Patients with persistent depressive or cognitive symptoms after mild to moderate COVID-19 (COVID-DC) may have gliosis and inflammation, data suggest.

In a case-control study of 40 patients who were treated at a tertiary care psychiatric hospital in Canada, the level of translocator protein total distribution volume (TSPO VT), a marker of gliosis, was 9.23 mL/cm³ among patients with COVID-DC and 7.72 mL/cm³ among control persons. Differences were particularly notable in the ventral striatum and dorsal putamen.

“Most theories assume there is inflammation in the brain [with] long COVID,” but that assumption had not been studied, author Jeffrey H. Meyer, MD, PhD, Canada Research Chair in Neurochemistry of Major Depressive Disorder at the University of Toronto, said in an interview. “Such information is pivotal to developing treatments.”

The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Quantifiable marker

The investigators sought to determine whether levels of TSPO VT, which are quantifiable with PET, are elevated in the dorsal putamen, ventral striatum, prefrontal cortex, anterior cingulate cortex, and hippocampus of patients with COVID-DC, compared with patients without this syndrome. These brain regions were chosen, according to the authors, “because injury in these regions, which can cause gliosis, also induces symptoms of COVID-DC.”

The study was conducted from April 2021 through June 30, 2022. The investigators compared levels of TSPO VT in the selected brain regions of 20 participants with COVID-DC (mean age, 32.7 years; 60% women) with that of 20 control persons (mean age, 33.3 years; 55% women). TSPO VT was measured with fluorine F18–labeled N-(2-(2-fluoroethoxy)benzyl)-N-(4-phenoxypyridin-3-yl)acetamide PET.

The difference in TSPO VT was most noticeable in the ventral striatum (mean difference, 1.97 mL/cm³) and dorsal putamen (mean difference, 1.70 mL/cm³). The study authors suggest that gliosis in these areas may explain some of the persistent symptoms reported in structured clinical interviews and assessed on neuropsychological and psychological testing.

For patients with COVID-DC, motor speed on the finger-tapping test was negatively associated with dorsal putamen TSPO VT (r, −0.53). The 10 participants with COVID-DC whose speed was lowest had higher mean dorsal putamen TSPO VT levels than those of control persons by 2.3 mL/cm³.

The investigators could not assess a possible association between the ventral striatum TSPO VT and anhedonia because all participants had these symptoms. No significant correlations were found between depression and TSPO VT in the prefrontal cortex or anterior cingulate cortex.

The authors acknowledged that the study was cross-sectional, and so the duration of persistently elevated TSPO VT is not yet known. In addition, elevation in TSPO VT is not completely specific to glial cells, and although correlations with finger-tapping test performance reflect associations between brain changes and symptoms, they do not prove cause and effect.

“Presently, clinicians can use treatments for symptoms in other illnesses that are [also] common with long COVID. We need better than this,” said Dr. Meyer. “Clients with long COVID should be able to state their symptoms, and the practitioner should have an evidence-based matching treatment to recommend.”

Research is ongoing. “We are acquiring more information regarding different types of inflammation in the brain, whether there is ongoing injury, and whether treatments that influence inflammation are helpful,” said Dr. Meyer.
 

Jigsaw puzzle

“While this is an important piece in the jigsaw puzzle of neuroinflammation in chronic neurological disease, it is important to keep in mind that we still lack understanding of the complex picture for several reasons,” Alexander Gerhard, MD, honorary senior lecturer in neuroscience at the University of Manchester, England, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

Among these reasons is that the PET technique used in the study is noisy and not restricted to glial cells, he wrote. TSPO expression is only one part of the brain’s neuroinflammatory response, but PET techniques “do not currently allow us to distinguish between different states of microglial activation.” In addition, “a much more detailed understanding of microglial activation at different time points” is needed before neuroinflammatory changes can be targeted therapeutically, Dr. Gerhard wrote.

In a comment, Vilma Gabbay, MD, professor of psychiatry and neuroscience and director of biomarkers and dimensional psychiatry in the Psychiatry Research Institute at Montefiore Einstein, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, said that “this is an important initial step to better understand the neuropsychiatric consequences of COVID even in only a mild and moderate viral illness.” TSPO imaging through PET scanning has been used as an index for neuroinflammation and gliosis. Researchers have used it to study neurodegenerative diseases, but as the authors noted, the ligand is not specific for gliosis.

“Follow-up large cohort studies including other measures of neuroimaging modalities assessing circuitry and neurochemistry are needed,” she said. “Similarly, studying the blood-brain barrier will also allow us to better understand how the immune reaction in the blood transitions to the brain.”

This field of research is evolving, and clinical trials are ongoing, Dr. Gabbay added. Meanwhile, clinicians should monitor for, assess, and treat neuropsychiatric symptoms and “follow the literature for new research and management recommendations.”

The study was primarily funded by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Project grant to the authors, with some funding from the Canadian Institute for Military and Veteran Health Research. Dr. Meyer received support from their Canada Research Chair awards and received grants and support from several pharmaceutical companies outside of the submitted work. Dr. Gerhard and Dr. Gabbay disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with persistent depressive or cognitive symptoms after mild to moderate COVID-19 (COVID-DC) may have gliosis and inflammation, data suggest.

In a case-control study of 40 patients who were treated at a tertiary care psychiatric hospital in Canada, the level of translocator protein total distribution volume (TSPO VT), a marker of gliosis, was 9.23 mL/cm³ among patients with COVID-DC and 7.72 mL/cm³ among control persons. Differences were particularly notable in the ventral striatum and dorsal putamen.

“Most theories assume there is inflammation in the brain [with] long COVID,” but that assumption had not been studied, author Jeffrey H. Meyer, MD, PhD, Canada Research Chair in Neurochemistry of Major Depressive Disorder at the University of Toronto, said in an interview. “Such information is pivotal to developing treatments.”

The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Quantifiable marker

The investigators sought to determine whether levels of TSPO VT, which are quantifiable with PET, are elevated in the dorsal putamen, ventral striatum, prefrontal cortex, anterior cingulate cortex, and hippocampus of patients with COVID-DC, compared with patients without this syndrome. These brain regions were chosen, according to the authors, “because injury in these regions, which can cause gliosis, also induces symptoms of COVID-DC.”

The study was conducted from April 2021 through June 30, 2022. The investigators compared levels of TSPO VT in the selected brain regions of 20 participants with COVID-DC (mean age, 32.7 years; 60% women) with that of 20 control persons (mean age, 33.3 years; 55% women). TSPO VT was measured with fluorine F18–labeled N-(2-(2-fluoroethoxy)benzyl)-N-(4-phenoxypyridin-3-yl)acetamide PET.

The difference in TSPO VT was most noticeable in the ventral striatum (mean difference, 1.97 mL/cm³) and dorsal putamen (mean difference, 1.70 mL/cm³). The study authors suggest that gliosis in these areas may explain some of the persistent symptoms reported in structured clinical interviews and assessed on neuropsychological and psychological testing.

For patients with COVID-DC, motor speed on the finger-tapping test was negatively associated with dorsal putamen TSPO VT (r, −0.53). The 10 participants with COVID-DC whose speed was lowest had higher mean dorsal putamen TSPO VT levels than those of control persons by 2.3 mL/cm³.

The investigators could not assess a possible association between the ventral striatum TSPO VT and anhedonia because all participants had these symptoms. No significant correlations were found between depression and TSPO VT in the prefrontal cortex or anterior cingulate cortex.

The authors acknowledged that the study was cross-sectional, and so the duration of persistently elevated TSPO VT is not yet known. In addition, elevation in TSPO VT is not completely specific to glial cells, and although correlations with finger-tapping test performance reflect associations between brain changes and symptoms, they do not prove cause and effect.

“Presently, clinicians can use treatments for symptoms in other illnesses that are [also] common with long COVID. We need better than this,” said Dr. Meyer. “Clients with long COVID should be able to state their symptoms, and the practitioner should have an evidence-based matching treatment to recommend.”

Research is ongoing. “We are acquiring more information regarding different types of inflammation in the brain, whether there is ongoing injury, and whether treatments that influence inflammation are helpful,” said Dr. Meyer.
 

Jigsaw puzzle

“While this is an important piece in the jigsaw puzzle of neuroinflammation in chronic neurological disease, it is important to keep in mind that we still lack understanding of the complex picture for several reasons,” Alexander Gerhard, MD, honorary senior lecturer in neuroscience at the University of Manchester, England, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

Among these reasons is that the PET technique used in the study is noisy and not restricted to glial cells, he wrote. TSPO expression is only one part of the brain’s neuroinflammatory response, but PET techniques “do not currently allow us to distinguish between different states of microglial activation.” In addition, “a much more detailed understanding of microglial activation at different time points” is needed before neuroinflammatory changes can be targeted therapeutically, Dr. Gerhard wrote.

In a comment, Vilma Gabbay, MD, professor of psychiatry and neuroscience and director of biomarkers and dimensional psychiatry in the Psychiatry Research Institute at Montefiore Einstein, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, said that “this is an important initial step to better understand the neuropsychiatric consequences of COVID even in only a mild and moderate viral illness.” TSPO imaging through PET scanning has been used as an index for neuroinflammation and gliosis. Researchers have used it to study neurodegenerative diseases, but as the authors noted, the ligand is not specific for gliosis.

“Follow-up large cohort studies including other measures of neuroimaging modalities assessing circuitry and neurochemistry are needed,” she said. “Similarly, studying the blood-brain barrier will also allow us to better understand how the immune reaction in the blood transitions to the brain.”

This field of research is evolving, and clinical trials are ongoing, Dr. Gabbay added. Meanwhile, clinicians should monitor for, assess, and treat neuropsychiatric symptoms and “follow the literature for new research and management recommendations.”

The study was primarily funded by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Project grant to the authors, with some funding from the Canadian Institute for Military and Veteran Health Research. Dr. Meyer received support from their Canada Research Chair awards and received grants and support from several pharmaceutical companies outside of the submitted work. Dr. Gerhard and Dr. Gabbay disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with persistent depressive or cognitive symptoms after mild to moderate COVID-19 (COVID-DC) may have gliosis and inflammation, data suggest.

In a case-control study of 40 patients who were treated at a tertiary care psychiatric hospital in Canada, the level of translocator protein total distribution volume (TSPO VT), a marker of gliosis, was 9.23 mL/cm³ among patients with COVID-DC and 7.72 mL/cm³ among control persons. Differences were particularly notable in the ventral striatum and dorsal putamen.

