caliendo said, if the only available option is the isothermal test, “you should definitely use it because it’s certainly better than not testing at all.”

On a positive note, she said, all the varieties of tests have high specificity, so “you’re not going to see a lot of false-positive results.”

The guidelines back in May didn’t make recommendations on rapid tests, she said, because there weren’t enough data in the literature.

Dr. Caliendo noted that most of the available data were for symptomatic patients, but there are some data that show the amount of virus in the respiratory tract is similar for people with and without symptoms. The panel, therefore, expects that the performance of the various assays would be similar whether or not a person had symptoms.
 

Testing the immunocompromised

Dr. Hanson said the original recommendation in May was to do molecular testing for asymptomatic people who were awaiting a transplant or were waiting to start immunosuppressive therapy for cancer or an autoimmune disease. Now the current guidelines “make no recommendation for or against screening” in those cases.

Dr. Hanson added that the panel feels that patients awaiting bone marrow and solid organ transplants should have the testing because of the high risks that will result if patients have contracted the virus.

But for those with cancer or an autoimmune disease, the panel decided to leave it up to each physician to assess individual risk and determine whether the patient should be tested.
 

Home testing

The IDSA guidelines didn’t weigh in on home testing because the products are so new and studies so far have included fewer than 200 patients. But Dr. Caliendo said they clearly perform better earlier in the disease phase – the first 5-7 days – when the amount of the virus is higher.

Dr. Hanson and Dr. Caliendo also fielded a question about what the new virus variant, first discovered in the United Kingdom and now spreading to other countries (including the United States) means for diagnostic testing.

“So far we think with the majority of tests that are [emergency use] authorized, it doesn’t look like this new variant should really affect test performance,” Dr. Hanson said.

The variant has differences in the spike gene, and many of the current tests detect and identify SARS-CoV-2 without the spike gene so they wouldn’t be affected, she added.

Dr. Caliendo agreed: “I think the vast majority of our tests should be in good shape.”

Dr. Hanson and Dr. Caliendo disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Chronic leg ulcers of all types feature a significant inflammatory component for which medical compression therapy is absolutely the best form of anti-inflammatory therapy, Elena Conde Montero, MD, PhD, asserted at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

In addition to delving into the finer points of compression therapy, she offered other clinical pearls for the treatment of chronic leg ulcers. These included the use of autologous punch grafting to reduce pain as well as promote healing, when to employ adjunctive negative pressure therapy, and the benefits of liquid sevoflurane for highly effective topical analgesia during wound cleansing and debridement.
 

Compression therapy

“If no contraindications exist, compression therapy is the best antihypertensive and anti-inflammatory treatment for all leg ulcers, not only venous leg ulcers,” according to Dr. Conde, a dermatologist at Infanta Leonor University Hospital in Madrid.

The list of absolute contraindications to compression treatment is brief, as highlighted in a recent international consensus statement. The expert writing panel named only four: severe peripheral artery disease, the presence of an epifascial arterial bypass, severe cardiac insufficiency, and true allergy to compression material.

Compression therapy provides multiple salutary effects. These include reduced capillary filtration of fluids to tissue, decreased swelling, enhanced tissue remodeling, better lymphatic drainage, reduced inflammatory cell counts, and increased arterial flow.

“This means that people with mild arterial disease will benefit from active compression because perfusion will improve,” Dr. Conde said.

Similarly, leg ulcers secondary to pyoderma gangrenosum will benefit from the anti-inflammatory effects of compression therapy in conjunction with standard immunotherapy, added the dermatologist, who coauthored a recent publication by the European Wound Management Association entitled “Atypical Wounds: Best Clinical Practices and Challenges.”

Four broad types of compression therapy are available: compression stockings, short-stretch bandages, multicomponent bandage systems, and self-adjusting compression wrap devices. The best clinical outcomes are achieved by individualized selection of a compression method based upon patient characteristics.

Short-stretch, low-elasticity bandages – such as the classic Unna boot loaded with zinc paste and topical corticosteroids – are well suited for patients with large leg ulcers. These bandages feature high working pressures during muscle contraction. They also provide low resting pressures, which is advantageous in patients with peripheral artery disease. The major disadvantage of short-stretch bandages is the need for frequent dressing changes by a nurse or other trained professional, since the compression is quickly lost as an unwanted consequence of the welcome reduction in swelling.

Multicomponent bandage systems feature two to four layers of bandages of differing stiffness, as well as padding material and in many cases pressure indicators. These bandages can often be worn for up to a week without needing to be changed, since they maintain adequate pressure long term. “These are very easy to use by nonexperts,” Dr. Conde noted.

A caveat regarding both short-stretch bandages and the multicomponent bandage systems: before applying them, it’s important to pad at-risk areas against injury caused by high pressures. These high-risk areas include the Achilles tendon, the pretibial region, and the lateral foot.

Self-adjusting compression systems are comprised of strips of short-stretch, low-elasticity fabric, which wrap around the leg and are fixed with Velcro closures. Dr. Conde hailed these devices as “a great innovation in compression therapy, without doubt.” Their major advantage is ease of application and removal by the patient. They are best-suited for treatment of small ulcers in patients who find it difficult to use compression stockings because of obesity or osteoarthritis, in patients who can’t tolerate such stockings because they have peripheral artery disease and the stockings’ high resting pressure is uncomfortable, or in individuals ill-suited for compression bandages because they lack adequate access to nursing care for the required frequent dressing changes.

Compression stockings are a good option for small ulcers. It’s easier for patients to wear shoes with compression stockings and thereby engage in normal everyday activities than with short-stretch bandages. A tip: Many patients find it arduous to don and remove a high-compression stocking that achieves the recommended pressure of 30-40 mm Hg at the point of transition between the Achilles tendon and the calf muscle, but the same effect can be achieved by overlapping two easier-to-use lower-compression stockings.

Punch grafting

This simple, cost-effective outpatient procedure was first described as a means of enhancing wound healing 150 years ago. The method involves utilizing a scalpel, curette, or punch to obtain a series of thin split-thickness skin grafts that contain epidermis and dermis down to the superficial papillary dermis. The grafts, usually harvested from the anterior thigh, are placed on the wound. This is followed by at least 5 days of local pressure and rest to promote graft uptake.

Sequential punch grafting is an excellent option for particularly challenging chronic ulcers, including Martorell hypertensive ischemic leg ulcers and other arteriolopathic ulcers in the elderly.

“Sequential punch grafting of wounds is very common in our clinics, especially for wounds that lack perfect grafting conditions,” Dr. Conde said.

She considers Martorell hypertensive ischemic leg ulcers to be underdiagnosed and undertreated. The Martorell leg ulcer is an exceedingly painful, rapidly progressive ischemic lesion, or bilateral lesions, with inflamed irregular margins. The disorder is caused by obstruction of subcutaneous arterioles in the absence of signs of vasculitis, and generally occurs in older individuals who have had well-controlled hypertension for many years. Diabetes, obesity, dyslipidemia, and peripheral artery disease are common comorbid conditions. The most common form of treatment – bioactive dressings in a moist environment – produces unsatisfactory results because it doesn’t address the inflammatory process.

Dr. Conde and coworkers have published the full details of how they achieved complete healing of Martorell hypertensive ischemic leg ulcers 3-8 weeks after punch grafting in three affected patients, all of whom presented with pain scores of 10/10 refractory even to opioid analgesics. The punch grafting was preceded by 15 days of topical corticosteroids and low-elasticity compression bandages in order to create adequate granulation tissue in the wound bed, which had the added benefit of achieving a 2- to 3-point reduction in pain scores even before the surgical procedure.

The pain-reducing effect of punch grafting isn’t as well appreciated as the wound-healing effect. Dr. Conde was first author of a recent study in which investigators systematically measured pain reduction in 136 patients with hard-to-heal leg ulcers of various etiologies treated with punch grafting. Nearly three-quarters of those who presented with painful ulcers were pain free after punch grafting, and the rest experienced greater than 70% pain reduction.

Pain suppression wasn’t dependent upon the percentage of graft uptake in this study. That’s because, as long as the wound isn’t overcleaned during dressing changes, even grafts that haven’t attached to the wound will release growth factors that promote wound healing, Dr. Conde explained.
 

Adjunctive negative pressure therapy

Portable vacuum-based negative pressure therapy devices are easy to use as a means to promote punch graft uptake. Negative pressure is best employed as an adjunct to punch grafting in suboptimal wound beds, longstanding ulcers, in patients with previous graft failure, or in challenging anatomic locations, such as the Achilles tendon or ankle. Dr. Conde has found the combination of punch grafting and negative pressure therapy especially helpful in patients with clinically inactive pyoderma gangrenosum.

Topical sevoflurane for analgesia

Most of the literature on topical sevoflurane for ulcer care has been published by Spanish researchers, but this form of analgesia deserves much more widespread use, according to Dr. Conde.

Sevoflurane is most often used as a gas in general anesthesia. In liquid form, however, it not only has a rapid, long-lasting analgesic effect when applied to painful leg ulcers, it also promotes healing because it is both antibacterial and a vasodilator. So before performing a potentially painful ulcer or wound cleaning, Dr. Conde recommended protecting perilesional skin with petroleum jelly, then irrigating the ulcer site with liquid sevoflurane. After that, it’s advisable to wait just 5-10 minutes before proceeding.

“It takes effect in much less time than EMLA cream,” she noted.

