Clinical Topics & News

Background

There are no studies in oncologic literature that report biomarker alterations in Vietnam War veterans with lung cancers. Our study elucidates genetic mutations in veterans with lung cancer exposed to Agent Orange (AO) and compares them to non-Agent Orange exposed (NAO) veterans.

Methods

We collected data of veterans with lung cancers from VA Central California Health Care System who had NGS testing via Foundation One CDx from January 2007 to January 2022. We collected data of AO versus NAO veterans including age, race, gender, smoking and exposure history, histologic subtypes, treatment modalities, PDL-1, and molecular mutations. Median PFS and OS were calculated between AO and NAO in all veterans and adenocarcinoma group after first-line therapy in months by Kaplan-Meier R log-rank test.

Results

There were total of 58 lung cancer veterans, 27 AO and 31 NAO. 33 (56.9%) veterans had adenocarcinoma (20 AO vs 13 NAO). Veterans were White (81%), male (93%) and all had tobacco exposure. The median age at diagnosis was 72 years in both groups. 65.5% had stage III-IV disease. Veterans with AO adenocarcinoma had more early stage I-II disease (50%) as compared to NAO (16%). The AO group had more PDL1 expression (TPS > 1%). 15/31 (48.4%) NAO received immunotherapy vs 7/27 (25.9%) AO. 104 molecular mutations were identified. Veterans with AO had more ROS1, MET, and NRAS while NAO had more EGFR, KRAS, and NF1 mutations. In adenocarcinoma group, AO had more MET and less KRAS while NAO has more KRAS, TP53, and EGFR. The median PFS and OS for all veterans with AO vs NAO were 8 mo vs 6 mo and 12 mo vs 10 mo, respectively (non-significant [NS]). In adenocarcinoma group the median PFS and OS for AO vs NAO veterans were 8 mo vs 4 mo and 11.75 mo vs 6 mo, respectively (NS).

Conclusions

Our study is the first to report molecular biomarkers in AO and NAO veterans with lung cancers. We found different markers between the groups. The median PFS and OS of AO and adenocarcinoma AO veterans were longer due to early stage diagnoses while NAO vetera

Background

There are no studies in oncologic literature that report biomarker alterations in Vietnam War veterans with lung cancers. Our study elucidates genetic mutations in veterans with lung cancer exposed to Agent Orange (AO) and compares them to non-Agent Orange exposed (NAO) veterans.

Methods

We collected data of veterans with lung cancers from VA Central California Health Care System who had NGS testing via Foundation One CDx from January 2007 to January 2022. We collected data of AO versus NAO veterans including age, race, gender, smoking and exposure history, histologic subtypes, treatment modalities, PDL-1, and molecular mutations. Median PFS and OS were calculated between AO and NAO in all veterans and adenocarcinoma group after first-line therapy in months by Kaplan-Meier R log-rank test.

Results

There were total of 58 lung cancer veterans, 27 AO and 31 NAO. 33 (56.9%) veterans had adenocarcinoma (20 AO vs 13 NAO). Veterans were White (81%), male (93%) and all had tobacco exposure. The median age at diagnosis was 72 years in both groups. 65.5% had stage III-IV disease. Veterans with AO adenocarcinoma had more early stage I-II disease (50%) as compared to NAO (16%). The AO group had more PDL1 expression (TPS > 1%). 15/31 (48.4%) NAO received immunotherapy vs 7/27 (25.9%) AO. 104 molecular mutations were identified. Veterans with AO had more ROS1, MET, and NRAS while NAO had more EGFR, KRAS, and NF1 mutations. In adenocarcinoma group, AO had more MET and less KRAS while NAO has more KRAS, TP53, and EGFR. The median PFS and OS for all veterans with AO vs NAO were 8 mo vs 6 mo and 12 mo vs 10 mo, respectively (non-significant [NS]). In adenocarcinoma group the median PFS and OS for AO vs NAO veterans were 8 mo vs 4 mo and 11.75 mo vs 6 mo, respectively (NS).

Conclusions

Our study is the first to report molecular biomarkers in AO and NAO veterans with lung cancers. We found different markers between the groups. The median PFS and OS of AO and adenocarcinoma AO veterans were longer due to early stage diagnoses while NAO vetera

Background

There are no studies in oncologic literature that report biomarker alterations in Vietnam War veterans with lung cancers. Our study elucidates genetic mutations in veterans with lung cancer exposed to Agent Orange (AO) and compares them to non-Agent Orange exposed (NAO) veterans.

Methods

We collected data of veterans with lung cancers from VA Central California Health Care System who had NGS testing via Foundation One CDx from January 2007 to January 2022. We collected data of AO versus NAO veterans including age, race, gender, smoking and exposure history, histologic subtypes, treatment modalities, PDL-1, and molecular mutations. Median PFS and OS were calculated between AO and NAO in all veterans and adenocarcinoma group after first-line therapy in months by Kaplan-Meier R log-rank test.