“Most theories assume there is inflammation in the brain [with] long COVID,” but that assumption had not been studied, author Jeffrey H. Meyer, MD, PhD, Canada Research Chair in Neurochemistry of Major Depressive Disorder at the University of Toronto, said in an interview. “Such information is pivotal to developing treatments.”

The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Quantifiable marker

The investigators sought to determine whether levels of TSPO VT, which are quantifiable with PET, are elevated in the dorsal putamen, ventral striatum, prefrontal cortex, anterior cingulate cortex, and hippocampus of patients with COVID-DC, compared with patients without this syndrome. These brain regions were chosen, according to the authors, “because injury in these regions, which can cause gliosis, also induces symptoms of COVID-DC.”

The study was conducted from April 2021 through June 30, 2022. The investigators compared levels of TSPO VT in the selected brain regions of 20 participants with COVID-DC (mean age, 32.7 years; 60% women) with that of 20 control persons (mean age, 33.3 years; 55% women). TSPO VT was measured with fluorine F18–labeled N-(2-(2-fluoroethoxy)benzyl)-N-(4-phenoxypyridin-3-yl)acetamide PET.

The difference in TSPO VT was most noticeable in the ventral striatum (mean difference, 1.97 mL/cm³) and dorsal putamen (mean difference, 1.70 mL/cm³). The study authors suggest that gliosis in these areas may explain some of the persistent symptoms reported in structured clinical interviews and assessed on neuropsychological and psychological testing.

For patients with COVID-DC, motor speed on the finger-tapping test was negatively associated with dorsal putamen TSPO VT (r, −0.53). The 10 participants with COVID-DC whose speed was lowest had higher mean dorsal putamen TSPO VT levels than those of control persons by 2.3 mL/cm³.

The investigators could not assess a possible association between the ventral striatum TSPO VT and anhedonia because all participants had these symptoms. No significant correlations were found between depression and TSPO VT in the prefrontal cortex or anterior cingulate cortex.

The authors acknowledged that the study was cross-sectional, and so the duration of persistently elevated TSPO VT is not yet known. In addition, elevation in TSPO VT is not completely specific to glial cells, and although correlations with finger-tapping test performance reflect associations between brain changes and symptoms, they do not prove cause and effect.

“Presently, clinicians can use treatments for symptoms in other illnesses that are [also] common with long COVID. We need better than this,” said Dr. Meyer. “Clients with long COVID should be able to state their symptoms, and the practitioner should have an evidence-based matching treatment to recommend.”

Research is ongoing. “We are acquiring more information regarding different types of inflammation in the brain, whether there is ongoing injury, and whether treatments that influence inflammation are helpful,” said Dr. Meyer.
 

Jigsaw puzzle

“While this is an important piece in the jigsaw puzzle of neuroinflammation in chronic neurological disease, it is important to keep in mind that we still lack understanding of the complex picture for several reasons,” Alexander Gerhard, MD, honorary senior lecturer in neuroscience at the University of Manchester, England, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

Among these reasons is that the PET technique used in the study is noisy and not restricted to glial cells, he wrote. TSPO expression is only one part of the brain’s neuroinflammatory response, but PET techniques “do not currently allow us to distinguish between different states of microglial activation.” In addition, “a much more detailed understanding of microglial activation at different time points” is needed before neuroinflammatory changes can be targeted therapeutically, Dr. Gerhard wrote.

In a comment, Vilma Gabbay, MD, professor of psychiatry and neuroscience and director of biomarkers and dimensional psychiatry in the Psychiatry Research Institute at Montefiore Einstein, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, said that “this is an important initial step to better understand the neuropsychiatric consequences of COVID even in only a mild and moderate viral illness.” TSPO imaging through PET scanning has been used as an index for neuroinflammation and gliosis. Researchers have used it to study neurodegenerative diseases, but as the authors noted, the ligand is not specific for gliosis.

“Follow-up large cohort studies including other measures of neuroimaging modalities assessing circuitry and neurochemistry are needed,” she said. “Similarly, studying the blood-brain barrier will also allow us to better understand how the immune reaction in the blood transitions to the brain.”

This field of research is evolving, and clinical trials are ongoing, Dr. Gabbay added. Meanwhile, clinicians should monitor for, assess, and treat neuropsychiatric symptoms and “follow the literature for new research and management recommendations.”

The study was primarily funded by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Project grant to the authors, with some funding from the Canadian Institute for Military and Veteran Health Research. Dr. Meyer received support from their Canada Research Chair awards and received grants and support from several pharmaceutical companies outside of the submitted work. Dr. Gerhard and Dr. Gabbay disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. It’s Dr. Kathy Miller from Indiana University, coming to you today from the 2023 ASCO annual meeting in Chicago.

It’s been an exciting year for breast cancer news. I want to make sure that you hear about the two studies that I find the most impactful. One is the NATALEE study looking at ribociclib in adjuvant ER-positive patients at high risk for recurrence. You saw the press release a few weeks ago, and we now have the data. There is no doubt that this is a positive trial.

The details here are important. These were pre- or postmenopausal women, and men as well. Premenopausal women and men also had an LHRH agonist in addition to an aromatase inhibitor – that could have been either letrozole or anastrozole – then randomized to ribociclib or placebo.

The dose of ribociclib that you’re used to thinking about is 600 mg daily for 3 weeks and 7 days off. That’s the approved dose in the metastatic setting. In the adjuvant trial, they used 400 mg, and that was intentional to try to reduce some of the toxicity because the plan was for 3 years of therapy. Managing toxicity and really making this tolerable for patients was crucial.

We’ve now seen the efficacy results, with a roughly 3% reduction in the risk for recurrence; 90% disease-free survival in the ribociclib arm, 87% in the control arm, some patients still having prolongation of QTc but no serious arrhythmias; some patients still with myelosuppression, but risk for serious infections was really very low.

This is going to give you a question to ponder in your high-risk, ER-positive patients who are appropriate to consider for adjuvant cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitors. Are you now on team abemaciclib or team ribociclib? We have no head-to-head trials in any setting, and I doubt that our industry colleagues are going to be interested in a head-to-head setting.

We’re going to need to pay particular attention to long-term follow-up and to quality of life and toxicity data as to which our patients prefer. We may need to think about other ways of doing those direct comparisons with public funding, where we can get the answers our patients deserve.

I also want to think about the other end of the spectrum, those patients with HER2-positive disease. We saw fantastic results from the PHERGain study from our colleagues in Spain. This was a trial that took patients with predominantly stage II and III HER2-positive breast cancer. These are patients that we would treat with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, with dual HER2-targeted therapy.

Years ago, we saw results of some small, single-arm, phase 2 studies, suggesting that some of those patients may be so sensitive to biologic therapy that they have a pathologic complete response with HER2-targeted therapy – HER2-targeted therapy with endocrine therapy if they are positive – with no chemotherapy at all. Our question has always been how to identify those patients. Can we identify them well enough that we would be comfortable not treating them with chemotherapy? Importantly, If they didn’t get chemotherapy, what’s their long-term outcome?

The PHERGain trial lets us look at all those things. The PHERGain trial gave patients two cycles of dual HER2-targeted therapy, pertuzumab and trastuzumab, hormone therapy if also ER positive, and they got an FDG-PET scan after two cycles of therapy.

If they had a significant PET response, those patients were then randomized to switch to chemotherapy, standard TCHP, or continue biologic therapy alone for a total of six cycles. They then went to surgery. If they had a pathologic complete response, whether they had gotten chemotherapy or no chemotherapy, they completed the HER2-targeted therapy. If they still had residual disease, they got chemotherapy if chemotherapy had not been administered before, and they may have gotten other HER2-targeted therapies if they had already received chemotherapy.

There were over 300 patients in this trial, and my memory is that roughly two thirds of them had a PET response. About 86 patients randomized to continue biologic therapy had a pathologic complete response, so about one-third of those for whom the PET imaging said they were responding with biologic therapy only had a pathologic complete response.

They have now been followed for 3 years. The 3-year disease-free survival results look very reassuring. Of those 86 patients, one patient had a local recurrence and no patient had a distant recurrence.

This is what we’ve been waiting for. Can we identify those patients who have an excellent prognosis with biologic therapy alone so that we can avoid the toxicities? This is really where you’ll see the research over the coming years in breast cancer, looking at additional therapies in high-risk patients who don’t do so well with our standard therapies, and better stratification of patients who do so well with our standard therapies that we may be able to do less.

This is one of the ways that we’ll be able to do that. I look forward to sharing those results with you over coming years.

Kathy D. Miller, MD, is associate director of clinical research and codirector of the breast cancer program at the Melvin and Bren Simon Cancer Center at Indiana University, Indianapolis. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. It’s Dr. Kathy Miller from Indiana University, coming to you today from the 2023 ASCO annual meeting in Chicago.

It’s been an exciting year for breast cancer news. I want to make sure that you hear about the two studies that I find the most impactful. One is the NATALEE study looking at ribociclib in adjuvant ER-positive patients at high risk for recurrence. You saw the press release a few weeks ago, and we now have the data. There is no doubt that this is a positive trial.

The details here are important. These were pre- or postmenopausal women, and men as well. Premenopausal women and men also had an LHRH agonist in addition to an aromatase inhibitor – that could have been either letrozole or anastrozole – then randomized to ribociclib or placebo.

The dose of ribociclib that you’re used to thinking about is 600 mg daily for 3 weeks and 7 days off. That’s the approved dose in the metastatic setting. In the adjuvant trial, they used 400 mg, and that was intentional to try to reduce some of the toxicity because the plan was for 3 years of therapy. Managing toxicity and really making this tolerable for patients was crucial.

We’ve now seen the efficacy results, with a roughly 3% reduction in the risk for recurrence; 90% disease-free survival in the ribociclib arm, 87% in the control arm, some patients still having prolongation of QTc but no serious arrhythmias; some patients still with myelosuppression, but risk for serious infections was really very low.

This is going to give you a question to ponder in your high-risk, ER-positive patients who are appropriate to consider for adjuvant cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitors. Are you now on team abemaciclib or team ribociclib? We have no head-to-head trials in any setting, and I doubt that our industry colleagues are going to be interested in a head-to-head setting.