In one study of 30 adults aged over age 65 years with painful chronic venous ulcers refractory to conventional analgesics who underwent ulcer cleaning supported by topical sevoflurane at a dose of roughly 1 mL/cm² of ulcer area every 2 days for a month, Spanish investigators documented onset of analgesic effect in 2-7 minutes, with a duration of 8-18 hours. The researchers found that the use of backup conventional analgesics ranging from acetaminophen to opioids was diminished. Side effects were limited to mild, transient itching and redness.

Dr. Conde reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding her presentation.

[email protected]

Chronic leg ulcers of all types feature a significant inflammatory component for which medical compression therapy is absolutely the best form of anti-inflammatory therapy, Elena Conde Montero, MD, PhD, asserted at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

In addition to delving into the finer points of compression therapy, she offered other clinical pearls for the treatment of chronic leg ulcers. These included the use of autologous punch grafting to reduce pain as well as promote healing, when to employ adjunctive negative pressure therapy, and the benefits of liquid sevoflurane for highly effective topical analgesia during wound cleansing and debridement.
 

Compression therapy

“If no contraindications exist, compression therapy is the best antihypertensive and anti-inflammatory treatment for all leg ulcers, not only venous leg ulcers,” according to Dr. Conde, a dermatologist at Infanta Leonor University Hospital in Madrid.

The list of absolute contraindications to compression treatment is brief, as highlighted in a recent international consensus statement. The expert writing panel named only four: severe peripheral artery disease, the presence of an epifascial arterial bypass, severe cardiac insufficiency, and true allergy to compression material.

Compression therapy provides multiple salutary effects. These include reduced capillary filtration of fluids to tissue, decreased swelling, enhanced tissue remodeling, better lymphatic drainage, reduced inflammatory cell counts, and increased arterial flow.

“This means that people with mild arterial disease will benefit from active compression because perfusion will improve,” Dr. Conde said.

Similarly, leg ulcers secondary to pyoderma gangrenosum will benefit from the anti-inflammatory effects of compression therapy in conjunction with standard immunotherapy, added the dermatologist, who coauthored a recent publication by the European Wound Management Association entitled “Atypical Wounds: Best Clinical Practices and Challenges.”

Four broad types of compression therapy are available: compression stockings, short-stretch bandages, multicomponent bandage systems, and self-adjusting compression wrap devices. The best clinical outcomes are achieved by individualized selection of a compression method based upon patient characteristics.

Short-stretch, low-elasticity bandages – such as the classic Unna boot loaded with zinc paste and topical corticosteroids – are well suited for patients with large leg ulcers. These bandages feature high working pressures during muscle contraction. They also provide low resting pressures, which is advantageous in patients with peripheral artery disease. The major disadvantage of short-stretch bandages is the need for frequent dressing changes by a nurse or other trained professional, since the compression is quickly lost as an unwanted consequence of the welcome reduction in swelling.

Multicomponent bandage systems feature two to four layers of bandages of differing stiffness, as well as padding material and in many cases pressure indicators. These bandages can often be worn for up to a week without needing to be changed, since they maintain adequate pressure long term. “These are very easy to use by nonexperts,” Dr. Conde noted.

A caveat regarding both short-stretch bandages and the multicomponent bandage systems: before applying them, it’s important to pad at-risk areas against injury caused by high pressures. These high-risk areas include the Achilles tendon, the pretibial region, and the lateral foot.

Self-adjusting compression systems are comprised of strips of short-stretch, low-elasticity fabric, which wrap around the leg and are fixed with Velcro closures. Dr. Conde hailed these devices as “a great innovation in compression therapy, without doubt.” Their major advantage is ease of application and removal by the patient. They are best-suited for treatment of small ulcers in patients who find it difficult to use compression stockings because of obesity or osteoarthritis, in patients who can’t tolerate such stockings because they have peripheral artery disease and the stockings’ high resting pressure is uncomfortable, or in individuals ill-suited for compression bandages because they lack adequate access to nursing care for the required frequent dressing changes.

Compression stockings are a good option for small ulcers. It’s easier for patients to wear shoes with compression stockings and thereby engage in normal everyday activities than with short-stretch bandages. A tip: Many patients find it arduous to don and remove a high-compression stocking that achieves the recommended pressure of 30-40 mm Hg at the point of transition between the Achilles tendon and the calf muscle, but the same effect can be achieved by overlapping two easier-to-use lower-compression stockings.

Punch grafting

This simple, cost-effective outpatient procedure was first described as a means of enhancing wound healing 150 years ago. The method involves utilizing a scalpel, curette, or punch to obtain a series of thin split-thickness skin grafts that contain epidermis and dermis down to the superficial papillary dermis. The grafts, usually harvested from the anterior thigh, are placed on the wound. This is followed by at least 5 days of local pressure and rest to promote graft uptake.

Sequential punch grafting is an excellent option for particularly challenging chronic ulcers, including Martorell hypertensive ischemic leg ulcers and other arteriolopathic ulcers in the elderly.

“Sequential punch grafting of wounds is very common in our clinics, especially for wounds that lack perfect grafting conditions,” Dr. Conde said.

She considers Martorell hypertensive ischemic leg ulcers to be underdiagnosed and undertreated. The Martorell leg ulcer is an exceedingly painful, rapidly progressive ischemic lesion, or bilateral lesions, with inflamed irregular margins. The disorder is caused by obstruction of subcutaneous arterioles in the absence of signs of vasculitis, and generally occurs in older individuals who have had well-controlled hypertension for many years. Diabetes, obesity, dyslipidemia, and peripheral artery disease are common comorbid conditions. The most common form of treatment – bioactive dressings in a moist environment – produces unsatisfactory results because it doesn’t address the inflammatory process.

Dr. Conde and coworkers have published the full details of how they achieved complete healing of Martorell hypertensive ischemic leg ulcers 3-8 weeks after punch grafting in three affected patients, all of whom presented with pain scores of 10/10 refractory even to opioid analgesics. The punch grafting was preceded by 15 days of topical corticosteroids and low-elasticity compression bandages in order to create adequate granulation tissue in the wound bed, which had the added benefit of achieving a 2- to 3-point reduction in pain scores even before the surgical procedure.

The pain-reducing effect of punch grafting isn’t as well appreciated as the wound-healing effect. Dr. Conde was first author of a recent study in which investigators systematically measured pain reduction in 136 patients with hard-to-heal leg ulcers of various etiologies treated with punch grafting. Nearly three-quarters of those who presented with painful ulcers were pain free after punch grafting, and the rest experienced greater than 70% pain reduction.

Pain suppression wasn’t dependent upon the percentage of graft uptake in this study. That’s because, as long as the wound isn’t overcleaned during dressing changes, even grafts that haven’t attached to the wound will release growth factors that promote wound healing, Dr. Conde explained.
 

Adjunctive negative pressure therapy

Portable vacuum-based negative pressure therapy devices are easy to use as a means to promote punch graft uptake. Negative pressure is best employed as an adjunct to punch grafting in suboptimal wound beds, longstanding ulcers, in patients with previous graft failure, or in challenging anatomic locations, such as the Achilles tendon or ankle. Dr. Conde has found the combination of punch grafting and negative pressure therapy especially helpful in patients with clinically inactive pyoderma gangrenosum.

Topical sevoflurane for analgesia

Most of the literature on topical sevoflurane for ulcer care has been published by Spanish researchers, but this form of analgesia deserves much more widespread use, according to Dr. Conde.

Sevoflurane is most often used as a gas in general anesthesia. In liquid form, however, it not only has a rapid, long-lasting analgesic effect when applied to painful leg ulcers, it also promotes healing because it is both antibacterial and a vasodilator. So before performing a potentially painful ulcer or wound cleaning, Dr. Conde recommended protecting perilesional skin with petroleum jelly, then irrigating the ulcer site with liquid sevoflurane. After that, it’s advisable to wait just 5-10 minutes before proceeding.

“It takes effect in much less time than EMLA cream,” she noted.

In one study of 30 adults aged over age 65 years with painful chronic venous ulcers refractory to conventional analgesics who underwent ulcer cleaning supported by topical sevoflurane at a dose of roughly 1 mL/cm² of ulcer area every 2 days for a month, Spanish investigators documented onset of analgesic effect in 2-7 minutes, with a duration of 8-18 hours. The researchers found that the use of backup conventional analgesics ranging from acetaminophen to opioids was diminished. Side effects were limited to mild, transient itching and redness.

Dr. Conde reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding her presentation.

[email protected]

Chronic leg ulcers of all types feature a significant inflammatory component for which medical compression therapy is absolutely the best form of anti-inflammatory therapy, Elena Conde Montero, MD, PhD, asserted at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

In addition to delving into the finer points of compression therapy, she offered other clinical pearls for the treatment of chronic leg ulcers. These included the use of autologous punch grafting to reduce pain as well as promote healing, when to employ adjunctive negative pressure therapy, and the benefits of liquid sevoflurane for highly effective topical analgesia during wound cleansing and debridement.
 

Compression therapy

“If no contraindications exist, compression therapy is the best antihypertensive and anti-inflammatory treatment for all leg ulcers, not only venous leg ulcers,” according to Dr. Conde, a dermatologist at Infanta Leonor University Hospital in Madrid.

The list of absolute contraindications to compression treatment is brief, as highlighted in a recent international consensus statement. The expert writing panel named only four: severe peripheral artery disease, the presence of an epifascial arterial bypass, severe cardiac insufficiency, and true allergy to compression material.