Results

There were total of 58 lung cancer veterans, 27 AO and 31 NAO. 33 (56.9%) veterans had adenocarcinoma (20 AO vs 13 NAO). Veterans were White (81%), male (93%) and all had tobacco exposure. The median age at diagnosis was 72 years in both groups. 65.5% had stage III-IV disease. Veterans with AO adenocarcinoma had more early stage I-II disease (50%) as compared to NAO (16%). The AO group had more PDL1 expression (TPS > 1%). 15/31 (48.4%) NAO received immunotherapy vs 7/27 (25.9%) AO. 104 molecular mutations were identified. Veterans with AO had more ROS1, MET, and NRAS while NAO had more EGFR, KRAS, and NF1 mutations. In adenocarcinoma group, AO had more MET and less KRAS while NAO has more KRAS, TP53, and EGFR. The median PFS and OS for all veterans with AO vs NAO were 8 mo vs 6 mo and 12 mo vs 10 mo, respectively (non-significant [NS]). In adenocarcinoma group the median PFS and OS for AO vs NAO veterans were 8 mo vs 4 mo and 11.75 mo vs 6 mo, respectively (NS).

Conclusions

Our study is the first to report molecular biomarkers in AO and NAO veterans with lung cancers. We found different markers between the groups. The median PFS and OS of AO and adenocarcinoma AO veterans were longer due to early stage diagnoses while NAO vetera

Introduction

Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is one of the most common and lethal cancers. Nextgeneration sequencing (NGS) has been recommended as a tool to help guide treatment by identifying actionable genetic mutations. However, data regarding realworld usage of NGS in a Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system is lacking. We conducted a retrospective observational study of the patterns of NGS usage in patients with mCRC at the South Texas Veterans Affairs Healthcare System (STVAHCS).

Methods

We identified patients with a diagnosis of mCRC evaluated and treated at STVAHCS between January 1, 2018 and June 1, 2022. We assessed the prevalence of utilizing NGS on solid tumor samples performed by Foundation One and identified the presence of different molecular aberrations detected by NGS.

Results

65 patients were identified. Median age was 68 years. 63 (96.9%) were males and 2 (3.1%) were females. 29 (44.6%) were Hispanic, 25 (38.5%) were White, 10 (15.4%) were African American and 1 (1.5%) was Pacific Islander. NGS was performed in 34 (52.3%) patients. The most common reasons for not performing NGS were unknown/not documented (54.8%), early mortality (29%), lack of adequate tissue (12.9%) and patient refusal of treatment (3.2%). The most common molecular aberrations identified in patients who had NGS were TP53 (73.5%), APC (64.7%), KRAS (47.1%), ATM (20.6%), SMAD4 (14.7%) and BRAF (14.7%). All patients who had NGS were found to have at least one identifiable mutation.

Conclusions

 Approximately 50% of patients with mCRC did not have NGS performed on their tissue sample. This rate is similar to other real-world studies in non-VA settings. Documented reasons for lack of NGS testing included inadequate tissue and early patient mortality. Other potential reasons could be lack of efficient VA clinical testing protocols, use of simple molecular testing rather than comprehensive NGS testing and limited knowledge of availability of NGS among providers. Measures that can be taken to increase utilization of NGS include incorporating NGS testing early in the disease course, incorporating testing into VA clinical pathways, improving physician education, increasing the size of solid tissue samples and ordering liquid biopsies where solid tissue is deficient.

Introduction

Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is one of the most common and lethal cancers. Nextgeneration sequencing (NGS) has been recommended as a tool to help guide treatment by identifying actionable genetic mutations. However, data regarding realworld usage of NGS in a Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system is lacking. We conducted a retrospective observational study of the patterns of NGS usage in patients with mCRC at the South Texas Veterans Affairs Healthcare System (STVAHCS).

Methods

We identified patients with a diagnosis of mCRC evaluated and treated at STVAHCS between January 1, 2018 and June 1, 2022. We assessed the prevalence of utilizing NGS on solid tumor samples performed by Foundation One and identified the presence of different molecular aberrations detected by NGS.

Results

65 patients were identified. Median age was 68 years. 63 (96.9%) were males and 2 (3.1%) were females. 29 (44.6%) were Hispanic, 25 (38.5%) were White, 10 (15.4%) were African American and 1 (1.5%) was Pacific Islander. NGS was performed in 34 (52.3%) patients. The most common reasons for not performing NGS were unknown/not documented (54.8%), early mortality (29%), lack of adequate tissue (12.9%) and patient refusal of treatment (3.2%). The most common molecular aberrations identified in patients who had NGS were TP53 (73.5%), APC (64.7%), KRAS (47.1%), ATM (20.6%), SMAD4 (14.7%) and BRAF (14.7%). All patients who had NGS were found to have at least one identifiable mutation.