We’re going to need to pay particular attention to long-term follow-up and to quality of life and toxicity data as to which our patients prefer. We may need to think about other ways of doing those direct comparisons with public funding, where we can get the answers our patients deserve.

I also want to think about the other end of the spectrum, those patients with HER2-positive disease. We saw fantastic results from the PHERGain study from our colleagues in Spain. This was a trial that took patients with predominantly stage II and III HER2-positive breast cancer. These are patients that we would treat with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, with dual HER2-targeted therapy.

Years ago, we saw results of some small, single-arm, phase 2 studies, suggesting that some of those patients may be so sensitive to biologic therapy that they have a pathologic complete response with HER2-targeted therapy – HER2-targeted therapy with endocrine therapy if they are positive – with no chemotherapy at all. Our question has always been how to identify those patients. Can we identify them well enough that we would be comfortable not treating them with chemotherapy? Importantly, If they didn’t get chemotherapy, what’s their long-term outcome?

The PHERGain trial lets us look at all those things. The PHERGain trial gave patients two cycles of dual HER2-targeted therapy, pertuzumab and trastuzumab, hormone therapy if also ER positive, and they got an FDG-PET scan after two cycles of therapy.

If they had a significant PET response, those patients were then randomized to switch to chemotherapy, standard TCHP, or continue biologic therapy alone for a total of six cycles. They then went to surgery. If they had a pathologic complete response, whether they had gotten chemotherapy or no chemotherapy, they completed the HER2-targeted therapy. If they still had residual disease, they got chemotherapy if chemotherapy had not been administered before, and they may have gotten other HER2-targeted therapies if they had already received chemotherapy.

There were over 300 patients in this trial, and my memory is that roughly two thirds of them had a PET response. About 86 patients randomized to continue biologic therapy had a pathologic complete response, so about one-third of those for whom the PET imaging said they were responding with biologic therapy only had a pathologic complete response.

They have now been followed for 3 years. The 3-year disease-free survival results look very reassuring. Of those 86 patients, one patient had a local recurrence and no patient had a distant recurrence.

This is what we’ve been waiting for. Can we identify those patients who have an excellent prognosis with biologic therapy alone so that we can avoid the toxicities? This is really where you’ll see the research over the coming years in breast cancer, looking at additional therapies in high-risk patients who don’t do so well with our standard therapies, and better stratification of patients who do so well with our standard therapies that we may be able to do less.

This is one of the ways that we’ll be able to do that. I look forward to sharing those results with you over coming years.

Kathy D. Miller, MD, is associate director of clinical research and codirector of the breast cancer program at the Melvin and Bren Simon Cancer Center at Indiana University, Indianapolis. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. It’s Dr. Kathy Miller from Indiana University, coming to you today from the 2023 ASCO annual meeting in Chicago.

It’s been an exciting year for breast cancer news. I want to make sure that you hear about the two studies that I find the most impactful. One is the NATALEE study looking at ribociclib in adjuvant ER-positive patients at high risk for recurrence. You saw the press release a few weeks ago, and we now have the data. There is no doubt that this is a positive trial.

The details here are important. These were pre- or postmenopausal women, and men as well. Premenopausal women and men also had an LHRH agonist in addition to an aromatase inhibitor – that could have been either letrozole or anastrozole – then randomized to ribociclib or placebo.

The dose of ribociclib that you’re used to thinking about is 600 mg daily for 3 weeks and 7 days off. That’s the approved dose in the metastatic setting. In the adjuvant trial, they used 400 mg, and that was intentional to try to reduce some of the toxicity because the plan was for 3 years of therapy. Managing toxicity and really making this tolerable for patients was crucial.

We’ve now seen the efficacy results, with a roughly 3% reduction in the risk for recurrence; 90% disease-free survival in the ribociclib arm, 87% in the control arm, some patients still having prolongation of QTc but no serious arrhythmias; some patients still with myelosuppression, but risk for serious infections was really very low.

This is going to give you a question to ponder in your high-risk, ER-positive patients who are appropriate to consider for adjuvant cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitors. Are you now on team abemaciclib or team ribociclib? We have no head-to-head trials in any setting, and I doubt that our industry colleagues are going to be interested in a head-to-head setting.

We’re going to need to pay particular attention to long-term follow-up and to quality of life and toxicity data as to which our patients prefer. We may need to think about other ways of doing those direct comparisons with public funding, where we can get the answers our patients deserve.

I also want to think about the other end of the spectrum, those patients with HER2-positive disease. We saw fantastic results from the PHERGain study from our colleagues in Spain. This was a trial that took patients with predominantly stage II and III HER2-positive breast cancer. These are patients that we would treat with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, with dual HER2-targeted therapy.

Years ago, we saw results of some small, single-arm, phase 2 studies, suggesting that some of those patients may be so sensitive to biologic therapy that they have a pathologic complete response with HER2-targeted therapy – HER2-targeted therapy with endocrine therapy if they are positive – with no chemotherapy at all. Our question has always been how to identify those patients. Can we identify them well enough that we would be comfortable not treating them with chemotherapy? Importantly, If they didn’t get chemotherapy, what’s their long-term outcome?

The PHERGain trial lets us look at all those things. The PHERGain trial gave patients two cycles of dual HER2-targeted therapy, pertuzumab and trastuzumab, hormone therapy if also ER positive, and they got an FDG-PET scan after two cycles of therapy.

If they had a significant PET response, those patients were then randomized to switch to chemotherapy, standard TCHP, or continue biologic therapy alone for a total of six cycles. They then went to surgery. If they had a pathologic complete response, whether they had gotten chemotherapy or no chemotherapy, they completed the HER2-targeted therapy. If they still had residual disease, they got chemotherapy if chemotherapy had not been administered before, and they may have gotten other HER2-targeted therapies if they had already received chemotherapy.

There were over 300 patients in this trial, and my memory is that roughly two thirds of them had a PET response. About 86 patients randomized to continue biologic therapy had a pathologic complete response, so about one-third of those for whom the PET imaging said they were responding with biologic therapy only had a pathologic complete response.

They have now been followed for 3 years. The 3-year disease-free survival results look very reassuring. Of those 86 patients, one patient had a local recurrence and no patient had a distant recurrence.

This is what we’ve been waiting for. Can we identify those patients who have an excellent prognosis with biologic therapy alone so that we can avoid the toxicities? This is really where you’ll see the research over the coming years in breast cancer, looking at additional therapies in high-risk patients who don’t do so well with our standard therapies, and better stratification of patients who do so well with our standard therapies that we may be able to do less.

This is one of the ways that we’ll be able to do that. I look forward to sharing those results with you over coming years.

Kathy D. Miller, MD, is associate director of clinical research and codirector of the breast cancer program at the Melvin and Bren Simon Cancer Center at Indiana University, Indianapolis. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

A new analysis shows a significant association between plant-rich, low-carbohydrate diets and overall survival, but not breast cancer–specific survival, among women with stage I-III breast cancer.

METHODOLOGY:

• The diets of 9,621 women with stage I-III breast cancer from two ongoing cohort studies – the Nurses’ Health Study and Nurses’ Health Study II – were evaluated.
• Overall low-carb, animal-rich, and plant-rich low-carb diet scores were calculated using food frequency questionnaires after breast cancer diagnosis.
• Cox proportional hazards regression models adjusted for multiple potential confounding factors.
• Follow-up lasted for a median of 12.4 years after breast cancer diagnosis.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 1,269 deaths due to breast cancer and 3,850 all-cause deaths occurred during the follow-up period.
• Researchers found that greater adherence to low-carb (hazard ratio, 0.82 for quintile 5 vs. 1) and plant-rich diet (HR, 0.73 Q5 vs. 1) was associated with a significantly lower risk for overall mortality but not breast cancer–specific mortality.
• Overall, adhering to animal-rich, low-carb diets did not significantly influence all-cause or breast cancer–specific survival rates.
• But replacing 3% of energy intake from available carbohydrates with fish protein was associated with 17% lower risk for breast cancer–specific mortality and 15% lower risk for all-cause mortality.

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings suggest that breast cancer survivors could benefit from limiting intake of carbohydrates, especially from fruit juice, sugar-sweetened beverages, and added sugar, and increasing the amount of protein and fat, in particular from plant sources,” the authors write.

STUDY DETAILS:

The study was led by Maryam Farvid, PhD, with the Data Statistics Group, Mission Viejo, Calif. It was published online in the journal Cancer and supported by National Institutes of Health and the University of Toronto.

LIMITATIONS:

Most women were non-Hispanic White and health professionals, so the results might not generalize to other sociodemographic groups. The authors also noted potential residual confounding, despite controlling for several breast cancer risk factors.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Farvid is a founder of the Institute for Cancer Prevention and Healing and the Data Statistics Group.

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

TOPLINE:

A new analysis shows a significant association between plant-rich, low-carbohydrate diets and overall survival, but not breast cancer–specific survival, among women with stage I-III breast cancer.

METHODOLOGY:

• The diets of 9,621 women with stage I-III breast cancer from two ongoing cohort studies – the Nurses’ Health Study and Nurses’ Health Study II – were evaluated.
• Overall low-carb, animal-rich, and plant-rich low-carb diet scores were calculated using food frequency questionnaires after breast cancer diagnosis.
• Cox proportional hazards regression models adjusted for multiple potential confounding factors.
• Follow-up lasted for a median of 12.4 years after breast cancer diagnosis.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 1,269 deaths due to breast cancer and 3,850 all-cause deaths occurred during the follow-up period.
• Researchers found that greater adherence to low-carb (hazard ratio, 0.82 for quintile 5 vs. 1) and plant-rich diet (HR, 0.73 Q5 vs. 1) was associated with a significantly lower risk for overall mortality but not breast cancer–specific mortality.
• Overall, adhering to animal-rich, low-carb diets did not significantly influence all-cause or breast cancer–specific survival rates.
• But replacing 3% of energy intake from available carbohydrates with fish protein was associated with 17% lower risk for breast cancer–specific mortality and 15% lower risk for all-cause mortality.

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings suggest that breast cancer survivors could benefit from limiting intake of carbohydrates, especially from fruit juice, sugar-sweetened beverages, and added sugar, and increasing the amount of protein and fat, in particular from plant sources,” the authors write.