Compression therapy provides multiple salutary effects. These include reduced capillary filtration of fluids to tissue, decreased swelling, enhanced tissue remodeling, better lymphatic drainage, reduced inflammatory cell counts, and increased arterial flow.

“This means that people with mild arterial disease will benefit from active compression because perfusion will improve,” Dr. Conde said.

Similarly, leg ulcers secondary to pyoderma gangrenosum will benefit from the anti-inflammatory effects of compression therapy in conjunction with standard immunotherapy, added the dermatologist, who coauthored a recent publication by the European Wound Management Association entitled “Atypical Wounds: Best Clinical Practices and Challenges.”

Four broad types of compression therapy are available: compression stockings, short-stretch bandages, multicomponent bandage systems, and self-adjusting compression wrap devices. The best clinical outcomes are achieved by individualized selection of a compression method based upon patient characteristics.

Short-stretch, low-elasticity bandages – such as the classic Unna boot loaded with zinc paste and topical corticosteroids – are well suited for patients with large leg ulcers. These bandages feature high working pressures during muscle contraction. They also provide low resting pressures, which is advantageous in patients with peripheral artery disease. The major disadvantage of short-stretch bandages is the need for frequent dressing changes by a nurse or other trained professional, since the compression is quickly lost as an unwanted consequence of the welcome reduction in swelling.

Multicomponent bandage systems feature two to four layers of bandages of differing stiffness, as well as padding material and in many cases pressure indicators. These bandages can often be worn for up to a week without needing to be changed, since they maintain adequate pressure long term. “These are very easy to use by nonexperts,” Dr. Conde noted.

A caveat regarding both short-stretch bandages and the multicomponent bandage systems: before applying them, it’s important to pad at-risk areas against injury caused by high pressures. These high-risk areas include the Achilles tendon, the pretibial region, and the lateral foot.

Self-adjusting compression systems are comprised of strips of short-stretch, low-elasticity fabric, which wrap around the leg and are fixed with Velcro closures. Dr. Conde hailed these devices as “a great innovation in compression therapy, without doubt.” Their major advantage is ease of application and removal by the patient. They are best-suited for treatment of small ulcers in patients who find it difficult to use compression stockings because of obesity or osteoarthritis, in patients who can’t tolerate such stockings because they have peripheral artery disease and the stockings’ high resting pressure is uncomfortable, or in individuals ill-suited for compression bandages because they lack adequate access to nursing care for the required frequent dressing changes.

Compression stockings are a good option for small ulcers. It’s easier for patients to wear shoes with compression stockings and thereby engage in normal everyday activities than with short-stretch bandages. A tip: Many patients find it arduous to don and remove a high-compression stocking that achieves the recommended pressure of 30-40 mm Hg at the point of transition between the Achilles tendon and the calf muscle, but the same effect can be achieved by overlapping two easier-to-use lower-compression stockings.

Punch grafting

This simple, cost-effective outpatient procedure was first described as a means of enhancing wound healing 150 years ago. The method involves utilizing a scalpel, curette, or punch to obtain a series of thin split-thickness skin grafts that contain epidermis and dermis down to the superficial papillary dermis. The grafts, usually harvested from the anterior thigh, are placed on the wound. This is followed by at least 5 days of local pressure and rest to promote graft uptake.

Sequential punch grafting is an excellent option for particularly challenging chronic ulcers, including Martorell hypertensive ischemic leg ulcers and other arteriolopathic ulcers in the elderly.

“Sequential punch grafting of wounds is very common in our clinics, especially for wounds that lack perfect grafting conditions,” Dr. Conde said.

She considers Martorell hypertensive ischemic leg ulcers to be underdiagnosed and undertreated. The Martorell leg ulcer is an exceedingly painful, rapidly progressive ischemic lesion, or bilateral lesions, with inflamed irregular margins. The disorder is caused by obstruction of subcutaneous arterioles in the absence of signs of vasculitis, and generally occurs in older individuals who have had well-controlled hypertension for many years. Diabetes, obesity, dyslipidemia, and peripheral artery disease are common comorbid conditions. The most common form of treatment – bioactive dressings in a moist environment – produces unsatisfactory results because it doesn’t address the inflammatory process.

Dr. Conde and coworkers have published the full details of how they achieved complete healing of Martorell hypertensive ischemic leg ulcers 3-8 weeks after punch grafting in three affected patients, all of whom presented with pain scores of 10/10 refractory even to opioid analgesics. The punch grafting was preceded by 15 days of topical corticosteroids and low-elasticity compression bandages in order to create adequate granulation tissue in the wound bed, which had the added benefit of achieving a 2- to 3-point reduction in pain scores even before the surgical procedure.

The pain-reducing effect of punch grafting isn’t as well appreciated as the wound-healing effect. Dr. Conde was first author of a recent study in which investigators systematically measured pain reduction in 136 patients with hard-to-heal leg ulcers of various etiologies treated with punch grafting. Nearly three-quarters of those who presented with painful ulcers were pain free after punch grafting, and the rest experienced greater than 70% pain reduction.

Pain suppression wasn’t dependent upon the percentage of graft uptake in this study. That’s because, as long as the wound isn’t overcleaned during dressing changes, even grafts that haven’t attached to the wound will release growth factors that promote wound healing, Dr. Conde explained.
 

Adjunctive negative pressure therapy

Portable vacuum-based negative pressure therapy devices are easy to use as a means to promote punch graft uptake. Negative pressure is best employed as an adjunct to punch grafting in suboptimal wound beds, longstanding ulcers, in patients with previous graft failure, or in challenging anatomic locations, such as the Achilles tendon or ankle. Dr. Conde has found the combination of punch grafting and negative pressure therapy especially helpful in patients with clinically inactive pyoderma gangrenosum.

Topical sevoflurane for analgesia

Most of the literature on topical sevoflurane for ulcer care has been published by Spanish researchers, but this form of analgesia deserves much more widespread use, according to Dr. Conde.

Sevoflurane is most often used as a gas in general anesthesia. In liquid form, however, it not only has a rapid, long-lasting analgesic effect when applied to painful leg ulcers, it also promotes healing because it is both antibacterial and a vasodilator. So before performing a potentially painful ulcer or wound cleaning, Dr. Conde recommended protecting perilesional skin with petroleum jelly, then irrigating the ulcer site with liquid sevoflurane. After that, it’s advisable to wait just 5-10 minutes before proceeding.

“It takes effect in much less time than EMLA cream,” she noted.

In one study of 30 adults aged over age 65 years with painful chronic venous ulcers refractory to conventional analgesics who underwent ulcer cleaning supported by topical sevoflurane at a dose of roughly 1 mL/cm² of ulcer area every 2 days for a month, Spanish investigators documented onset of analgesic effect in 2-7 minutes, with a duration of 8-18 hours. The researchers found that the use of backup conventional analgesics ranging from acetaminophen to opioids was diminished. Side effects were limited to mild, transient itching and redness.

Dr. Conde reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding her presentation.

[email protected]

Administering convalescent plasma that has high levels of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 within the first 3 days of symptoms was associated with significantly lower chances of progression to severe COVID-19, new evidence demonstrates.

In a trial of 160 older adults with COVID-19, half of whom were randomly assigned to receive plasma and half to receive placebo infusion, treatment with high-titer plasma lowered the relative risk for severe disease by 48% in an intent-to-treat analysis.

“We now have evidence, in the context of a small but well-designed study, that convalescent plasma with high titers of antibody against SARS-CoV-2 administered in the first 3 days of mild symptoms to infected elderly reduces progression of illness and the rate of severe presentations,” senior author Fernando Polack, MD, said in an interview.

“Not any plasma, not any time,” added Dr. Polack, an infectious disease specialist and scientific director at Fundacion INFANT and professor of pediatrics at the University of Buenos Aires. The key, he said, is to select plasma in the upper 28th percentile of IgG antibody concentrations and to administer therapy prior to disease progression.

The study was published online Jan. 6 in The New England Journal of Medicine.

“It’s a very good study and approaches a different population from the PlasmAr study,” Ventura Simonovich, MD, chief of the clinical pharmacology section, Medical Clinic Service, Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires, said in an interview. “This is the first published randomized controlled trial that shows real benefit in this [older adult] population, the most vulnerable in this disease,” he said.

Dr. Simonovich, who was not affiliated with the current study, was lead author of the PlasmAr trial, which was published in The New England Journal of Medicine Nov. 24, 2020. In that trial, the researchers evaluated adults aged 18 years and older and found no significant benefit with convalescent plasma treatment over placebo for patients with COVID-19 and severe pneumonia.

“We know antibodies work best when given early and in high dose. This is one of the rare reports that validates it in the outpatient setting,” David Sullivan, MD, professor of molecular biology and immunology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, said in an interview when asked to comment.

Dr. Sullivan pointed out that most previous studies on convalescent plasma focused on patients with COVID-19 who had severe cases late in the disease course.

Regarding the current study, he said, “The striking thing is treating people within 3 days of illness.”

A more cautious interpretation may be warranted, one expert said. “The study demonstrates the benefit of early intervention. There was a dose-dependent effect, with higher titers providing a greater benefit,” Manoj Menon, MD, MPH, a hematologist and oncologist at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview.

“Taken together, the findings have biologic plausibility and produce more data on the role of convalescent plasma to a relevant age cohort,” he added.