Conclusions

 Approximately 50% of patients with mCRC did not have NGS performed on their tissue sample. This rate is similar to other real-world studies in non-VA settings. Documented reasons for lack of NGS testing included inadequate tissue and early patient mortality. Other potential reasons could be lack of efficient VA clinical testing protocols, use of simple molecular testing rather than comprehensive NGS testing and limited knowledge of availability of NGS among providers. Measures that can be taken to increase utilization of NGS include incorporating NGS testing early in the disease course, incorporating testing into VA clinical pathways, improving physician education, increasing the size of solid tissue samples and ordering liquid biopsies where solid tissue is deficient.

Introduction

Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is one of the most common and lethal cancers. Nextgeneration sequencing (NGS) has been recommended as a tool to help guide treatment by identifying actionable genetic mutations. However, data regarding realworld usage of NGS in a Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system is lacking. We conducted a retrospective observational study of the patterns of NGS usage in patients with mCRC at the South Texas Veterans Affairs Healthcare System (STVAHCS).

Methods

We identified patients with a diagnosis of mCRC evaluated and treated at STVAHCS between January 1, 2018 and June 1, 2022. We assessed the prevalence of utilizing NGS on solid tumor samples performed by Foundation One and identified the presence of different molecular aberrations detected by NGS.

Results

65 patients were identified. Median age was 68 years. 63 (96.9%) were males and 2 (3.1%) were females. 29 (44.6%) were Hispanic, 25 (38.5%) were White, 10 (15.4%) were African American and 1 (1.5%) was Pacific Islander. NGS was performed in 34 (52.3%) patients. The most common reasons for not performing NGS were unknown/not documented (54.8%), early mortality (29%), lack of adequate tissue (12.9%) and patient refusal of treatment (3.2%). The most common molecular aberrations identified in patients who had NGS were TP53 (73.5%), APC (64.7%), KRAS (47.1%), ATM (20.6%), SMAD4 (14.7%) and BRAF (14.7%). All patients who had NGS were found to have at least one identifiable mutation.

Conclusions

 Approximately 50% of patients with mCRC did not have NGS performed on their tissue sample. This rate is similar to other real-world studies in non-VA settings. Documented reasons for lack of NGS testing included inadequate tissue and early patient mortality. Other potential reasons could be lack of efficient VA clinical testing protocols, use of simple molecular testing rather than comprehensive NGS testing and limited knowledge of availability of NGS among providers. Measures that can be taken to increase utilization of NGS include incorporating NGS testing early in the disease course, incorporating testing into VA clinical pathways, improving physician education, increasing the size of solid tissue samples and ordering liquid biopsies where solid tissue is deficient.

Nearly 123,000 cancer deaths – or almost 30% of all cancer deaths – in the United States in 2019 were linked to cigarette smoking, a new analysis suggests.

That corresponds to more than 2 million person-years of lost life and nearly $21 billion in annual lost earnings.

“During the past few decades, smoking has substantially declined in the U.S., followed by great declines in mortality from lung cancer and some other smoking-related cancers,” said lead author Farhad Islami, MD, senior scientific director of cancer disparity research at the American Cancer Society.

AtnoYdur/Thinkstock

Despite this “remarkable progress, our results indicate that smoking is still associated with about 30% of all cancer deaths and substantial lost earnings in the U.S., and that more work should be done to further reduce smoking in the country,” he said.

The study was published online in the International Journal of Cancer.

Dr. Islami and colleagues had found that lost earnings from cancer deaths in 2015 came to nearly $95 billion. Other research showed that a substantial portion of lost earnings from cancer deaths could be traced to cigarette smoking, but estimates were more than a decade old.

To provide more recent estimates and help guide tobacco control policies, Dr. Islami and colleagues estimated person-years of life lost (PYLL) and lost earnings from cigarette smoking-related cancer deaths in 2019.

Of the 418,563 cancer deaths in adults ages 25-79 years, an estimated 122,951 could be linked to cigarette smoking. That corresponds to 29.4% of all cancer deaths and roughly 2.2 million PYLL. Translated to lost earnings, the authors estimated $20.9 billion total, with average lost earnings of $170,000 per cancer death linked to smoking.

By cancer type, lung cancer accounted for about 62%, or $12.9 billion, of the total lost earnings linked to smoking, followed by esophageal cancer (7%, or $1.5 billion), colorectal cancer (6%, or $1.2 billion), and liver cancer (5%, or $1.1 billion).

Smoking-related death rates were highest in the 13 “tobacco nation” states with weaker tobacco control policies and a higher rate of cigarette smoking. These states are Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and West Virginia.