STUDY DETAILS:

The study was led by Maryam Farvid, PhD, with the Data Statistics Group, Mission Viejo, Calif. It was published online in the journal Cancer and supported by National Institutes of Health and the University of Toronto.

LIMITATIONS:

Most women were non-Hispanic White and health professionals, so the results might not generalize to other sociodemographic groups. The authors also noted potential residual confounding, despite controlling for several breast cancer risk factors.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Farvid is a founder of the Institute for Cancer Prevention and Healing and the Data Statistics Group.

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

TOPLINE:

A new analysis shows a significant association between plant-rich, low-carbohydrate diets and overall survival, but not breast cancer–specific survival, among women with stage I-III breast cancer.

METHODOLOGY:

• The diets of 9,621 women with stage I-III breast cancer from two ongoing cohort studies – the Nurses’ Health Study and Nurses’ Health Study II – were evaluated.
• Overall low-carb, animal-rich, and plant-rich low-carb diet scores were calculated using food frequency questionnaires after breast cancer diagnosis.
• Cox proportional hazards regression models adjusted for multiple potential confounding factors.
• Follow-up lasted for a median of 12.4 years after breast cancer diagnosis.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 1,269 deaths due to breast cancer and 3,850 all-cause deaths occurred during the follow-up period.
• Researchers found that greater adherence to low-carb (hazard ratio, 0.82 for quintile 5 vs. 1) and plant-rich diet (HR, 0.73 Q5 vs. 1) was associated with a significantly lower risk for overall mortality but not breast cancer–specific mortality.
• Overall, adhering to animal-rich, low-carb diets did not significantly influence all-cause or breast cancer–specific survival rates.
• But replacing 3% of energy intake from available carbohydrates with fish protein was associated with 17% lower risk for breast cancer–specific mortality and 15% lower risk for all-cause mortality.

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings suggest that breast cancer survivors could benefit from limiting intake of carbohydrates, especially from fruit juice, sugar-sweetened beverages, and added sugar, and increasing the amount of protein and fat, in particular from plant sources,” the authors write.

STUDY DETAILS:

The study was led by Maryam Farvid, PhD, with the Data Statistics Group, Mission Viejo, Calif. It was published online in the journal Cancer and supported by National Institutes of Health and the University of Toronto.

LIMITATIONS:

Most women were non-Hispanic White and health professionals, so the results might not generalize to other sociodemographic groups. The authors also noted potential residual confounding, despite controlling for several breast cancer risk factors.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Farvid is a founder of the Institute for Cancer Prevention and Healing and the Data Statistics Group.

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

Specific sun protection tips may vary by climate, but in San Diego, where the UV Index hovers in the moderate to high range on most days, Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, favors an aggressive approach.

“I basically say, ‘sun protection means clothing, shade, [considering the] time of day of exposure, and sunscreen if you are going to be otherwise exposed,’ ” Dr. Eichenfield, chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady’s Children’s Hospital, San Diego, said during a panel discussion about sunscreen use at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by MedscapeLIVE! He recommends photoprotective gear such as rash guards for surfers and other water sport enthusiasts. When patients ask him if they should use sunscreen, he often replies with a question of his own.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“Do you brush your teeth?” he’ll ask.

“Yes, I do.”

“Well, you should put sunscreen on every day.”

Another panelist, Adelaide A. Hebert, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics and chief of pediatric dermatology at the University of Texas, Houston, said that she advises new parents to start sun protection efforts early. “Most sunscreens are not approved for use in children under the age of 6 months because testing has not been done in this age group, but I do recommend protective clothing. I also recommend wrap-around sunglasses, which offer 5% more protection from the sun than regular sunglasses.”

In her opinion, stick sunscreens are “a good add-on,” especially for under the eyes and the backs of the hands, but she is not a fan of spray sunscreens, which can leave large areas of skin unprotected if not applied properly.

Fellow panelist Jennifer Huang, MD, a pediatric dermatologist at Boston Children’s Hospital, who has a special interest in taking care of dermatologic conditions of children with cancer, generally recommends mineral-based sunscreens. “There is data to suggest that nonmineral sunscreens are less safe than mineral sunscreens for humans, and mineral sunscreens are considered to be better for the environment,” Dr. Huang said. “Plus, there are more elegant versions of mineral sunscreens that don’t make your skin pasty white.” However, for patients with darker skin tones, “it can be hard to apply a pasty white sunscreen, so I lean on some recommendations for tinted sunscreens, too, so there are options. I specifically recommend sunscreens that have iron oxides in them so that it can block physical rays and help with the cosmetic appearance.”

Moise Levy, MD, professor of internal medicine and pediatrics at the University of Texas at Austin, said that his approach to imparting sunscreen advice to children and their parents involves a mix of spoken information, printed information, and sunscreen samples for children to try in the office, in the presence of a parent. To help patients choose among different samples, be they ointments, gels, or lotions, he will often ask the child: “‘What do you like the feel of better?’ If the child says, ‘I like this one,’ I make sure the parent hears that,” Dr. Levy said.

Vesna Andjic/iStockphoto

Next, Dr. Eichenfield, who moderated the discussion, asked his fellow panelists how they would counsel someone who comes to their practice for evaluation of moles and has a family history of nonmelanoma skin cancer. “I think this is one of the easier counseling sessions, because there are enough kids who are asked about the moles on their skin when they’re at school,” Dr. Hebert said. “I think they’re very ready to wear sun protective clothing and I certainly don’t want any sun exposure that would pose an increased risk for their child.”

In addition to routine sun protection, Dr. Huang recommends annual mole checks for children who have a first-degree relative with a history of malignant melanoma. Other high-risk groups that should undergo annual skin exams include anyone who has received high doses of radiation, bone marrow transplants, prolonged use of voriconazole, or prolonged systemic immunosuppression. Without a known genetic predisposition syndrome, a family history of nonmelanoma skin cancer would not raise concern for melanoma in an otherwise healthy child.

Dr. Eichenfield added that freckling used to be the secondary risk factor for melanoma, “but it’s flipped over to a primary risk factor. A history of immunosuppression or prior cancer is a major risk factor in childhood and teenage years.”

Dr. Eichenfield disclosed that he is a consultant or adviser for numerous pharmaceutical companies. He has also received research funding from AbbVie, Bausch & Lomb, Galderma Laboratories, and Pfizer. Dr. Hebert disclosed that she is a consultant or adviser for AbbVie, Almirall, Amryt Pharma, Arcutis Biotherapeutics, Beiersdorf, Dermavant Sciences, Galderma Laboratories, L’Oreal, Novan, Ortho Dermatologics, Pfizer, and Verrica. Dr. Levy disclosed that he is consultant or adviser for Abeona, Castle Creek, Dusa Pharma, Krystal Bio, Novan, Regeneron, and Sanofi Genzyme. Dr. Huang disclosed that she is an adviser for EllaOla.

MedscapeLive! and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
 

Specific sun protection tips may vary by climate, but in San Diego, where the UV Index hovers in the moderate to high range on most days, Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, favors an aggressive approach.

“I basically say, ‘sun protection means clothing, shade, [considering the] time of day of exposure, and sunscreen if you are going to be otherwise exposed,’ ” Dr. Eichenfield, chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady’s Children’s Hospital, San Diego, said during a panel discussion about sunscreen use at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by MedscapeLIVE! He recommends photoprotective gear such as rash guards for surfers and other water sport enthusiasts. When patients ask him if they should use sunscreen, he often replies with a question of his own.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“Do you brush your teeth?” he’ll ask.

“Yes, I do.”

“Well, you should put sunscreen on every day.”

Another panelist, Adelaide A. Hebert, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics and chief of pediatric dermatology at the University of Texas, Houston, said that she advises new parents to start sun protection efforts early. “Most sunscreens are not approved for use in children under the age of 6 months because testing has not been done in this age group, but I do recommend protective clothing. I also recommend wrap-around sunglasses, which offer 5% more protection from the sun than regular sunglasses.”

In her opinion, stick sunscreens are “a good add-on,” especially for under the eyes and the backs of the hands, but she is not a fan of spray sunscreens, which can leave large areas of skin unprotected if not applied properly.

Fellow panelist Jennifer Huang, MD, a pediatric dermatologist at Boston Children’s Hospital, who has a special interest in taking care of dermatologic conditions of children with cancer, generally recommends mineral-based sunscreens. “There is data to suggest that nonmineral sunscreens are less safe than mineral sunscreens for humans, and mineral sunscreens are considered to be better for the environment,” Dr. Huang said. “Plus, there are more elegant versions of mineral sunscreens that don’t make your skin pasty white.” However, for patients with darker skin tones, “it can be hard to apply a pasty white sunscreen, so I lean on some recommendations for tinted sunscreens, too, so there are options. I specifically recommend sunscreens that have iron oxides in them so that it can block physical rays and help with the cosmetic appearance.”

Moise Levy, MD, professor of internal medicine and pediatrics at the University of Texas at Austin, said that his approach to imparting sunscreen advice to children and their parents involves a mix of spoken information, printed information, and sunscreen samples for children to try in the office, in the presence of a parent. To help patients choose among different samples, be they ointments, gels, or lotions, he will often ask the child: “‘What do you like the feel of better?’ If the child says, ‘I like this one,’ I make sure the parent hears that,” Dr. Levy said.

Vesna Andjic/iStockphoto

Next, Dr. Eichenfield, who moderated the discussion, asked his fellow panelists how they would counsel someone who comes to their practice for evaluation of moles and has a family history of nonmelanoma skin cancer. “I think this is one of the easier counseling sessions, because there are enough kids who are asked about the moles on their skin when they’re at school,” Dr. Hebert said. “I think they’re very ready to wear sun protective clothing and I certainly don’t want any sun exposure that would pose an increased risk for their child.”

In addition to routine sun protection, Dr. Huang recommends annual mole checks for children who have a first-degree relative with a history of malignant melanoma. Other high-risk groups that should undergo annual skin exams include anyone who has received high doses of radiation, bone marrow transplants, prolonged use of voriconazole, or prolonged systemic immunosuppression. Without a known genetic predisposition syndrome, a family history of nonmelanoma skin cancer would not raise concern for melanoma in an otherwise healthy child.

Dr. Eichenfield added that freckling used to be the secondary risk factor for melanoma, “but it’s flipped over to a primary risk factor. A history of immunosuppression or prior cancer is a major risk factor in childhood and teenage years.”