However, Dr. Menon said: “Given the limited sample size, I do not think this study, although well conducted, definitively addresses the role of convalescent plasma for COVID-19. But it does merit additional study.”

A search for clear answers

Treatments that target the early stages of COVID-19 “remain elusive. Few strategies provide benefit, several have failed, and others are being evaluated,” the researchers noted. “In hospitalized patients with COVID-19, the infusion of convalescent plasma against SARS-CoV-2 late in the course of illness has not shown clear benefits and, consequently, the most appropriate antibody concentrations for effective treatment are unclear.”

To learn more, Dr. Polack and colleagues included patients with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 who were aged 75 years or older, regardless of comorbidities. They also included patients aged 65-74 years who had at least one underlying condition. Participants were enrolled at clinical sites or geriatric units in Argentina. The mean age was 77 years, and 62% were women.

In an intent-to-treat analysis, the primary outcome – severe respiratory disease – occurred in 16% of the plasma recipients, vs. 31% of the group that received placebo. The relative risk was 0.52 (95% confidence interval, 0.29-0.94; P = .03).

The number needed to treat to avoid a severe respiratory disease episode was 7 (95% CI, 4-50).

Life-threatening respiratory disease, a secondary outcome, occurred in four people in the plasma group, compared with 10 in the placebo group. Two patients in the treatment group and four patients in the placebo group died.

The researchers also ran a modified intent-to-treat analysis that excluded six participants who experienced severe respiratory disease prior to receiving plasma or placebo. In this analysis, efficacy of plasma therapy increased to 60%.

“Again, this finding suggests that early intervention is critical for efficacy,” the investigators noted.

The investigators, who are based in Argentina, defined their primary endpoint as a respiratory rate of 30 or more breaths per minute and/or an oxygen saturation of less than 93% while breathing ambient air.

Dr. Sullivan pointed out that this is equivalent to the threshold commonly used for hospitalizing people with COVID-19 in the United States. “So it’s equivalent to avoiding hospitalizations. The take-home is high-titer plasma prevents respiratory distress, which equals hospitalization for us.”

Dr. Sullivan is conducting similar research in the United States regarding the use of plasma for treatment or prevention. He and colleagues are evaluating adults aged 18-90 years, “not just the ones at highest risk for going to the hospital,” he said. Enrollment is ongoing.
 

An inexpensive therapy with global potential?

“Although our trial lacked the statistical power to discern long-term outcomes, the convalescent plasma group appeared to have better outcomes than the placebo group with respect to all secondary endpoints,” the researchers wrote. “Our findings underscore the need to return to the classic approach of treating acute viral infections early, and they define IgG targets that facilitate donor selection.”

Dr. Polack said, “This is an inexpensive solution to mitigate the burden of severe illness in the population most vulnerable to the virus: the elderly. And it has the attraction of being applicable not only in industrialized countries but in many areas of the developing world.”

Convalescent plasma “is a potentially inexpensive alternative to monoclonal antibodies,” the researchers added. Furthermore, “early infusions of convalescent plasma can provide a bridge to recovery for at-risk patients until vaccines become widely available.”

Dr. Polack said the study findings did not surprise him. “We always thought that, as it has been the case in the past with many therapeutic strategies against respiratory and other viral infections, the earlier you treat, the better.

“We just hoped that within 72 hours of symptoms we would be treating early enough – remember that there is a 4- to 5-day incubation period that the virus leverages before the first symptom – and with enough antibody,” he added.

“We are glad it worked,” he said.

The study was supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and by the Fundación INFANT Pandemic Fund. Dr. Polack, Dr. Simonovich, and Dr. Sullivan have disclosed various financial relationships industry.

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

Administering convalescent plasma that has high levels of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 within the first 3 days of symptoms was associated with significantly lower chances of progression to severe COVID-19, new evidence demonstrates.

In a trial of 160 older adults with COVID-19, half of whom were randomly assigned to receive plasma and half to receive placebo infusion, treatment with high-titer plasma lowered the relative risk for severe disease by 48% in an intent-to-treat analysis.

“We now have evidence, in the context of a small but well-designed study, that convalescent plasma with high titers of antibody against SARS-CoV-2 administered in the first 3 days of mild symptoms to infected elderly reduces progression of illness and the rate of severe presentations,” senior author Fernando Polack, MD, said in an interview.

“Not any plasma, not any time,” added Dr. Polack, an infectious disease specialist and scientific director at Fundacion INFANT and professor of pediatrics at the University of Buenos Aires. The key, he said, is to select plasma in the upper 28th percentile of IgG antibody concentrations and to administer therapy prior to disease progression.

The study was published online Jan. 6 in The New England Journal of Medicine.

“It’s a very good study and approaches a different population from the PlasmAr study,” Ventura Simonovich, MD, chief of the clinical pharmacology section, Medical Clinic Service, Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires, said in an interview. “This is the first published randomized controlled trial that shows real benefit in this [older adult] population, the most vulnerable in this disease,” he said.

Dr. Simonovich, who was not affiliated with the current study, was lead author of the PlasmAr trial, which was published in The New England Journal of Medicine Nov. 24, 2020. In that trial, the researchers evaluated adults aged 18 years and older and found no significant benefit with convalescent plasma treatment over placebo for patients with COVID-19 and severe pneumonia.

“We know antibodies work best when given early and in high dose. This is one of the rare reports that validates it in the outpatient setting,” David Sullivan, MD, professor of molecular biology and immunology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, said in an interview when asked to comment.

Dr. Sullivan pointed out that most previous studies on convalescent plasma focused on patients with COVID-19 who had severe cases late in the disease course.

Regarding the current study, he said, “The striking thing is treating people within 3 days of illness.”

A more cautious interpretation may be warranted, one expert said. “The study demonstrates the benefit of early intervention. There was a dose-dependent effect, with higher titers providing a greater benefit,” Manoj Menon, MD, MPH, a hematologist and oncologist at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview.

“Taken together, the findings have biologic plausibility and produce more data on the role of convalescent plasma to a relevant age cohort,” he added.

However, Dr. Menon said: “Given the limited sample size, I do not think this study, although well conducted, definitively addresses the role of convalescent plasma for COVID-19. But it does merit additional study.”

A search for clear answers

Treatments that target the early stages of COVID-19 “remain elusive. Few strategies provide benefit, several have failed, and others are being evaluated,” the researchers noted. “In hospitalized patients with COVID-19, the infusion of convalescent plasma against SARS-CoV-2 late in the course of illness has not shown clear benefits and, consequently, the most appropriate antibody concentrations for effective treatment are unclear.”

To learn more, Dr. Polack and colleagues included patients with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 who were aged 75 years or older, regardless of comorbidities. They also included patients aged 65-74 years who had at least one underlying condition. Participants were enrolled at clinical sites or geriatric units in Argentina. The mean age was 77 years, and 62% were women.

In an intent-to-treat analysis, the primary outcome – severe respiratory disease – occurred in 16% of the plasma recipients, vs. 31% of the group that received placebo. The relative risk was 0.52 (95% confidence interval, 0.29-0.94; P = .03).

The number needed to treat to avoid a severe respiratory disease episode was 7 (95% CI, 4-50).

Life-threatening respiratory disease, a secondary outcome, occurred in four people in the plasma group, compared with 10 in the placebo group. Two patients in the treatment group and four patients in the placebo group died.

The researchers also ran a modified intent-to-treat analysis that excluded six participants who experienced severe respiratory disease prior to receiving plasma or placebo. In this analysis, efficacy of plasma therapy increased to 60%.

“Again, this finding suggests that early intervention is critical for efficacy,” the investigators noted.

The investigators, who are based in Argentina, defined their primary endpoint as a respiratory rate of 30 or more breaths per minute and/or an oxygen saturation of less than 93% while breathing ambient air.

Dr. Sullivan pointed out that this is equivalent to the threshold commonly used for hospitalizing people with COVID-19 in the United States. “So it’s equivalent to avoiding hospitalizations. The take-home is high-titer plasma prevents respiratory distress, which equals hospitalization for us.”

Dr. Sullivan is conducting similar research in the United States regarding the use of plasma for treatment or prevention. He and colleagues are evaluating adults aged 18-90 years, “not just the ones at highest risk for going to the hospital,” he said. Enrollment is ongoing.
 

An inexpensive therapy with global potential?

“Although our trial lacked the statistical power to discern long-term outcomes, the convalescent plasma group appeared to have better outcomes than the placebo group with respect to all secondary endpoints,” the researchers wrote. “Our findings underscore the need to return to the classic approach of treating acute viral infections early, and they define IgG targets that facilitate donor selection.”

Dr. Polack said, “This is an inexpensive solution to mitigate the burden of severe illness in the population most vulnerable to the virus: the elderly. And it has the attraction of being applicable not only in industrialized countries but in many areas of the developing world.”

Convalescent plasma “is a potentially inexpensive alternative to monoclonal antibodies,” the researchers added. Furthermore, “early infusions of convalescent plasma can provide a bridge to recovery for at-risk patients until vaccines become widely available.”

Dr. Polack said the study findings did not surprise him. “We always thought that, as it has been the case in the past with many therapeutic strategies against respiratory and other viral infections, the earlier you treat, the better.

“We just hoped that within 72 hours of symptoms we would be treating early enough – remember that there is a 4- to 5-day incubation period that the virus leverages before the first symptom – and with enough antibody,” he added.