The lost earnings rate in all 13 tobacco nation states combined was about 44% higher, compared with other states and the District of Columbia combined, and the annual PYLL rate was 47% higher in tobacco nation states.

The researchers estimated that if PYLL and lost earnings rates in all states matched those in Utah, which has the lowest rates, more than half of the total PYLL and lost earnings nationally would have been avoided. In other words, that would mean 1.27 million PYLL and $10.5 billion saved in 2019.

Ending the ‘scourge of tobacco’

To kick the smoking habit, health providers should “screen patients for tobacco use, document tobacco use status, advise people who smoke to quit, and assist in attempts to quit,” Dr. Islami said.

Getting more people to screen for lung cancer in the United States is also important, given that only 6.6% of eligible people in 2019 received screening.

In a statement, Lisa Lacasse, president of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, said this report “further demonstrates just how critical reducing tobacco use is to ending suffering and death from cancer.”

To end the “scourge of tobacco,” local, state, and federal lawmakers need to pass proven tobacco control policies, she said.

These include regular and significant tobacco tax increases, thorough statewide smoke-free laws, and enough funding for state programs to prevent and stop smoking. It also means ensuring all Medicaid enrollees have access to all services that can help smokers quit as well as access to all FDA-approved medications that help users stop smoking.

“We have the tools to get this done, we just need lawmakers to act,” Ms. Lacasse said.

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

Nearly 123,000 cancer deaths – or almost 30% of all cancer deaths – in the United States in 2019 were linked to cigarette smoking, a new analysis suggests.

That corresponds to more than 2 million person-years of lost life and nearly $21 billion in annual lost earnings.

“During the past few decades, smoking has substantially declined in the U.S., followed by great declines in mortality from lung cancer and some other smoking-related cancers,” said lead author Farhad Islami, MD, senior scientific director of cancer disparity research at the American Cancer Society.

AtnoYdur/Thinkstock

Despite this “remarkable progress, our results indicate that smoking is still associated with about 30% of all cancer deaths and substantial lost earnings in the U.S., and that more work should be done to further reduce smoking in the country,” he said.

The study was published online in the International Journal of Cancer.

Dr. Islami and colleagues had found that lost earnings from cancer deaths in 2015 came to nearly $95 billion. Other research showed that a substantial portion of lost earnings from cancer deaths could be traced to cigarette smoking, but estimates were more than a decade old.

To provide more recent estimates and help guide tobacco control policies, Dr. Islami and colleagues estimated person-years of life lost (PYLL) and lost earnings from cigarette smoking-related cancer deaths in 2019.

Of the 418,563 cancer deaths in adults ages 25-79 years, an estimated 122,951 could be linked to cigarette smoking. That corresponds to 29.4% of all cancer deaths and roughly 2.2 million PYLL. Translated to lost earnings, the authors estimated $20.9 billion total, with average lost earnings of $170,000 per cancer death linked to smoking.

By cancer type, lung cancer accounted for about 62%, or $12.9 billion, of the total lost earnings linked to smoking, followed by esophageal cancer (7%, or $1.5 billion), colorectal cancer (6%, or $1.2 billion), and liver cancer (5%, or $1.1 billion).

Smoking-related death rates were highest in the 13 “tobacco nation” states with weaker tobacco control policies and a higher rate of cigarette smoking. These states are Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and West Virginia.

The lost earnings rate in all 13 tobacco nation states combined was about 44% higher, compared with other states and the District of Columbia combined, and the annual PYLL rate was 47% higher in tobacco nation states.

The researchers estimated that if PYLL and lost earnings rates in all states matched those in Utah, which has the lowest rates, more than half of the total PYLL and lost earnings nationally would have been avoided. In other words, that would mean 1.27 million PYLL and $10.5 billion saved in 2019.

Ending the ‘scourge of tobacco’

To kick the smoking habit, health providers should “screen patients for tobacco use, document tobacco use status, advise people who smoke to quit, and assist in attempts to quit,” Dr. Islami said.

Getting more people to screen for lung cancer in the United States is also important, given that only 6.6% of eligible people in 2019 received screening.

In a statement, Lisa Lacasse, president of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, said this report “further demonstrates just how critical reducing tobacco use is to ending suffering and death from cancer.”

To end the “scourge of tobacco,” local, state, and federal lawmakers need to pass proven tobacco control policies, she said.

These include regular and significant tobacco tax increases, thorough statewide smoke-free laws, and enough funding for state programs to prevent and stop smoking. It also means ensuring all Medicaid enrollees have access to all services that can help smokers quit as well as access to all FDA-approved medications that help users stop smoking.

“We have the tools to get this done, we just need lawmakers to act,” Ms. Lacasse said.