Dr. Eichenfield disclosed that he is a consultant or adviser for numerous pharmaceutical companies. He has also received research funding from AbbVie, Bausch & Lomb, Galderma Laboratories, and Pfizer. Dr. Hebert disclosed that she is a consultant or adviser for AbbVie, Almirall, Amryt Pharma, Arcutis Biotherapeutics, Beiersdorf, Dermavant Sciences, Galderma Laboratories, L’Oreal, Novan, Ortho Dermatologics, Pfizer, and Verrica. Dr. Levy disclosed that he is consultant or adviser for Abeona, Castle Creek, Dusa Pharma, Krystal Bio, Novan, Regeneron, and Sanofi Genzyme. Dr. Huang disclosed that she is an adviser for EllaOla.

MedscapeLive! and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
 

Specific sun protection tips may vary by climate, but in San Diego, where the UV Index hovers in the moderate to high range on most days, Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, favors an aggressive approach.

“I basically say, ‘sun protection means clothing, shade, [considering the] time of day of exposure, and sunscreen if you are going to be otherwise exposed,’ ” Dr. Eichenfield, chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady’s Children’s Hospital, San Diego, said during a panel discussion about sunscreen use at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by MedscapeLIVE! He recommends photoprotective gear such as rash guards for surfers and other water sport enthusiasts. When patients ask him if they should use sunscreen, he often replies with a question of his own.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“Do you brush your teeth?” he’ll ask.

“Yes, I do.”

“Well, you should put sunscreen on every day.”

Another panelist, Adelaide A. Hebert, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics and chief of pediatric dermatology at the University of Texas, Houston, said that she advises new parents to start sun protection efforts early. “Most sunscreens are not approved for use in children under the age of 6 months because testing has not been done in this age group, but I do recommend protective clothing. I also recommend wrap-around sunglasses, which offer 5% more protection from the sun than regular sunglasses.”

In her opinion, stick sunscreens are “a good add-on,” especially for under the eyes and the backs of the hands, but she is not a fan of spray sunscreens, which can leave large areas of skin unprotected if not applied properly.

Fellow panelist Jennifer Huang, MD, a pediatric dermatologist at Boston Children’s Hospital, who has a special interest in taking care of dermatologic conditions of children with cancer, generally recommends mineral-based sunscreens. “There is data to suggest that nonmineral sunscreens are less safe than mineral sunscreens for humans, and mineral sunscreens are considered to be better for the environment,” Dr. Huang said. “Plus, there are more elegant versions of mineral sunscreens that don’t make your skin pasty white.” However, for patients with darker skin tones, “it can be hard to apply a pasty white sunscreen, so I lean on some recommendations for tinted sunscreens, too, so there are options. I specifically recommend sunscreens that have iron oxides in them so that it can block physical rays and help with the cosmetic appearance.”

Moise Levy, MD, professor of internal medicine and pediatrics at the University of Texas at Austin, said that his approach to imparting sunscreen advice to children and their parents involves a mix of spoken information, printed information, and sunscreen samples for children to try in the office, in the presence of a parent. To help patients choose among different samples, be they ointments, gels, or lotions, he will often ask the child: “‘What do you like the feel of better?’ If the child says, ‘I like this one,’ I make sure the parent hears that,” Dr. Levy said.

Vesna Andjic/iStockphoto

Next, Dr. Eichenfield, who moderated the discussion, asked his fellow panelists how they would counsel someone who comes to their practice for evaluation of moles and has a family history of nonmelanoma skin cancer. “I think this is one of the easier counseling sessions, because there are enough kids who are asked about the moles on their skin when they’re at school,” Dr. Hebert said. “I think they’re very ready to wear sun protective clothing and I certainly don’t want any sun exposure that would pose an increased risk for their child.”

In addition to routine sun protection, Dr. Huang recommends annual mole checks for children who have a first-degree relative with a history of malignant melanoma. Other high-risk groups that should undergo annual skin exams include anyone who has received high doses of radiation, bone marrow transplants, prolonged use of voriconazole, or prolonged systemic immunosuppression. Without a known genetic predisposition syndrome, a family history of nonmelanoma skin cancer would not raise concern for melanoma in an otherwise healthy child.

Dr. Eichenfield added that freckling used to be the secondary risk factor for melanoma, “but it’s flipped over to a primary risk factor. A history of immunosuppression or prior cancer is a major risk factor in childhood and teenage years.”

Dr. Eichenfield disclosed that he is a consultant or adviser for numerous pharmaceutical companies. He has also received research funding from AbbVie, Bausch & Lomb, Galderma Laboratories, and Pfizer. Dr. Hebert disclosed that she is a consultant or adviser for AbbVie, Almirall, Amryt Pharma, Arcutis Biotherapeutics, Beiersdorf, Dermavant Sciences, Galderma Laboratories, L’Oreal, Novan, Ortho Dermatologics, Pfizer, and Verrica. Dr. Levy disclosed that he is consultant or adviser for Abeona, Castle Creek, Dusa Pharma, Krystal Bio, Novan, Regeneron, and Sanofi Genzyme. Dr. Huang disclosed that she is an adviser for EllaOla.

MedscapeLive! and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
 

Key clinical point: The visceral fat mass and percentage body fat were significantly higher in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) compared with control individuals, and moderate-to-high physical activity was associated with reduced visceral fat mass and percentage body fat.

Major finding: PsA was associated with a mean increase in visceral fat mass of 2.0 kg (95% CI 1.2-2.8 kg) and in percentage body fat of 2.7% (95% CI 1.6%-3.8%). Moderate and high vs low physical activity were associated with lower visceral fat mass and percentage body fat in patients with PsA and control individuals (P < .001).

Study details: The data come from a retrospective study including 356 patients with PsA and 47,470 control individuals.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences at Norwegian University of Science and Technology. M Hoff declared receiving speaker honoraria from AbbVie and Janssen Pharmaceuticals. No other conflicts of interest were declared.

Source: Osman AA et al. High physical activity in persons with psoriatic arthritis is associated with reduced visceral fat mass and percentage body fat: The Trøndelag Health study. Rheumatol Int. 2023 (Jun 5). doi: 10.1007/s00296-023-05348-9

Key clinical point: The visceral fat mass and percentage body fat were significantly higher in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) compared with control individuals, and moderate-to-high physical activity was associated with reduced visceral fat mass and percentage body fat.

Major finding: PsA was associated with a mean increase in visceral fat mass of 2.0 kg (95% CI 1.2-2.8 kg) and in percentage body fat of 2.7% (95% CI 1.6%-3.8%). Moderate and high vs low physical activity were associated with lower visceral fat mass and percentage body fat in patients with PsA and control individuals (P < .001).

Study details: The data come from a retrospective study including 356 patients with PsA and 47,470 control individuals.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences at Norwegian University of Science and Technology. M Hoff declared receiving speaker honoraria from AbbVie and Janssen Pharmaceuticals. No other conflicts of interest were declared.

Source: Osman AA et al. High physical activity in persons with psoriatic arthritis is associated with reduced visceral fat mass and percentage body fat: The Trøndelag Health study. Rheumatol Int. 2023 (Jun 5). doi: 10.1007/s00296-023-05348-9

Key clinical point: The visceral fat mass and percentage body fat were significantly higher in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) compared with control individuals, and moderate-to-high physical activity was associated with reduced visceral fat mass and percentage body fat.

Major finding: PsA was associated with a mean increase in visceral fat mass of 2.0 kg (95% CI 1.2-2.8 kg) and in percentage body fat of 2.7% (95% CI 1.6%-3.8%). Moderate and high vs low physical activity were associated with lower visceral fat mass and percentage body fat in patients with PsA and control individuals (P < .001).

Study details: The data come from a retrospective study including 356 patients with PsA and 47,470 control individuals.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences at Norwegian University of Science and Technology. M Hoff declared receiving speaker honoraria from AbbVie and Janssen Pharmaceuticals. No other conflicts of interest were declared.

Source: Osman AA et al. High physical activity in persons with psoriatic arthritis is associated with reduced visceral fat mass and percentage body fat: The Trøndelag Health study. Rheumatol Int. 2023 (Jun 5). doi: 10.1007/s00296-023-05348-9

Key clinical point: Patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), particularly women, have higher disease burden from the patient’s perspective than those with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Major finding: The mean Visual Analogue Scale scores for pain (34 vs 32; P < .001) and fatigue (35 vs 33; P = .001) were slightly higher in patients with PsA vs RA. Women with PsA vs RA across all age groups had significantly higher scores for pain (<50 years old: 28 vs 18; >70 years old: 48 vs 38) and fatigue (50-59 years old: 41 vs 31; >70 years old: 46 vs 36; all P < .05).

Study details: Findings are from a cross-sectional analysis including patients with PsA (n = 3598) and RA (n = 13,913).

Disclosures: This study was funded by State Research Funding, Kuopio University Hospital Catchment Area, Kuopio, Finland. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Weman L et al. Disease burden measured by patient-reported outcomes: Does psoriatic arthritis feel worse than rheumatoid arthritis? A cross-sectional nationwide study. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2023 (May 15). doi: 10.55563/clinexprheumatol/h9hn90

Key clinical point: Patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), particularly women, have higher disease burden from the patient’s perspective than those with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Major finding: The mean Visual Analogue Scale scores for pain (34 vs 32; P < .001) and fatigue (35 vs 33; P = .001) were slightly higher in patients with PsA vs RA. Women with PsA vs RA across all age groups had significantly higher scores for pain (<50 years old: 28 vs 18; >70 years old: 48 vs 38) and fatigue (50-59 years old: 41 vs 31; >70 years old: 46 vs 36; all P < .05).

Study details: Findings are from a cross-sectional analysis including patients with PsA (n = 3598) and RA (n = 13,913).

Disclosures: This study was funded by State Research Funding, Kuopio University Hospital Catchment Area, Kuopio, Finland. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Weman L et al. Disease burden measured by patient-reported outcomes: Does psoriatic arthritis feel worse than rheumatoid arthritis? A cross-sectional nationwide study. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2023 (May 15). doi: 10.55563/clinexprheumatol/h9hn90

Key clinical point: Patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), particularly women, have higher disease burden from the patient’s perspective than those with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Major finding: The mean Visual Analogue Scale scores for pain (34 vs 32; P < .001) and fatigue (35 vs 33; P = .001) were slightly higher in patients with PsA vs RA. Women with PsA vs RA across all age groups had significantly higher scores for pain (<50 years old: 28 vs 18; >70 years old: 48 vs 38) and fatigue (50-59 years old: 41 vs 31; >70 years old: 46 vs 36; all P < .05).