“We are glad it worked,” he said.

The study was supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and by the Fundación INFANT Pandemic Fund. Dr. Polack, Dr. Simonovich, and Dr. Sullivan have disclosed various financial relationships industry.

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

Administering convalescent plasma that has high levels of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 within the first 3 days of symptoms was associated with significantly lower chances of progression to severe COVID-19, new evidence demonstrates.

In a trial of 160 older adults with COVID-19, half of whom were randomly assigned to receive plasma and half to receive placebo infusion, treatment with high-titer plasma lowered the relative risk for severe disease by 48% in an intent-to-treat analysis.

“We now have evidence, in the context of a small but well-designed study, that convalescent plasma with high titers of antibody against SARS-CoV-2 administered in the first 3 days of mild symptoms to infected elderly reduces progression of illness and the rate of severe presentations,” senior author Fernando Polack, MD, said in an interview.

“Not any plasma, not any time,” added Dr. Polack, an infectious disease specialist and scientific director at Fundacion INFANT and professor of pediatrics at the University of Buenos Aires. The key, he said, is to select plasma in the upper 28th percentile of IgG antibody concentrations and to administer therapy prior to disease progression.

The study was published online Jan. 6 in The New England Journal of Medicine.

“It’s a very good study and approaches a different population from the PlasmAr study,” Ventura Simonovich, MD, chief of the clinical pharmacology section, Medical Clinic Service, Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires, said in an interview. “This is the first published randomized controlled trial that shows real benefit in this [older adult] population, the most vulnerable in this disease,” he said.

Dr. Simonovich, who was not affiliated with the current study, was lead author of the PlasmAr trial, which was published in The New England Journal of Medicine Nov. 24, 2020. In that trial, the researchers evaluated adults aged 18 years and older and found no significant benefit with convalescent plasma treatment over placebo for patients with COVID-19 and severe pneumonia.

“We know antibodies work best when given early and in high dose. This is one of the rare reports that validates it in the outpatient setting,” David Sullivan, MD, professor of molecular biology and immunology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, said in an interview when asked to comment.

Dr. Sullivan pointed out that most previous studies on convalescent plasma focused on patients with COVID-19 who had severe cases late in the disease course.

Regarding the current study, he said, “The striking thing is treating people within 3 days of illness.”

A more cautious interpretation may be warranted, one expert said. “The study demonstrates the benefit of early intervention. There was a dose-dependent effect, with higher titers providing a greater benefit,” Manoj Menon, MD, MPH, a hematologist and oncologist at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview.

“Taken together, the findings have biologic plausibility and produce more data on the role of convalescent plasma to a relevant age cohort,” he added.

However, Dr. Menon said: “Given the limited sample size, I do not think this study, although well conducted, definitively addresses the role of convalescent plasma for COVID-19. But it does merit additional study.”

A search for clear answers

Treatments that target the early stages of COVID-19 “remain elusive. Few strategies provide benefit, several have failed, and others are being evaluated,” the researchers noted. “In hospitalized patients with COVID-19, the infusion of convalescent plasma against SARS-CoV-2 late in the course of illness has not shown clear benefits and, consequently, the most appropriate antibody concentrations for effective treatment are unclear.”

To learn more, Dr. Polack and colleagues included patients with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 who were aged 75 years or older, regardless of comorbidities. They also included patients aged 65-74 years who had at least one underlying condition. Participants were enrolled at clinical sites or geriatric units in Argentina. The mean age was 77 years, and 62% were women.

In an intent-to-treat analysis, the primary outcome – severe respiratory disease – occurred in 16% of the plasma recipients, vs. 31% of the group that received placebo. The relative risk was 0.52 (95% confidence interval, 0.29-0.94; P = .03).

The number needed to treat to avoid a severe respiratory disease episode was 7 (95% CI, 4-50).

Life-threatening respiratory disease, a secondary outcome, occurred in four people in the plasma group, compared with 10 in the placebo group. Two patients in the treatment group and four patients in the placebo group died.

The researchers also ran a modified intent-to-treat analysis that excluded six participants who experienced severe respiratory disease prior to receiving plasma or placebo. In this analysis, efficacy of plasma therapy increased to 60%.

“Again, this finding suggests that early intervention is critical for efficacy,” the investigators noted.

The investigators, who are based in Argentina, defined their primary endpoint as a respiratory rate of 30 or more breaths per minute and/or an oxygen saturation of less than 93% while breathing ambient air.

Dr. Sullivan pointed out that this is equivalent to the threshold commonly used for hospitalizing people with COVID-19 in the United States. “So it’s equivalent to avoiding hospitalizations. The take-home is high-titer plasma prevents respiratory distress, which equals hospitalization for us.”

Dr. Sullivan is conducting similar research in the United States regarding the use of plasma for treatment or prevention. He and colleagues are evaluating adults aged 18-90 years, “not just the ones at highest risk for going to the hospital,” he said. Enrollment is ongoing.
 

An inexpensive therapy with global potential?

“Although our trial lacked the statistical power to discern long-term outcomes, the convalescent plasma group appeared to have better outcomes than the placebo group with respect to all secondary endpoints,” the researchers wrote. “Our findings underscore the need to return to the classic approach of treating acute viral infections early, and they define IgG targets that facilitate donor selection.”

Dr. Polack said, “This is an inexpensive solution to mitigate the burden of severe illness in the population most vulnerable to the virus: the elderly. And it has the attraction of being applicable not only in industrialized countries but in many areas of the developing world.”

Convalescent plasma “is a potentially inexpensive alternative to monoclonal antibodies,” the researchers added. Furthermore, “early infusions of convalescent plasma can provide a bridge to recovery for at-risk patients until vaccines become widely available.”

Dr. Polack said the study findings did not surprise him. “We always thought that, as it has been the case in the past with many therapeutic strategies against respiratory and other viral infections, the earlier you treat, the better.

“We just hoped that within 72 hours of symptoms we would be treating early enough – remember that there is a 4- to 5-day incubation period that the virus leverages before the first symptom – and with enough antibody,” he added.

“We are glad it worked,” he said.

The study was supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and by the Fundación INFANT Pandemic Fund. Dr. Polack, Dr. Simonovich, and Dr. Sullivan have disclosed various financial relationships industry.

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

Evidence that a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine is associated with inflammatory reactions in patients with dermal fillers has led the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery to issue a guidance outlining the potential risk and clinical relevance.

The association is not surprising, since other vaccines, including the influenza vaccine, have also been associated with inflammatory reactions in patients with dermal fillers. A warning about inflammatory events from these and other immunologic triggers should be part of routine informed consent, according to Sue Ellen Cox, MD, a coauthor of the guidance and the ASDS president-elect.

“Patients who have had dermal filler should not be discouraged from receiving the vaccine, and those who have received the vaccine should not be discouraged from receiving dermal filler,” Dr. Cox, who practices in Chapel Hill, N.C., said in an interview.

The only available data to assess the risk came from the trial of the Moderna vaccine. Of a total of 15,184 participants who received at least one dose of mRNA-1273, three developed facial or lip swelling that was presumably related to dermal filler. In the placebo group, there were no comparable inflammatory events.

“This is a very small number, but there is no reliable information about the number of patients in either group who had dermal filler, so we do not know the denominator,” Dr. Cox said.

In all three cases, the swelling at the site of dermal filler was observed within 2 days of the vaccination. None were considered a serious adverse event and all resolved. The filler had been administered 2 weeks prior to vaccination in one case, 6 months prior in a second, and time of administration was unknown in the third.

The resolution of the inflammatory reactions associated with the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine is similar to those related to dermal fillers following other immunologic triggers, which not only include other vaccines, but viral or bacterial illnesses and dental procedures. Typically, they are readily controlled with oral corticosteroids, but also typically resolve even in the absence of treatment, according to Dr. Cox.

“The good news is that these will go away,” Dr. Cox said.

The ASDS guidance is meant to alert clinicians and patients to the potential association between inflammatory events and SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with dermal filler, but Dr. Cox said that it will ultimately have very little effect on her own practice. She already employs an informed consent that includes language warning about the potential risk of local reactions to immunological triggers that include vaccines. SARS-CoV-2 vaccination can now be added to examples of potential triggers, but it does not change the importance of informing patients of such triggers, Dr. Cox explained.

Asked if patients should be informed specifically about the association between dermal filler inflammatory reactions and SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, the current ASDS president and first author of the guidance, Mathew Avram, MD, JD, suggested that they should. Although he emphasized that the side effect is clearly rare, he believes it deserves attention.

“We wanted dermatologists and other physicians to be aware of the potential. We focused on the available data but specifically decided not to provide any treatment recommendations at this time,” he said in an interview.

As new data become available, the Soft-Tissue Fillers Guideline Task Force of the ASDS, which provided the guidance, will continue to monitor the relationship between SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations and dermal filler reactions, including other SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and the relative risks for hyaluronic acid and non–hyaluronic acid types of fillers.

“Our guidance was based only on the trial data, but there will soon be tens of millions of patients exposed to several different SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. We may learn things we do not know now, and we plan to communicate to our membership and others any new information as events unfold,” said Dr. Avram, who is director of dermatologic surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston,

Based on her own expertise in the field, Dr. Cox suggested that administration of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and administration of dermal filler should be separated by at least 2 weeks regardless of which comes first. Her recommendation is not based on controlled data, but she considers this a prudent interval even if it has not been tested in a controlled study.