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

Nearly 123,000 cancer deaths – or almost 30% of all cancer deaths – in the United States in 2019 were linked to cigarette smoking, a new analysis suggests.

That corresponds to more than 2 million person-years of lost life and nearly $21 billion in annual lost earnings.

“During the past few decades, smoking has substantially declined in the U.S., followed by great declines in mortality from lung cancer and some other smoking-related cancers,” said lead author Farhad Islami, MD, senior scientific director of cancer disparity research at the American Cancer Society.

AtnoYdur/Thinkstock

Despite this “remarkable progress, our results indicate that smoking is still associated with about 30% of all cancer deaths and substantial lost earnings in the U.S., and that more work should be done to further reduce smoking in the country,” he said.

The study was published online in the International Journal of Cancer.

Dr. Islami and colleagues had found that lost earnings from cancer deaths in 2015 came to nearly $95 billion. Other research showed that a substantial portion of lost earnings from cancer deaths could be traced to cigarette smoking, but estimates were more than a decade old.

To provide more recent estimates and help guide tobacco control policies, Dr. Islami and colleagues estimated person-years of life lost (PYLL) and lost earnings from cigarette smoking-related cancer deaths in 2019.

Of the 418,563 cancer deaths in adults ages 25-79 years, an estimated 122,951 could be linked to cigarette smoking. That corresponds to 29.4% of all cancer deaths and roughly 2.2 million PYLL. Translated to lost earnings, the authors estimated $20.9 billion total, with average lost earnings of $170,000 per cancer death linked to smoking.

By cancer type, lung cancer accounted for about 62%, or $12.9 billion, of the total lost earnings linked to smoking, followed by esophageal cancer (7%, or $1.5 billion), colorectal cancer (6%, or $1.2 billion), and liver cancer (5%, or $1.1 billion).

Smoking-related death rates were highest in the 13 “tobacco nation” states with weaker tobacco control policies and a higher rate of cigarette smoking. These states are Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and West Virginia.

The lost earnings rate in all 13 tobacco nation states combined was about 44% higher, compared with other states and the District of Columbia combined, and the annual PYLL rate was 47% higher in tobacco nation states.

The researchers estimated that if PYLL and lost earnings rates in all states matched those in Utah, which has the lowest rates, more than half of the total PYLL and lost earnings nationally would have been avoided. In other words, that would mean 1.27 million PYLL and $10.5 billion saved in 2019.

Ending the ‘scourge of tobacco’

To kick the smoking habit, health providers should “screen patients for tobacco use, document tobacco use status, advise people who smoke to quit, and assist in attempts to quit,” Dr. Islami said.

Getting more people to screen for lung cancer in the United States is also important, given that only 6.6% of eligible people in 2019 received screening.

In a statement, Lisa Lacasse, president of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, said this report “further demonstrates just how critical reducing tobacco use is to ending suffering and death from cancer.”

To end the “scourge of tobacco,” local, state, and federal lawmakers need to pass proven tobacco control policies, she said.

These include regular and significant tobacco tax increases, thorough statewide smoke-free laws, and enough funding for state programs to prevent and stop smoking. It also means ensuring all Medicaid enrollees have access to all services that can help smokers quit as well as access to all FDA-approved medications that help users stop smoking.

“We have the tools to get this done, we just need lawmakers to act,” Ms. Lacasse said.

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

Recently, a home test for oral and throat cancer was launched in the United States, and it is being marketed directly to the general public, aimed at former or current tobacco users and anyone 50 years or older.

Individuals can order the test – CancerDetect Test for Oral & Throat Cancer – directly from its maker, Viome Life Sciences, for $399.

It is not covered by medical insurance, and is not approved by the Food and Drug Administration. The test is being marketed under the agency’s “laboratory developed test” rubric.

People who qualify and buy the test are mailed a saliva collection tube, which they fill and mail back. The company then analyzes the RNA for changes in human cells and the oropharyngeal microbiome that are associated with cancer. During a 15-minute telemedicine conference – included in the $399 cost – those who test positive are told to follow up with a secondary care center for a definitive diagnosis.

For people who test positive but have no visible lesion to biopsy, doctors will likely opt for surveillance, computer scientist Guruduth Banavar, PhD, Viome’s chief technology officer, told this news organization.

Dr. Banavar said people have been buying the test every day since it was launched in early August, but he declined to give specific sales figures.

CancerDetect’s tagline is “test at home for peace of mind.” The test “brings unprecedented accuracy to early cancer detection and prevention,” the company said in a press release announcing the launch.

The test showed an overall specificity of 94% and sensitivity of 84.2%-90% for cancer in Viome’s  latest study, which is posted on medRxiv.org as a preprint. Banavar said it has been submitted to a top-tier medical journal.