Study details: Findings are from a cross-sectional analysis including patients with PsA (n = 3598) and RA (n = 13,913).

Disclosures: This study was funded by State Research Funding, Kuopio University Hospital Catchment Area, Kuopio, Finland. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Weman L et al. Disease burden measured by patient-reported outcomes: Does psoriatic arthritis feel worse than rheumatoid arthritis? A cross-sectional nationwide study. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2023 (May 15). doi: 10.55563/clinexprheumatol/h9hn90

Key clinical point: Many patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) have impaired sleep despite treatment, with female patients having worse sleep quality than male patients.

Major finding: Overall, 46.6% of patients in the entire cohort had abnormal sleep behavior, with sleep quality being worse in women vs men (P < .001). Depressive symptoms (P < .001), female sex (P = .014), and Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (P = .003) predicted insomnia in PsA.

Study details: The data come from a retrospective medical chart analysis of 330 patients with spondyloarthritis, including 168 patients with PsA and 162 patients with axSpA.

Disclosures: This study was partly funded by an unrestricted grant from Novartis Pharma GmbH, Germany. Several authors, including the lead author, reported receiving speaker honoraria or research or travel grants or serving on advisory boards for several sources, including Novartis.

Source: Frede N et al. Sleep behaviour differs in women and men with psoriatic arthritis and axial spondyloarthritis with impact on quality of life and depressive symptoms. RMD Open. 2023;9:e002912 (May 19). doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2022-002912

Key clinical point: Many patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) have impaired sleep despite treatment, with female patients having worse sleep quality than male patients.

Major finding: Overall, 46.6% of patients in the entire cohort had abnormal sleep behavior, with sleep quality being worse in women vs men (P < .001). Depressive symptoms (P < .001), female sex (P = .014), and Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (P = .003) predicted insomnia in PsA.

Study details: The data come from a retrospective medical chart analysis of 330 patients with spondyloarthritis, including 168 patients with PsA and 162 patients with axSpA.

Disclosures: This study was partly funded by an unrestricted grant from Novartis Pharma GmbH, Germany. Several authors, including the lead author, reported receiving speaker honoraria or research or travel grants or serving on advisory boards for several sources, including Novartis.

Source: Frede N et al. Sleep behaviour differs in women and men with psoriatic arthritis and axial spondyloarthritis with impact on quality of life and depressive symptoms. RMD Open. 2023;9:e002912 (May 19). doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2022-002912

Key clinical point: Many patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) have impaired sleep despite treatment, with female patients having worse sleep quality than male patients.

Major finding: Overall, 46.6% of patients in the entire cohort had abnormal sleep behavior, with sleep quality being worse in women vs men (P < .001). Depressive symptoms (P < .001), female sex (P = .014), and Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (P = .003) predicted insomnia in PsA.

Study details: The data come from a retrospective medical chart analysis of 330 patients with spondyloarthritis, including 168 patients with PsA and 162 patients with axSpA.

Disclosures: This study was partly funded by an unrestricted grant from Novartis Pharma GmbH, Germany. Several authors, including the lead author, reported receiving speaker honoraria or research or travel grants or serving on advisory boards for several sources, including Novartis.

Source: Frede N et al. Sleep behaviour differs in women and men with psoriatic arthritis and axial spondyloarthritis with impact on quality of life and depressive symptoms. RMD Open. 2023;9:e002912 (May 19). doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2022-002912

Key clinical point: Patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and those with Behçet’s syndrome (BS) had significantly elevated levels of serum interleukin-36 alpha (IL-36α), although the extent was lesser in BS, highlighting the potential role of the serum IL-36α level in differential diagnosis between PsA and BS.

Major finding: The median serum IL-36α level in patients with BS (201.7 pg/mL) was significantly higher than that in control individuals (16.9 pg/mL; P < .001) but lower than that in patients with PsA (544 pg/mL; P < .001). An empirical cut-off level of 420.6 pg/mL for IL-36α showed a specificity of 0.93 and sensitivity of 0.70 to distinguish patients with PsA from those with BS.

Study details: The data come from a cross-sectional study including patients with PsA (n = 80) and BS (n = 90) and control individuals without immune-mediated inflammatory disease (n = 80) who were assessed for serum IL-36α levels.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any external funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Bettiol A et al. Serum interleukin-36 α as a candidate biomarker to distinguish Behçet’s syndrome and psoriatic arthritis. Int J Mol Sci. 2023;24:8817 (May 16). doi: 10.3390/ijms24108817

Key clinical point: Patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and those with Behçet’s syndrome (BS) had significantly elevated levels of serum interleukin-36 alpha (IL-36α), although the extent was lesser in BS, highlighting the potential role of the serum IL-36α level in differential diagnosis between PsA and BS.

Major finding: The median serum IL-36α level in patients with BS (201.7 pg/mL) was significantly higher than that in control individuals (16.9 pg/mL; P < .001) but lower than that in patients with PsA (544 pg/mL; P < .001). An empirical cut-off level of 420.6 pg/mL for IL-36α showed a specificity of 0.93 and sensitivity of 0.70 to distinguish patients with PsA from those with BS.

Study details: The data come from a cross-sectional study including patients with PsA (n = 80) and BS (n = 90) and control individuals without immune-mediated inflammatory disease (n = 80) who were assessed for serum IL-36α levels.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any external funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Bettiol A et al. Serum interleukin-36 α as a candidate biomarker to distinguish Behçet’s syndrome and psoriatic arthritis. Int J Mol Sci. 2023;24:8817 (May 16). doi: 10.3390/ijms24108817

Key clinical point: Patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and those with Behçet’s syndrome (BS) had significantly elevated levels of serum interleukin-36 alpha (IL-36α), although the extent was lesser in BS, highlighting the potential role of the serum IL-36α level in differential diagnosis between PsA and BS.

Major finding: The median serum IL-36α level in patients with BS (201.7 pg/mL) was significantly higher than that in control individuals (16.9 pg/mL; P < .001) but lower than that in patients with PsA (544 pg/mL; P < .001). An empirical cut-off level of 420.6 pg/mL for IL-36α showed a specificity of 0.93 and sensitivity of 0.70 to distinguish patients with PsA from those with BS.

Study details: The data come from a cross-sectional study including patients with PsA (n = 80) and BS (n = 90) and control individuals without immune-mediated inflammatory disease (n = 80) who were assessed for serum IL-36α levels.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any external funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Bettiol A et al. Serum interleukin-36 α as a candidate biomarker to distinguish Behçet’s syndrome and psoriatic arthritis. Int J Mol Sci. 2023;24:8817 (May 16). doi: 10.3390/ijms24108817

Key clinical point: No clinically meaningful treatment-related differences were observed in the efficacy, safety, and treatment persistence of ustekinumab over 3 years in younger (<60 years) and older (≥60 years) patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Major finding: At 6 months, 51.7% and 43.8% of patients aged <60 and ≥60 years achieved clinical Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis low disease activity, respectively, with the efficacy being maintained through 36 months. The proportions of patients reporting at least one (32.7% vs 40.9%) and serious (5.3% vs 9.6%) adverse events and treatment persistence were not significantly different among patients age < 60 vs ≥ 60 years.

Study details: This post hoc analysis of the PsABio trial included patients with PsA who received ustekinumab and were subgrouped into those age < 60 years (n = 336) and ≥ 60 years (n = 103).

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by Janssen. Six authors declared being current or former employees of Janssen or shareholders of Johnson & Johnson. Three authors reported ties with various sources, including Janssen.

Source: Gossec L et al. Response to treatment in psoriatic arthritis, the effect of age: analysis of patients receiving ustekinumab in the PsABio real-world study. Arthritis Res Ther. 2023;25:100 (Jun 9). doi: 10.1186/s13075-023-03078-8

Key clinical point: No clinically meaningful treatment-related differences were observed in the efficacy, safety, and treatment persistence of ustekinumab over 3 years in younger (<60 years) and older (≥60 years) patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Major finding: At 6 months, 51.7% and 43.8% of patients aged <60 and ≥60 years achieved clinical Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis low disease activity, respectively, with the efficacy being maintained through 36 months. The proportions of patients reporting at least one (32.7% vs 40.9%) and serious (5.3% vs 9.6%) adverse events and treatment persistence were not significantly different among patients age < 60 vs ≥ 60 years.

Study details: This post hoc analysis of the PsABio trial included patients with PsA who received ustekinumab and were subgrouped into those age < 60 years (n = 336) and ≥ 60 years (n = 103).

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by Janssen. Six authors declared being current or former employees of Janssen or shareholders of Johnson & Johnson. Three authors reported ties with various sources, including Janssen.

Source: Gossec L et al. Response to treatment in psoriatic arthritis, the effect of age: analysis of patients receiving ustekinumab in the PsABio real-world study. Arthritis Res Ther. 2023;25:100 (Jun 9). doi: 10.1186/s13075-023-03078-8

Key clinical point: No clinically meaningful treatment-related differences were observed in the efficacy, safety, and treatment persistence of ustekinumab over 3 years in younger (<60 years) and older (≥60 years) patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Major finding: At 6 months, 51.7% and 43.8% of patients aged <60 and ≥60 years achieved clinical Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis low disease activity, respectively, with the efficacy being maintained through 36 months. The proportions of patients reporting at least one (32.7% vs 40.9%) and serious (5.3% vs 9.6%) adverse events and treatment persistence were not significantly different among patients age < 60 vs ≥ 60 years.

Study details: This post hoc analysis of the PsABio trial included patients with PsA who received ustekinumab and were subgrouped into those age < 60 years (n = 336) and ≥ 60 years (n = 103).

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by Janssen. Six authors declared being current or former employees of Janssen or shareholders of Johnson & Johnson. Three authors reported ties with various sources, including Janssen.

Source: Gossec L et al. Response to treatment in psoriatic arthritis, the effect of age: analysis of patients receiving ustekinumab in the PsABio real-world study. Arthritis Res Ther. 2023;25:100 (Jun 9). doi: 10.1186/s13075-023-03078-8

MADRID – Recent research has confirmed the impact of periodontitis on risk of neurologic diseases, especially the increased risks for stroke and Alzheimer’s disease.