The full ASDS guidance is scheduled to appear in an upcoming issue of Dermatologic Surgery.

As new data become available, the Soft-tissue Fillers Guideline Task Force of the ASDS, which provided the guidance, will continue to monitor the relationship between SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations and dermal filler reactions, including other types of vaccines and the relative risks for hyaluronic acid and non–hyaluronic acid types of fillers.

This article was updated 1/7/21.

Evidence that a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine is associated with inflammatory reactions in patients with dermal fillers has led the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery to issue a guidance outlining the potential risk and clinical relevance.

The association is not surprising, since other vaccines, including the influenza vaccine, have also been associated with inflammatory reactions in patients with dermal fillers. A warning about inflammatory events from these and other immunologic triggers should be part of routine informed consent, according to Sue Ellen Cox, MD, a coauthor of the guidance and the ASDS president-elect.

“Patients who have had dermal filler should not be discouraged from receiving the vaccine, and those who have received the vaccine should not be discouraged from receiving dermal filler,” Dr. Cox, who practices in Chapel Hill, N.C., said in an interview.

The only available data to assess the risk came from the trial of the Moderna vaccine. Of a total of 15,184 participants who received at least one dose of mRNA-1273, three developed facial or lip swelling that was presumably related to dermal filler. In the placebo group, there were no comparable inflammatory events.

“This is a very small number, but there is no reliable information about the number of patients in either group who had dermal filler, so we do not know the denominator,” Dr. Cox said.

In all three cases, the swelling at the site of dermal filler was observed within 2 days of the vaccination. None were considered a serious adverse event and all resolved. The filler had been administered 2 weeks prior to vaccination in one case, 6 months prior in a second, and time of administration was unknown in the third.

The resolution of the inflammatory reactions associated with the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine is similar to those related to dermal fillers following other immunologic triggers, which not only include other vaccines, but viral or bacterial illnesses and dental procedures. Typically, they are readily controlled with oral corticosteroids, but also typically resolve even in the absence of treatment, according to Dr. Cox.

“The good news is that these will go away,” Dr. Cox said.

The ASDS guidance is meant to alert clinicians and patients to the potential association between inflammatory events and SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with dermal filler, but Dr. Cox said that it will ultimately have very little effect on her own practice. She already employs an informed consent that includes language warning about the potential risk of local reactions to immunological triggers that include vaccines. SARS-CoV-2 vaccination can now be added to examples of potential triggers, but it does not change the importance of informing patients of such triggers, Dr. Cox explained.

Asked if patients should be informed specifically about the association between dermal filler inflammatory reactions and SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, the current ASDS president and first author of the guidance, Mathew Avram, MD, JD, suggested that they should. Although he emphasized that the side effect is clearly rare, he believes it deserves attention.

“We wanted dermatologists and other physicians to be aware of the potential. We focused on the available data but specifically decided not to provide any treatment recommendations at this time,” he said in an interview.

As new data become available, the Soft-Tissue Fillers Guideline Task Force of the ASDS, which provided the guidance, will continue to monitor the relationship between SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations and dermal filler reactions, including other SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and the relative risks for hyaluronic acid and non–hyaluronic acid types of fillers.

“Our guidance was based only on the trial data, but there will soon be tens of millions of patients exposed to several different SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. We may learn things we do not know now, and we plan to communicate to our membership and others any new information as events unfold,” said Dr. Avram, who is director of dermatologic surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston,

Based on her own expertise in the field, Dr. Cox suggested that administration of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and administration of dermal filler should be separated by at least 2 weeks regardless of which comes first. Her recommendation is not based on controlled data, but she considers this a prudent interval even if it has not been tested in a controlled study.

The full ASDS guidance is scheduled to appear in an upcoming issue of Dermatologic Surgery.

As new data become available, the Soft-tissue Fillers Guideline Task Force of the ASDS, which provided the guidance, will continue to monitor the relationship between SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations and dermal filler reactions, including other types of vaccines and the relative risks for hyaluronic acid and non–hyaluronic acid types of fillers.

This article was updated 1/7/21.

Evidence that a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine is associated with inflammatory reactions in patients with dermal fillers has led the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery to issue a guidance outlining the potential risk and clinical relevance.

The association is not surprising, since other vaccines, including the influenza vaccine, have also been associated with inflammatory reactions in patients with dermal fillers. A warning about inflammatory events from these and other immunologic triggers should be part of routine informed consent, according to Sue Ellen Cox, MD, a coauthor of the guidance and the ASDS president-elect.

“Patients who have had dermal filler should not be discouraged from receiving the vaccine, and those who have received the vaccine should not be discouraged from receiving dermal filler,” Dr. Cox, who practices in Chapel Hill, N.C., said in an interview.

The only available data to assess the risk came from the trial of the Moderna vaccine. Of a total of 15,184 participants who received at least one dose of mRNA-1273, three developed facial or lip swelling that was presumably related to dermal filler. In the placebo group, there were no comparable inflammatory events.

“This is a very small number, but there is no reliable information about the number of patients in either group who had dermal filler, so we do not know the denominator,” Dr. Cox said.

In all three cases, the swelling at the site of dermal filler was observed within 2 days of the vaccination. None were considered a serious adverse event and all resolved. The filler had been administered 2 weeks prior to vaccination in one case, 6 months prior in a second, and time of administration was unknown in the third.

The resolution of the inflammatory reactions associated with the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine is similar to those related to dermal fillers following other immunologic triggers, which not only include other vaccines, but viral or bacterial illnesses and dental procedures. Typically, they are readily controlled with oral corticosteroids, but also typically resolve even in the absence of treatment, according to Dr. Cox.

“The good news is that these will go away,” Dr. Cox said.

The ASDS guidance is meant to alert clinicians and patients to the potential association between inflammatory events and SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with dermal filler, but Dr. Cox said that it will ultimately have very little effect on her own practice. She already employs an informed consent that includes language warning about the potential risk of local reactions to immunological triggers that include vaccines. SARS-CoV-2 vaccination can now be added to examples of potential triggers, but it does not change the importance of informing patients of such triggers, Dr. Cox explained.

Asked if patients should be informed specifically about the association between dermal filler inflammatory reactions and SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, the current ASDS president and first author of the guidance, Mathew Avram, MD, JD, suggested that they should. Although he emphasized that the side effect is clearly rare, he believes it deserves attention.

“We wanted dermatologists and other physicians to be aware of the potential. We focused on the available data but specifically decided not to provide any treatment recommendations at this time,” he said in an interview.

As new data become available, the Soft-Tissue Fillers Guideline Task Force of the ASDS, which provided the guidance, will continue to monitor the relationship between SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations and dermal filler reactions, including other SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and the relative risks for hyaluronic acid and non–hyaluronic acid types of fillers.

“Our guidance was based only on the trial data, but there will soon be tens of millions of patients exposed to several different SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. We may learn things we do not know now, and we plan to communicate to our membership and others any new information as events unfold,” said Dr. Avram, who is director of dermatologic surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston,

Based on her own expertise in the field, Dr. Cox suggested that administration of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and administration of dermal filler should be separated by at least 2 weeks regardless of which comes first. Her recommendation is not based on controlled data, but she considers this a prudent interval even if it has not been tested in a controlled study.

The full ASDS guidance is scheduled to appear in an upcoming issue of Dermatologic Surgery.

As new data become available, the Soft-tissue Fillers Guideline Task Force of the ASDS, which provided the guidance, will continue to monitor the relationship between SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations and dermal filler reactions, including other types of vaccines and the relative risks for hyaluronic acid and non–hyaluronic acid types of fillers.

This article was updated 1/7/21.

Key clinical point: Intermetatarsal (IMB) and submetatarsal (SMB) bursitis are associated with and specific for early rheumatoid arthritis (RA), with IMB having the highest sensitivity.

Major finding: IMB (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 4.5; P less than .001) and SMB (aOR, 2.2; P = .041) were associated with RA. Sensitivity for RA of IMB and SMB was 69% and 25%, respectively. Specificity of IMB vs. other arthritides and healthy controls was 70% and 84%, respectively. Specificity for SMB was 94% (vs. other arthritides) and 97% (vs. healthy controls).

Study details: The findings are based on a large case-controlled magnetic resonance imaging study of 157 patients presenting with early RA, 284 other arthritides, and 193 healthy controls.

Disclosures: The study was supported by the European Research Council under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Dakkak Y et al. Arthritis Res Ther. 2020 Nov 23. doi: 10.1186/s13075-020-02359-w.

Key clinical point: Intermetatarsal (IMB) and submetatarsal (SMB) bursitis are associated with and specific for early rheumatoid arthritis (RA), with IMB having the highest sensitivity.

Major finding: IMB (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 4.5; P less than .001) and SMB (aOR, 2.2; P = .041) were associated with RA. Sensitivity for RA of IMB and SMB was 69% and 25%, respectively. Specificity of IMB vs. other arthritides and healthy controls was 70% and 84%, respectively. Specificity for SMB was 94% (vs. other arthritides) and 97% (vs. healthy controls).

Study details: The findings are based on a large case-controlled magnetic resonance imaging study of 157 patients presenting with early RA, 284 other arthritides, and 193 healthy controls.

Disclosures: The study was supported by the European Research Council under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Dakkak Y et al. Arthritis Res Ther. 2020 Nov 23. doi: 10.1186/s13075-020-02359-w.