Viome plans to market CancerDetect “in every possible way” to consumers, including social media, Dr. Banavar said. CancerDetect is not sold on Amazon at the moment, but the company sells another at-home test for gut microbiome plus cellular health on the website. 

As for outreach to the medical community, “we will start doing that with dentists first” and then eventually oncologists and other doctors, but “our primary target is to get out to the consumers themselves,” Dr. Banavar said.

Viome’s main goal is to help consumers be proactive regarding their health, he said.
 

An expert opinion

The marketing push means that sooner or later, oncologists will likely have to deal with a patient who tests positive on CancerDetect, so this news organization turned to numerous experts for their thoughts. None had heard about the test, but one responded with comments.

“I am happy to see industry working on strategies for the early detection of oral and throat cancers,” and CancerDetect has “potential,” said surgical oncologist Saral Mehra, MD, MBA, chief of head and neck surgery at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

However, after reviewing the study posted on medRxiv, Dr. Mehra advised caution. He said he was concerned about false negative results leading to missed cancers and false positives leading to unnecessary anxiety and testing.

According to the medRxiv preprint, the test was developed and validated using saliva samples from 1,175 people 50 years or older as well as adults with a history of tobacco use. 

In the 230-sample validation cohort, CancerDetect correctly classified 18 out of 20 people with oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) and 64/76 with oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC), yielding sensitivities of 90% and 84.2%, respectively. 

The test also correctly identified 126/134 people as cancer free, for a specificity of 94%.

Results were similar between early and late-stage disease, but mixed in subgroups. Among people younger than age 50, for instance, 4/4 (100%) with OSCC and 2/3 (66.7%) with OPSCC were correctly classified as positive. Among older people, 15/17 (88.2%) with OSCC and 62/73 (84.9%) with OPSCC were correctly classified

Commenting on the results, Dr. Mehra noted that “the power of the study, especially for subgroup analysis, was low,” and investigators “used both advanced-stage and early-stage cancer patients in the model, while the target population for this test is early stage. 

“The research needs to be tightened significantly on specific target populations, the models adjusted to really limit false negatives, and a plan [put in place] to act upon positive results,” he said.

Also, the ability of CancerDetect to pick up premalignant lesions – “the greatest value in a screening test” – is not clear, he added.

Viome’s Dr. Banavar said that CancerDetect is in its first iteration, and the test uses machine learning, so its diagnostic performance will improve with the ongoing addition of real-world data.

The company is organizing a pivotal trial to gain formal FDA approval, with results expected in a year and a half or so, he said.

Viome is pushing ahead with its RNA diagnosis technology for the entire range of alimentary canal cancers and disorders, including inflammatory bowel disease. The company has partnered with pharmaceutical companies, including GSK, for vaccines, Dr. Banavar said.  

Dr. Mehra reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Recently, a home test for oral and throat cancer was launched in the United States, and it is being marketed directly to the general public, aimed at former or current tobacco users and anyone 50 years or older.

Individuals can order the test – CancerDetect Test for Oral & Throat Cancer – directly from its maker, Viome Life Sciences, for $399.

It is not covered by medical insurance, and is not approved by the Food and Drug Administration. The test is being marketed under the agency’s “laboratory developed test” rubric.

People who qualify and buy the test are mailed a saliva collection tube, which they fill and mail back. The company then analyzes the RNA for changes in human cells and the oropharyngeal microbiome that are associated with cancer. During a 15-minute telemedicine conference – included in the $399 cost – those who test positive are told to follow up with a secondary care center for a definitive diagnosis.

For people who test positive but have no visible lesion to biopsy, doctors will likely opt for surveillance, computer scientist Guruduth Banavar, PhD, Viome’s chief technology officer, told this news organization.

Dr. Banavar said people have been buying the test every day since it was launched in early August, but he declined to give specific sales figures.

CancerDetect’s tagline is “test at home for peace of mind.” The test “brings unprecedented accuracy to early cancer detection and prevention,” the company said in a press release announcing the launch.

The test showed an overall specificity of 94% and sensitivity of 84.2%-90% for cancer in Viome’s  latest study, which is posted on medRxiv.org as a preprint. Banavar said it has been submitted to a top-tier medical journal.

Viome plans to market CancerDetect “in every possible way” to consumers, including social media, Dr. Banavar said. CancerDetect is not sold on Amazon at the moment, but the company sells another at-home test for gut microbiome plus cellular health on the website. 

As for outreach to the medical community, “we will start doing that with dentists first” and then eventually oncologists and other doctors, but “our primary target is to get out to the consumers themselves,” Dr. Banavar said.

Viome’s main goal is to help consumers be proactive regarding their health, he said.
 

An expert opinion

The marketing push means that sooner or later, oncologists will likely have to deal with a patient who tests positive on CancerDetect, so this news organization turned to numerous experts for their thoughts. None had heard about the test, but one responded with comments.