The Spanish Society of Dentistry and Osseointegration (SEPA) and the Spanish Society of Neurology (SEN) recently released a report with the latest data on this topic. The report reviews, updates, and presents the most recent scientific evidence regarding this link. It also provides practical recommendations that, on the basis of the evidence, should be applied in dental clinics and neurology centers.

As Yago Leira, DDS, PhD, periodontist and coordinator of the SEPA-SEN working group, told this news organization, “The main takeaway from this scientific report is that patients with periodontitis are at nearly twice the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease and at triple the risk of ischemic stroke.”

Data from the report show that individuals with periodontitis are at 2.8 times’ higher risk of ischemic stroke. The available evidence regarding hemorrhagic stroke, however, is conflicting.

How does this dental condition affect the course of cardiovascular disease? Observational studies have shown that those who have had an ischemic stroke and have a confirmed diagnosis of periodontitis are at greater risk of suffering a recurrent vascular event, worse neurologic deficit, and postictal depression than are patients without periodontitis.
 

Immune‐mediated inflammation

As far as its link to Alzheimer’s disease, meta-analyses of epidemiologic studies show that periodontitis is associated with a 1.7 times greater risk of this type of dementia and that the risk triples among patients with more serious forms of periodontitis.

Likewise, studies suggest that individuals with dementia or neurocognitive impairment are at a greater risk of suffering periodontitis. Other studies indicate that individuals with periodontitis have worse outcomes on various neuropsychological tests of cognitive function.

The current report presents the evidence from three clearly defined perspectives: The epidemiologic association between periodontitis and these neurologic diseases, the biological mechanisms that may explain this link, and interventional studies of dental treatment as a means of preventing stroke and Alzheimer’s disease.

“There is a possible biological explanation for these epidemiological findings. The report concludes that the low-grade chronic, systemic, immune-mediated inflammatory response induced by the bacteria and their endotoxins and the proinflammatory mediators circulating through the blood contributes to various biological processes that are involved in neurological impairment and cerebral ischemia,” said Dr. Leira, one of the report’s authors.

Ana Frank, MD, PhD, another author of this study, is head of the neurology department at the La Paz University Hospital in Madrid and a member of the SEPA-SEN group. She said in an interview that the main biological mechanism in stroke and Alzheimer’s disease is chronic exposure of the entire brain (vasculature, neurons, and astrocytes) to the harmful effects of periodontal infection. “Although low in intensity, this [exposure] is sufficient to set off a series of events that eventually lead to vascular endothelial injury, changes to neurons and astrocytes, and damage to the neuropil.”

As far as the evidence of an epidemiologic association between periodontitis and both neurologic diseases, Dr. Frank cited the exponential increase in risk brought on by periodontitis. She said that further epidemiologic studies are necessary to gain a better understanding of the magnitude of the problem.
 

A preventive alternative?

Dr. Leira cited evidence that periodontal treatment could provide a means of preventing stroke and dementia. He pointed out that numerous population studies have observed various oral health interventions (e.g., periodic dental prophylaxis or periodontal treatment) and regular dental visits to reduce the risk of developing dementia and stroke. “However, we don’t currently have randomized clinical trials that were designed to investigate whether periodontal treatment may be a primary or a secondary preventive measure against these neurological conditions.”

According to Dr. Leira, “There are currently several research groups in the United States and Europe, including ours, that are performing clinical trials to assess the impact of periodontal treatment on recurrent vascular events in patients with cerebrovascular disease.

“On the other hand, there are various interventional studies underway that are evaluating the potential effect of periodontal treatment on cognitive function in patients with dementia. Along these lines, there appear to be encouraging results from the 1-year follow-up in the GAIN study, which was a phase 2/3 clinical trial testing atuzaginstat. Atuzaginstat is an inhibitor of gingipain, the endotoxin produced by Porphyromonas gingivalis, which is one of the bacteria thought to be responsible for periodontitis. The drug reduces neurocognitive impairment in patients with high levels of antibodies against this periodontal pathogen.”
 

Toward clinical practice

The report has a practical focus. The intention is that this evidence will make its way into recommendations for dentists to implement in clinical practice, especially with elderly patients or patients with risk factors for stroke.

In this regard, Dr. Leira said, “On one hand, dentists have to know how to approach patients who have already suffered a stroke (most of whom have vascular risk factors like diabetes and hypertension), many of whom have polypharmacy and are [taking] certain drugs like blood thinners that could negatively impact various dental procedures. In such cases, it is important to maintain direct contact with a neurologist, since these patients ought to be treated with a multidisciplinary approach.

“On the other hand, each patient who comes to the dental office and has a diagnosis of periodontitis could be screened to identify potential vascular risk factors, even though the definitive diagnosis would need to be given by a specialist physician. To this end, SEPA is carrying out the Promosalud (“Health Promotion”) project, which will soon be applied in a large number of dental clinics in Spain,” added Dr. Leira.

“Lastly, specialists in odontology must understand the potential positive benefits surrounding systemic vascular inflammation that periodontal treatment could provide, including, for example, metabolic control and lowering blood pressure.”

For patients with cognitive impairment, the authors of the report recommended adhering to the following steps during dental visits: Inform the patient and the patient’s caregiver about the importance of good dental hygiene and monitor for any signs of infection or dental disease; address pain in every patient with cognitive impairment and dental problems, especially those with agitation, even if the patient isn’t specifically complaining of pain (also, try not to give opioids); finally, avoid sedation as much as possible and use the smallest effective dose if it becomes necessary.
 

Prescribe oral hygiene

Regarding recommendations that neurologists should follow during consultations in light of the link between these diseases and periodontitis, Dr. Frank said, “Regardless of how old our patients are, I believe it’s important to emphasize the importance of practicing good oral and dental hygiene. It’s a good strategy to put this in writing in medical reports, alongside the usual recommendations about healthy lifestyle habits and monitoring for diseases like high blood pressure, diabetes, or dyslipidemia. These, among other factors like smoking, a sedentary lifestyle, alcoholism, and other drug addictions, are vascular risk factors and are therefore risk factors for stroke and dementia.”

According to Dr. Frank, the public is largely unaware of the relationship between periodontitis and incident neurologic diseases. “We still have a long way to go before we can say that the public is aware of this potential link. And not just the public, either. I believe we must stress among our colleagues and among health care professionals in general the importance of promoting dental health to improve people’s overall health.”

In this regard, Dr. Leira emphasized the authors’ intention to make this report available not only to oral health and neurologic health care professionals but also to primary care physicians and nurses so that patients with cerebrovascular disease or Alzheimer’s disease and their caregivers can develop a greater awareness and thereby improve prevention.

“This study will also provide the scientific basis to support the SEPA-SEN working group as they implement their future activities and projects,” Dr. Leira concluded.

Dr. Leira and Dr. Frank have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish Edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

MADRID – Recent research has confirmed the impact of periodontitis on risk of neurologic diseases, especially the increased risks for stroke and Alzheimer’s disease.

The Spanish Society of Dentistry and Osseointegration (SEPA) and the Spanish Society of Neurology (SEN) recently released a report with the latest data on this topic. The report reviews, updates, and presents the most recent scientific evidence regarding this link. It also provides practical recommendations that, on the basis of the evidence, should be applied in dental clinics and neurology centers.

As Yago Leira, DDS, PhD, periodontist and coordinator of the SEPA-SEN working group, told this news organization, “The main takeaway from this scientific report is that patients with periodontitis are at nearly twice the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease and at triple the risk of ischemic stroke.”

Data from the report show that individuals with periodontitis are at 2.8 times’ higher risk of ischemic stroke. The available evidence regarding hemorrhagic stroke, however, is conflicting.

How does this dental condition affect the course of cardiovascular disease? Observational studies have shown that those who have had an ischemic stroke and have a confirmed diagnosis of periodontitis are at greater risk of suffering a recurrent vascular event, worse neurologic deficit, and postictal depression than are patients without periodontitis.
 

Immune‐mediated inflammation

As far as its link to Alzheimer’s disease, meta-analyses of epidemiologic studies show that periodontitis is associated with a 1.7 times greater risk of this type of dementia and that the risk triples among patients with more serious forms of periodontitis.

Likewise, studies suggest that individuals with dementia or neurocognitive impairment are at a greater risk of suffering periodontitis. Other studies indicate that individuals with periodontitis have worse outcomes on various neuropsychological tests of cognitive function.

The current report presents the evidence from three clearly defined perspectives: The epidemiologic association between periodontitis and these neurologic diseases, the biological mechanisms that may explain this link, and interventional studies of dental treatment as a means of preventing stroke and Alzheimer’s disease.

“There is a possible biological explanation for these epidemiological findings. The report concludes that the low-grade chronic, systemic, immune-mediated inflammatory response induced by the bacteria and their endotoxins and the proinflammatory mediators circulating through the blood contributes to various biological processes that are involved in neurological impairment and cerebral ischemia,” said Dr. Leira, one of the report’s authors.

Ana Frank, MD, PhD, another author of this study, is head of the neurology department at the La Paz University Hospital in Madrid and a member of the SEPA-SEN group. She said in an interview that the main biological mechanism in stroke and Alzheimer’s disease is chronic exposure of the entire brain (vasculature, neurons, and astrocytes) to the harmful effects of periodontal infection. “Although low in intensity, this [exposure] is sufficient to set off a series of events that eventually lead to vascular endothelial injury, changes to neurons and astrocytes, and damage to the neuropil.”

As far as the evidence of an epidemiologic association between periodontitis and both neurologic diseases, Dr. Frank cited the exponential increase in risk brought on by periodontitis. She said that further epidemiologic studies are necessary to gain a better understanding of the magnitude of the problem.
 

A preventive alternative?

Dr. Leira cited evidence that periodontal treatment could provide a means of preventing stroke and dementia. He pointed out that numerous population studies have observed various oral health interventions (e.g., periodic dental prophylaxis or periodontal treatment) and regular dental visits to reduce the risk of developing dementia and stroke. “However, we don’t currently have randomized clinical trials that were designed to investigate whether periodontal treatment may be a primary or a secondary preventive measure against these neurological conditions.”

According to Dr. Leira, “There are currently several research groups in the United States and Europe, including ours, that are performing clinical trials to assess the impact of periodontal treatment on recurrent vascular events in patients with cerebrovascular disease.