Key clinical point: Intermetatarsal (IMB) and submetatarsal (SMB) bursitis are associated with and specific for early rheumatoid arthritis (RA), with IMB having the highest sensitivity.

Major finding: IMB (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 4.5; P less than .001) and SMB (aOR, 2.2; P = .041) were associated with RA. Sensitivity for RA of IMB and SMB was 69% and 25%, respectively. Specificity of IMB vs. other arthritides and healthy controls was 70% and 84%, respectively. Specificity for SMB was 94% (vs. other arthritides) and 97% (vs. healthy controls).

Study details: The findings are based on a large case-controlled magnetic resonance imaging study of 157 patients presenting with early RA, 284 other arthritides, and 193 healthy controls.

Disclosures: The study was supported by the European Research Council under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Dakkak Y et al. Arthritis Res Ther. 2020 Nov 23. doi: 10.1186/s13075-020-02359-w.

The incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma in adults aged younger than 50 years increased threefold between 1975 and 2015, based on data from more than 34,000 cases.

Esophageal carcinoma rates overall have risen in the United States over the past 4 decades, but the average patient is in their 60s, wrote Don C. Codipilly, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues. Therefore, “data on the incidence, stage distribution, and outcomes of this segment of patients [younger than 50 years] with esophageal adenocarcinoma are relatively limited.”

In a study published in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, the researchers identified 34,443 cases of esophageal adenocarcinoma using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database for the periods of 1975-1989, 1990-1999, and 2000-2015. The cases were limited to histologically confirmed cases and were stratified according to age at diagnosis: younger than 50 years, 50-69 years, and 70 years and older

Overall, the annual incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma among individuals younger than 50 years increased from 0.08 per 100,000 persons in 1975 to 0.27 per 100,000 persons in 2015.
 

Younger patients show more advanced illness

Although the incidence rose across all three age groups during the study period, the largest increase was seen in those aged 70 years and older. However, the younger group was significantly more likely to present at more-advanced stages, the researchers pointed out: Between 2000 and 2015, localized disease represented only 15.1% of cases in those younger than 50 years, compared with 22.4% in patients aged 50-69 years and 32.2% in those 70 years and older. The incidence of regional/distant disease among younger patients has increased over time, with 81.8% in 1975-1989, 75.5% in 1990-1999, and 84.9% in 2000-2015 (P < .01), and this increase has been faster than among older groups, the researches noted. For comparison, during 2000-2015 only 77.6% of patients aged 50-69 years and 67.8% of patients 70 years and older had regional/distant disease.

In addition, the majority of cases of young-onset esophageal adenocarcinoma occurred in men in a trend that persisted across the study periods; 90% of patients younger than 50 years were male in 1975, and 86% of the younger patients in 2015 were male.

“There is no clear explanation for the higher proportion of advanced disease in younger patients, and further study is required to identify biologic, genetic, and environmental factors that may underlie this observation,” the researchers wrote. “A potential hypothesis is that ‘young-onset esophageal adenocarcinoma’ may involve rapid transition from intestinal metaplasia to esophageal adenocarcinoma, driven by an increase in signaling molecules that are active in the intestine,” they suggested.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the inability to review individual case records to confirm disease stage and to compare outcomes across ethnicities, and the lack of data on comorbidities in the SEER database, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by overall quality of the SEER database and use of multivariate analysis, they added. The evidence of increased incidence and increased odds of advanced disease in younger adults suggest that “reevaluation of our diagnostic and treatment strategies in this age group might need to be considered.”
 

Reasons for increase remain unclear

“While esophageal adenocarcinoma is uncommon overall in younger patients, this study importantly highlights that not only has the incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma increased more than threefold in patients under the age of 50 over the last 4 decades, but that younger patients are presenting with more advanced disease and have overall poorer survival, compared to older patients,” Rahul A. Shimpi, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., said in an interview.

“The reasons for these findings are unclear, but the authors propose a number of potential factors that could explain them. These include differences in tumor biology, rising rates of obesity and [gastroesophageal reflux disease] in younger patients, decreased endoscopic screening for and surveillance of Barrett’s esophagus in this age group, and differing therapeutic approaches to management,” Dr. Shimpi said.

“The findings from this study underscore that, while uncommon, clinicians need to be aware of the rising incidence of esophageal cancer in younger patients. It is important that even younger patients presenting with esophageal symptoms, such as dysphagia, undergo investigation,” he emphasized.

“I would like to see further study into the potential factors driving the findings in this study, including whether trends in differential treatment modalities account for some of the survival differences found in different age groups,” Dr. Shimpi added. “Finally, further research will ideally clarify optimal Barrett’s screening and surveillance approaches in patients younger than age 50 in order to determine whether new strategies might impact esophageal adenocarcinoma incidence and outcomes in this group.”

The study was funded in part by the National Cancer Institute and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Two authors disclosed relationships outside the submitted work, but Dr. Codipilly and the remaining authors had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Shimpi had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Codipilly DC et al. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2020 Dec 11. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-20-0944.

The incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma in adults aged younger than 50 years increased threefold between 1975 and 2015, based on data from more than 34,000 cases.

Esophageal carcinoma rates overall have risen in the United States over the past 4 decades, but the average patient is in their 60s, wrote Don C. Codipilly, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues. Therefore, “data on the incidence, stage distribution, and outcomes of this segment of patients [younger than 50 years] with esophageal adenocarcinoma are relatively limited.”

In a study published in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, the researchers identified 34,443 cases of esophageal adenocarcinoma using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database for the periods of 1975-1989, 1990-1999, and 2000-2015. The cases were limited to histologically confirmed cases and were stratified according to age at diagnosis: younger than 50 years, 50-69 years, and 70 years and older

Overall, the annual incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma among individuals younger than 50 years increased from 0.08 per 100,000 persons in 1975 to 0.27 per 100,000 persons in 2015.
 

Younger patients show more advanced illness

Although the incidence rose across all three age groups during the study period, the largest increase was seen in those aged 70 years and older. However, the younger group was significantly more likely to present at more-advanced stages, the researchers pointed out: Between 2000 and 2015, localized disease represented only 15.1% of cases in those younger than 50 years, compared with 22.4% in patients aged 50-69 years and 32.2% in those 70 years and older. The incidence of regional/distant disease among younger patients has increased over time, with 81.8% in 1975-1989, 75.5% in 1990-1999, and 84.9% in 2000-2015 (P < .01), and this increase has been faster than among older groups, the researches noted. For comparison, during 2000-2015 only 77.6% of patients aged 50-69 years and 67.8% of patients 70 years and older had regional/distant disease.

In addition, the majority of cases of young-onset esophageal adenocarcinoma occurred in men in a trend that persisted across the study periods; 90% of patients younger than 50 years were male in 1975, and 86% of the younger patients in 2015 were male.

“There is no clear explanation for the higher proportion of advanced disease in younger patients, and further study is required to identify biologic, genetic, and environmental factors that may underlie this observation,” the researchers wrote. “A potential hypothesis is that ‘young-onset esophageal adenocarcinoma’ may involve rapid transition from intestinal metaplasia to esophageal adenocarcinoma, driven by an increase in signaling molecules that are active in the intestine,” they suggested.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the inability to review individual case records to confirm disease stage and to compare outcomes across ethnicities, and the lack of data on comorbidities in the SEER database, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by overall quality of the SEER database and use of multivariate analysis, they added. The evidence of increased incidence and increased odds of advanced disease in younger adults suggest that “reevaluation of our diagnostic and treatment strategies in this age group might need to be considered.”
 

Reasons for increase remain unclear

“While esophageal adenocarcinoma is uncommon overall in younger patients, this study importantly highlights that not only has the incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma increased more than threefold in patients under the age of 50 over the last 4 decades, but that younger patients are presenting with more advanced disease and have overall poorer survival, compared to older patients,” Rahul A. Shimpi, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., said in an interview.

“The reasons for these findings are unclear, but the authors propose a number of potential factors that could explain them. These include differences in tumor biology, rising rates of obesity and [gastroesophageal reflux disease] in younger patients, decreased endoscopic screening for and surveillance of Barrett’s esophagus in this age group, and differing therapeutic approaches to management,” Dr. Shimpi said.

“The findings from this study underscore that, while uncommon, clinicians need to be aware of the rising incidence of esophageal cancer in younger patients. It is important that even younger patients presenting with esophageal symptoms, such as dysphagia, undergo investigation,” he emphasized.

“I would like to see further study into the potential factors driving the findings in this study, including whether trends in differential treatment modalities account for some of the survival differences found in different age groups,” Dr. Shimpi added. “Finally, further research will ideally clarify optimal Barrett’s screening and surveillance approaches in patients younger than age 50 in order to determine whether new strategies might impact esophageal adenocarcinoma incidence and outcomes in this group.”

The study was funded in part by the National Cancer Institute and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Two authors disclosed relationships outside the submitted work, but Dr. Codipilly and the remaining authors had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Shimpi had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Codipilly DC et al. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2020 Dec 11. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-20-0944.

The incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma in adults aged younger than 50 years increased threefold between 1975 and 2015, based on data from more than 34,000 cases.

Esophageal carcinoma rates overall have risen in the United States over the past 4 decades, but the average patient is in their 60s, wrote Don C. Codipilly, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues. Therefore, “data on the incidence, stage distribution, and outcomes of this segment of patients [younger than 50 years] with esophageal adenocarcinoma are relatively limited.”