“I am happy to see industry working on strategies for the early detection of oral and throat cancers,” and CancerDetect has “potential,” said surgical oncologist Saral Mehra, MD, MBA, chief of head and neck surgery at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

However, after reviewing the study posted on medRxiv, Dr. Mehra advised caution. He said he was concerned about false negative results leading to missed cancers and false positives leading to unnecessary anxiety and testing.

According to the medRxiv preprint, the test was developed and validated using saliva samples from 1,175 people 50 years or older as well as adults with a history of tobacco use. 

In the 230-sample validation cohort, CancerDetect correctly classified 18 out of 20 people with oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) and 64/76 with oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC), yielding sensitivities of 90% and 84.2%, respectively. 

The test also correctly identified 126/134 people as cancer free, for a specificity of 94%.

Results were similar between early and late-stage disease, but mixed in subgroups. Among people younger than age 50, for instance, 4/4 (100%) with OSCC and 2/3 (66.7%) with OPSCC were correctly classified as positive. Among older people, 15/17 (88.2%) with OSCC and 62/73 (84.9%) with OPSCC were correctly classified

Commenting on the results, Dr. Mehra noted that “the power of the study, especially for subgroup analysis, was low,” and investigators “used both advanced-stage and early-stage cancer patients in the model, while the target population for this test is early stage. 

“The research needs to be tightened significantly on specific target populations, the models adjusted to really limit false negatives, and a plan [put in place] to act upon positive results,” he said.

Also, the ability of CancerDetect to pick up premalignant lesions – “the greatest value in a screening test” – is not clear, he added.

Viome’s Dr. Banavar said that CancerDetect is in its first iteration, and the test uses machine learning, so its diagnostic performance will improve with the ongoing addition of real-world data.

The company is organizing a pivotal trial to gain formal FDA approval, with results expected in a year and a half or so, he said.

Viome is pushing ahead with its RNA diagnosis technology for the entire range of alimentary canal cancers and disorders, including inflammatory bowel disease. The company has partnered with pharmaceutical companies, including GSK, for vaccines, Dr. Banavar said.  

Dr. Mehra reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Recently, a home test for oral and throat cancer was launched in the United States, and it is being marketed directly to the general public, aimed at former or current tobacco users and anyone 50 years or older.

Individuals can order the test – CancerDetect Test for Oral & Throat Cancer – directly from its maker, Viome Life Sciences, for $399.

It is not covered by medical insurance, and is not approved by the Food and Drug Administration. The test is being marketed under the agency’s “laboratory developed test” rubric.

People who qualify and buy the test are mailed a saliva collection tube, which they fill and mail back. The company then analyzes the RNA for changes in human cells and the oropharyngeal microbiome that are associated with cancer. During a 15-minute telemedicine conference – included in the $399 cost – those who test positive are told to follow up with a secondary care center for a definitive diagnosis.

For people who test positive but have no visible lesion to biopsy, doctors will likely opt for surveillance, computer scientist Guruduth Banavar, PhD, Viome’s chief technology officer, told this news organization.

Dr. Banavar said people have been buying the test every day since it was launched in early August, but he declined to give specific sales figures.

CancerDetect’s tagline is “test at home for peace of mind.” The test “brings unprecedented accuracy to early cancer detection and prevention,” the company said in a press release announcing the launch.

The test showed an overall specificity of 94% and sensitivity of 84.2%-90% for cancer in Viome’s  latest study, which is posted on medRxiv.org as a preprint. Banavar said it has been submitted to a top-tier medical journal.

Viome plans to market CancerDetect “in every possible way” to consumers, including social media, Dr. Banavar said. CancerDetect is not sold on Amazon at the moment, but the company sells another at-home test for gut microbiome plus cellular health on the website. 

As for outreach to the medical community, “we will start doing that with dentists first” and then eventually oncologists and other doctors, but “our primary target is to get out to the consumers themselves,” Dr. Banavar said.

Viome’s main goal is to help consumers be proactive regarding their health, he said.
 

An expert opinion

The marketing push means that sooner or later, oncologists will likely have to deal with a patient who tests positive on CancerDetect, so this news organization turned to numerous experts for their thoughts. None had heard about the test, but one responded with comments.

“I am happy to see industry working on strategies for the early detection of oral and throat cancers,” and CancerDetect has “potential,” said surgical oncologist Saral Mehra, MD, MBA, chief of head and neck surgery at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

However, after reviewing the study posted on medRxiv, Dr. Mehra advised caution. He said he was concerned about false negative results leading to missed cancers and false positives leading to unnecessary anxiety and testing.

According to the medRxiv preprint, the test was developed and validated using saliva samples from 1,175 people 50 years or older as well as adults with a history of tobacco use. 