“On the other hand, there are various interventional studies underway that are evaluating the potential effect of periodontal treatment on cognitive function in patients with dementia. Along these lines, there appear to be encouraging results from the 1-year follow-up in the GAIN study, which was a phase 2/3 clinical trial testing atuzaginstat. Atuzaginstat is an inhibitor of gingipain, the endotoxin produced by Porphyromonas gingivalis, which is one of the bacteria thought to be responsible for periodontitis. The drug reduces neurocognitive impairment in patients with high levels of antibodies against this periodontal pathogen.”
 

Toward clinical practice

The report has a practical focus. The intention is that this evidence will make its way into recommendations for dentists to implement in clinical practice, especially with elderly patients or patients with risk factors for stroke.

In this regard, Dr. Leira said, “On one hand, dentists have to know how to approach patients who have already suffered a stroke (most of whom have vascular risk factors like diabetes and hypertension), many of whom have polypharmacy and are [taking] certain drugs like blood thinners that could negatively impact various dental procedures. In such cases, it is important to maintain direct contact with a neurologist, since these patients ought to be treated with a multidisciplinary approach.

“On the other hand, each patient who comes to the dental office and has a diagnosis of periodontitis could be screened to identify potential vascular risk factors, even though the definitive diagnosis would need to be given by a specialist physician. To this end, SEPA is carrying out the Promosalud (“Health Promotion”) project, which will soon be applied in a large number of dental clinics in Spain,” added Dr. Leira.

“Lastly, specialists in odontology must understand the potential positive benefits surrounding systemic vascular inflammation that periodontal treatment could provide, including, for example, metabolic control and lowering blood pressure.”

For patients with cognitive impairment, the authors of the report recommended adhering to the following steps during dental visits: Inform the patient and the patient’s caregiver about the importance of good dental hygiene and monitor for any signs of infection or dental disease; address pain in every patient with cognitive impairment and dental problems, especially those with agitation, even if the patient isn’t specifically complaining of pain (also, try not to give opioids); finally, avoid sedation as much as possible and use the smallest effective dose if it becomes necessary.
 

Prescribe oral hygiene

Regarding recommendations that neurologists should follow during consultations in light of the link between these diseases and periodontitis, Dr. Frank said, “Regardless of how old our patients are, I believe it’s important to emphasize the importance of practicing good oral and dental hygiene. It’s a good strategy to put this in writing in medical reports, alongside the usual recommendations about healthy lifestyle habits and monitoring for diseases like high blood pressure, diabetes, or dyslipidemia. These, among other factors like smoking, a sedentary lifestyle, alcoholism, and other drug addictions, are vascular risk factors and are therefore risk factors for stroke and dementia.”

According to Dr. Frank, the public is largely unaware of the relationship between periodontitis and incident neurologic diseases. “We still have a long way to go before we can say that the public is aware of this potential link. And not just the public, either. I believe we must stress among our colleagues and among health care professionals in general the importance of promoting dental health to improve people’s overall health.”

In this regard, Dr. Leira emphasized the authors’ intention to make this report available not only to oral health and neurologic health care professionals but also to primary care physicians and nurses so that patients with cerebrovascular disease or Alzheimer’s disease and their caregivers can develop a greater awareness and thereby improve prevention.

“This study will also provide the scientific basis to support the SEPA-SEN working group as they implement their future activities and projects,” Dr. Leira concluded.

Dr. Leira and Dr. Frank have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish Edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

MADRID – Recent research has confirmed the impact of periodontitis on risk of neurologic diseases, especially the increased risks for stroke and Alzheimer’s disease.

The Spanish Society of Dentistry and Osseointegration (SEPA) and the Spanish Society of Neurology (SEN) recently released a report with the latest data on this topic. The report reviews, updates, and presents the most recent scientific evidence regarding this link. It also provides practical recommendations that, on the basis of the evidence, should be applied in dental clinics and neurology centers.

As Yago Leira, DDS, PhD, periodontist and coordinator of the SEPA-SEN working group, told this news organization, “The main takeaway from this scientific report is that patients with periodontitis are at nearly twice the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease and at triple the risk of ischemic stroke.”

Data from the report show that individuals with periodontitis are at 2.8 times’ higher risk of ischemic stroke. The available evidence regarding hemorrhagic stroke, however, is conflicting.

How does this dental condition affect the course of cardiovascular disease? Observational studies have shown that those who have had an ischemic stroke and have a confirmed diagnosis of periodontitis are at greater risk of suffering a recurrent vascular event, worse neurologic deficit, and postictal depression than are patients without periodontitis.
 

Immune‐mediated inflammation

As far as its link to Alzheimer’s disease, meta-analyses of epidemiologic studies show that periodontitis is associated with a 1.7 times greater risk of this type of dementia and that the risk triples among patients with more serious forms of periodontitis.

Likewise, studies suggest that individuals with dementia or neurocognitive impairment are at a greater risk of suffering periodontitis. Other studies indicate that individuals with periodontitis have worse outcomes on various neuropsychological tests of cognitive function.

The current report presents the evidence from three clearly defined perspectives: The epidemiologic association between periodontitis and these neurologic diseases, the biological mechanisms that may explain this link, and interventional studies of dental treatment as a means of preventing stroke and Alzheimer’s disease.

“There is a possible biological explanation for these epidemiological findings. The report concludes that the low-grade chronic, systemic, immune-mediated inflammatory response induced by the bacteria and their endotoxins and the proinflammatory mediators circulating through the blood contributes to various biological processes that are involved in neurological impairment and cerebral ischemia,” said Dr. Leira, one of the report’s authors.

Ana Frank, MD, PhD, another author of this study, is head of the neurology department at the La Paz University Hospital in Madrid and a member of the SEPA-SEN group. She said in an interview that the main biological mechanism in stroke and Alzheimer’s disease is chronic exposure of the entire brain (vasculature, neurons, and astrocytes) to the harmful effects of periodontal infection. “Although low in intensity, this [exposure] is sufficient to set off a series of events that eventually lead to vascular endothelial injury, changes to neurons and astrocytes, and damage to the neuropil.”

As far as the evidence of an epidemiologic association between periodontitis and both neurologic diseases, Dr. Frank cited the exponential increase in risk brought on by periodontitis. She said that further epidemiologic studies are necessary to gain a better understanding of the magnitude of the problem.
 

A preventive alternative?

Dr. Leira cited evidence that periodontal treatment could provide a means of preventing stroke and dementia. He pointed out that numerous population studies have observed various oral health interventions (e.g., periodic dental prophylaxis or periodontal treatment) and regular dental visits to reduce the risk of developing dementia and stroke. “However, we don’t currently have randomized clinical trials that were designed to investigate whether periodontal treatment may be a primary or a secondary preventive measure against these neurological conditions.”

According to Dr. Leira, “There are currently several research groups in the United States and Europe, including ours, that are performing clinical trials to assess the impact of periodontal treatment on recurrent vascular events in patients with cerebrovascular disease.

“On the other hand, there are various interventional studies underway that are evaluating the potential effect of periodontal treatment on cognitive function in patients with dementia. Along these lines, there appear to be encouraging results from the 1-year follow-up in the GAIN study, which was a phase 2/3 clinical trial testing atuzaginstat. Atuzaginstat is an inhibitor of gingipain, the endotoxin produced by Porphyromonas gingivalis, which is one of the bacteria thought to be responsible for periodontitis. The drug reduces neurocognitive impairment in patients with high levels of antibodies against this periodontal pathogen.”
 

Toward clinical practice

The report has a practical focus. The intention is that this evidence will make its way into recommendations for dentists to implement in clinical practice, especially with elderly patients or patients with risk factors for stroke.

In this regard, Dr. Leira said, “On one hand, dentists have to know how to approach patients who have already suffered a stroke (most of whom have vascular risk factors like diabetes and hypertension), many of whom have polypharmacy and are [taking] certain drugs like blood thinners that could negatively impact various dental procedures. In such cases, it is important to maintain direct contact with a neurologist, since these patients ought to be treated with a multidisciplinary approach.

“On the other hand, each patient who comes to the dental office and has a diagnosis of periodontitis could be screened to identify potential vascular risk factors, even though the definitive diagnosis would need to be given by a specialist physician. To this end, SEPA is carrying out the Promosalud (“Health Promotion”) project, which will soon be applied in a large number of dental clinics in Spain,” added Dr. Leira.

“Lastly, specialists in odontology must understand the potential positive benefits surrounding systemic vascular inflammation that periodontal treatment could provide, including, for example, metabolic control and lowering blood pressure.”

For patients with cognitive impairment, the authors of the report recommended adhering to the following steps during dental visits: Inform the patient and the patient’s caregiver about the importance of good dental hygiene and monitor for any signs of infection or dental disease; address pain in every patient with cognitive impairment and dental problems, especially those with agitation, even if the patient isn’t specifically complaining of pain (also, try not to give opioids); finally, avoid sedation as much as possible and use the smallest effective dose if it becomes necessary.
 

Prescribe oral hygiene

Regarding recommendations that neurologists should follow during consultations in light of the link between these diseases and periodontitis, Dr. Frank said, “Regardless of how old our patients are, I believe it’s important to emphasize the importance of practicing good oral and dental hygiene. It’s a good strategy to put this in writing in medical reports, alongside the usual recommendations about healthy lifestyle habits and monitoring for diseases like high blood pressure, diabetes, or dyslipidemia. These, among other factors like smoking, a sedentary lifestyle, alcoholism, and other drug addictions, are vascular risk factors and are therefore risk factors for stroke and dementia.”

According to Dr. Frank, the public is largely unaware of the relationship between periodontitis and incident neurologic diseases. “We still have a long way to go before we can say that the public is aware of this potential link. And not just the public, either. I believe we must stress among our colleagues and among health care professionals in general the importance of promoting dental health to improve people’s overall health.”

In this regard, Dr. Leira emphasized the authors’ intention to make this report available not only to oral health and neurologic health care professionals but also to primary care physicians and nurses so that patients with cerebrovascular disease or Alzheimer’s disease and their caregivers can develop a greater awareness and thereby improve prevention.

“This study will also provide the scientific basis to support the SEPA-SEN working group as they implement their future activities and projects,” Dr. Leira concluded.

Dr. Leira and Dr. Frank have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish Edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.