In a study published in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, the researchers identified 34,443 cases of esophageal adenocarcinoma using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database for the periods of 1975-1989, 1990-1999, and 2000-2015. The cases were limited to histologically confirmed cases and were stratified according to age at diagnosis: younger than 50 years, 50-69 years, and 70 years and older

Overall, the annual incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma among individuals younger than 50 years increased from 0.08 per 100,000 persons in 1975 to 0.27 per 100,000 persons in 2015.
 

Younger patients show more advanced illness

Although the incidence rose across all three age groups during the study period, the largest increase was seen in those aged 70 years and older. However, the younger group was significantly more likely to present at more-advanced stages, the researchers pointed out: Between 2000 and 2015, localized disease represented only 15.1% of cases in those younger than 50 years, compared with 22.4% in patients aged 50-69 years and 32.2% in those 70 years and older. The incidence of regional/distant disease among younger patients has increased over time, with 81.8% in 1975-1989, 75.5% in 1990-1999, and 84.9% in 2000-2015 (P < .01), and this increase has been faster than among older groups, the researches noted. For comparison, during 2000-2015 only 77.6% of patients aged 50-69 years and 67.8% of patients 70 years and older had regional/distant disease.

In addition, the majority of cases of young-onset esophageal adenocarcinoma occurred in men in a trend that persisted across the study periods; 90% of patients younger than 50 years were male in 1975, and 86% of the younger patients in 2015 were male.

“There is no clear explanation for the higher proportion of advanced disease in younger patients, and further study is required to identify biologic, genetic, and environmental factors that may underlie this observation,” the researchers wrote. “A potential hypothesis is that ‘young-onset esophageal adenocarcinoma’ may involve rapid transition from intestinal metaplasia to esophageal adenocarcinoma, driven by an increase in signaling molecules that are active in the intestine,” they suggested.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the inability to review individual case records to confirm disease stage and to compare outcomes across ethnicities, and the lack of data on comorbidities in the SEER database, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by overall quality of the SEER database and use of multivariate analysis, they added. The evidence of increased incidence and increased odds of advanced disease in younger adults suggest that “reevaluation of our diagnostic and treatment strategies in this age group might need to be considered.”
 

Reasons for increase remain unclear

“While esophageal adenocarcinoma is uncommon overall in younger patients, this study importantly highlights that not only has the incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma increased more than threefold in patients under the age of 50 over the last 4 decades, but that younger patients are presenting with more advanced disease and have overall poorer survival, compared to older patients,” Rahul A. Shimpi, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., said in an interview.

“The reasons for these findings are unclear, but the authors propose a number of potential factors that could explain them. These include differences in tumor biology, rising rates of obesity and [gastroesophageal reflux disease] in younger patients, decreased endoscopic screening for and surveillance of Barrett’s esophagus in this age group, and differing therapeutic approaches to management,” Dr. Shimpi said.

“The findings from this study underscore that, while uncommon, clinicians need to be aware of the rising incidence of esophageal cancer in younger patients. It is important that even younger patients presenting with esophageal symptoms, such as dysphagia, undergo investigation,” he emphasized.

“I would like to see further study into the potential factors driving the findings in this study, including whether trends in differential treatment modalities account for some of the survival differences found in different age groups,” Dr. Shimpi added. “Finally, further research will ideally clarify optimal Barrett’s screening and surveillance approaches in patients younger than age 50 in order to determine whether new strategies might impact esophageal adenocarcinoma incidence and outcomes in this group.”

The study was funded in part by the National Cancer Institute and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Two authors disclosed relationships outside the submitted work, but Dr. Codipilly and the remaining authors had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Shimpi had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Codipilly DC et al. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2020 Dec 11. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-20-0944.

Key clinical point: Depression was associated with greater short-term disease activity and more severe and persistent pain in US veterans with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) receiving methotrexate.

Major finding: Depression was associated with significantly higher 28-joint count disease activity scores at 6 months (β, 0.345; P = .045) but not at 1- (P = .477) and 2- (P = .804) year follow-up. Moreover, depression was significantly associated with higher patient-reported pain at 6 months (β, 0.385; P = .029) and 1 year (β, 0.396; P = .028).

Study details: The study included 268 US veterans (89.2% males) with early RA (duration less than 2 years) prescribed methotrexate, identified from the Veterans Affairs Rheumatoid Arthritis Registry.

Disclosures: The study was supported by the Rheumatology Research Foundation’s Scientist Development Award, the National Institute on Ageing, VA Clinical Science Research and Development Service, and the National Institute of General Medical Sciences. The authors reported receiving grants from various organizations and/or pharmaceutical companies.

Source: Rathbun AM et al. J Rheumatol. 2020 Nov 15. doi: 10.3899/jrheum.200743.

Key clinical point: Depression was associated with greater short-term disease activity and more severe and persistent pain in US veterans with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) receiving methotrexate.

Major finding: Depression was associated with significantly higher 28-joint count disease activity scores at 6 months (β, 0.345; P = .045) but not at 1- (P = .477) and 2- (P = .804) year follow-up. Moreover, depression was significantly associated with higher patient-reported pain at 6 months (β, 0.385; P = .029) and 1 year (β, 0.396; P = .028).

Study details: The study included 268 US veterans (89.2% males) with early RA (duration less than 2 years) prescribed methotrexate, identified from the Veterans Affairs Rheumatoid Arthritis Registry.

Disclosures: The study was supported by the Rheumatology Research Foundation’s Scientist Development Award, the National Institute on Ageing, VA Clinical Science Research and Development Service, and the National Institute of General Medical Sciences. The authors reported receiving grants from various organizations and/or pharmaceutical companies.

Source: Rathbun AM et al. J Rheumatol. 2020 Nov 15. doi: 10.3899/jrheum.200743.

Key clinical point: Depression was associated with greater short-term disease activity and more severe and persistent pain in US veterans with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) receiving methotrexate.

Major finding: Depression was associated with significantly higher 28-joint count disease activity scores at 6 months (β, 0.345; P = .045) but not at 1- (P = .477) and 2- (P = .804) year follow-up. Moreover, depression was significantly associated with higher patient-reported pain at 6 months (β, 0.385; P = .029) and 1 year (β, 0.396; P = .028).

Study details: The study included 268 US veterans (89.2% males) with early RA (duration less than 2 years) prescribed methotrexate, identified from the Veterans Affairs Rheumatoid Arthritis Registry.

Disclosures: The study was supported by the Rheumatology Research Foundation’s Scientist Development Award, the National Institute on Ageing, VA Clinical Science Research and Development Service, and the National Institute of General Medical Sciences. The authors reported receiving grants from various organizations and/or pharmaceutical companies.

Source: Rathbun AM et al. J Rheumatol. 2020 Nov 15. doi: 10.3899/jrheum.200743.

Key clinical point: The concomitant use of oral glucocorticoids and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) is associated with a higher risk of osteoporotic fractures in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Major finding: The risk of osteoporotic fractures was significantly higher in concomitant users of oral glucocorticoids and PPIs (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.60; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.35-1.89). Among current concomitant users, an increased risk was observed for fractures of the hip (aHR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.11-1.91), clinical vertebrae (aHR, 2.84; 95% CI, 1.87-4.32), pelvis (aHR, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.41-4.34), and ribs (aHR, 4.03; 95% CI, 2.13-7.63).

Study details: The data come from a retrospective study of 12,351 patients with RA aged 50 years or older in the United Kingdom.

Disclosures: Two of the authors reported receiving research grants and speakers’ fees from various pharmaceutical companies. The others reported no conflicts of interest.

Source: Abtahi S et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Dec 11. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-218758.

Key clinical point: The concomitant use of oral glucocorticoids and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) is associated with a higher risk of osteoporotic fractures in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Major finding: The risk of osteoporotic fractures was significantly higher in concomitant users of oral glucocorticoids and PPIs (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.60; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.35-1.89). Among current concomitant users, an increased risk was observed for fractures of the hip (aHR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.11-1.91), clinical vertebrae (aHR, 2.84; 95% CI, 1.87-4.32), pelvis (aHR, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.41-4.34), and ribs (aHR, 4.03; 95% CI, 2.13-7.63).

Study details: The data come from a retrospective study of 12,351 patients with RA aged 50 years or older in the United Kingdom.

Disclosures: Two of the authors reported receiving research grants and speakers’ fees from various pharmaceutical companies. The others reported no conflicts of interest.

Source: Abtahi S et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Dec 11. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-218758.

Key clinical point: The concomitant use of oral glucocorticoids and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) is associated with a higher risk of osteoporotic fractures in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Major finding: The risk of osteoporotic fractures was significantly higher in concomitant users of oral glucocorticoids and PPIs (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.60; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.35-1.89). Among current concomitant users, an increased risk was observed for fractures of the hip (aHR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.11-1.91), clinical vertebrae (aHR, 2.84; 95% CI, 1.87-4.32), pelvis (aHR, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.41-4.34), and ribs (aHR, 4.03; 95% CI, 2.13-7.63).

Study details: The data come from a retrospective study of 12,351 patients with RA aged 50 years or older in the United Kingdom.

Disclosures: Two of the authors reported receiving research grants and speakers’ fees from various pharmaceutical companies. The others reported no conflicts of interest.

Source: Abtahi S et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Dec 11. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-218758.