In the 230-sample validation cohort, CancerDetect correctly classified 18 out of 20 people with oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) and 64/76 with oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC), yielding sensitivities of 90% and 84.2%, respectively. 

The test also correctly identified 126/134 people as cancer free, for a specificity of 94%.

Results were similar between early and late-stage disease, but mixed in subgroups. Among people younger than age 50, for instance, 4/4 (100%) with OSCC and 2/3 (66.7%) with OPSCC were correctly classified as positive. Among older people, 15/17 (88.2%) with OSCC and 62/73 (84.9%) with OPSCC were correctly classified

Commenting on the results, Dr. Mehra noted that “the power of the study, especially for subgroup analysis, was low,” and investigators “used both advanced-stage and early-stage cancer patients in the model, while the target population for this test is early stage. 

“The research needs to be tightened significantly on specific target populations, the models adjusted to really limit false negatives, and a plan [put in place] to act upon positive results,” he said.

Also, the ability of CancerDetect to pick up premalignant lesions – “the greatest value in a screening test” – is not clear, he added.

Viome’s Dr. Banavar said that CancerDetect is in its first iteration, and the test uses machine learning, so its diagnostic performance will improve with the ongoing addition of real-world data.

The company is organizing a pivotal trial to gain formal FDA approval, with results expected in a year and a half or so, he said.

Viome is pushing ahead with its RNA diagnosis technology for the entire range of alimentary canal cancers and disorders, including inflammatory bowel disease. The company has partnered with pharmaceutical companies, including GSK, for vaccines, Dr. Banavar said.  

Dr. Mehra reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Early in 2020, Anne Peters, MD, caught COVID-19. The author of Medscape’s “Peters on Diabetes” column was sick in March 2020 before state-mandated lockdowns, and well before there were any vaccines.

She remembers sitting in a small exam room with two patients who had flown to her Los Angeles office from New York. The elderly couple had hearing difficulties, so Dr. Peters sat close to them, putting on a continuous glucose monitor. “At that time, we didn’t think of COVID-19 as being in L.A.,” Dr. Peters recalled, “so I think we were not terribly consistent at mask-wearing due to the need to educate.”

“Several days later, I got COVID, but I didn’t know I had COVID per se. I felt crappy, had a terrible sore throat, lost my sense of taste and smell [which was not yet described as a COVID symptom], was completely exhausted, but had no fever or cough, which were the only criteria for getting COVID tested at the time. I didn’t know I had been exposed until 2 weeks later, when the patient’s assistant returned the sensor warning us to ‘be careful’ with it because the patient and his wife were recovering from COVID.”

That early battle with COVID-19 was just the beginning of what would become a 2-year struggle, including familial loss amid her own health problems and concerns about the under-resourced patients she cares for. Here, she shares her journey through the pandemic with this news organization.
 

Question: Thanks for talking to us. Let’s discuss your journey over these past 2.5 years.

Answer: Everybody has their own COVID story because we all went through this together. Some of us have worse COVID stories, and some of us have better ones, but all have been impacted.

I’m not a sick person. I’m a very healthy person but COVID made me so unwell for 2 years. The brain fog and fatigue were nothing compared to the autonomic neuropathy that affected my heart. It was really limiting for me. And I still don’t know the long-term implications, looking 20-30 years from now.
 

Q: When you initially had COVID, what were your symptoms? What was the impact?

A: I had all the symptoms of COVID, except for a cough and fever. I lost my sense of taste and smell. I had a horrible headache, a sore throat, and I was exhausted. I couldn’t get tested because I didn’t have the right symptoms.

Despite being sick, I never stopped working but just switched to telemedicine. I also took my regular monthly trip to our cabin in Montana. I unknowingly flew on a plane with COVID. I wore a well-fitted N95 mask, so I don’t think I gave anybody COVID. I didn’t give COVID to my partner, Eric, which is hard to believe as – at 77 – he’s older than me. He has diabetes, heart disease, and every other high-risk characteristic. If he’d gotten COVID back then, it would have been terrible, as there were no treatments, but luckily he didn’t get it.
 

Q: When were you officially diagnosed?

A: Two or 3 months after I thought I might have had COVID, I checked my antibodies, which tested strongly positive for a prior COVID infection. That was when I knew all the symptoms I’d had were due to the disease.

Q: Not only were you dealing with your own illness, but also that of those close to you. Can you talk about that?

A: In April 2020, my mother who was in her 90s and otherwise healthy except for dementia, got COVID. She could have gotten it from me. I visited often but wore a mask. She had all the horrible pulmonary symptoms. In her advance directive, she didn’t want to be hospitalized so I kept her in her home. She died from COVID in her own bed. It was fairly brutal, but at least I kept her where she felt comforted.

My 91-year-old dad was living in a different residential facility. Throughout COVID he had become very depressed because his social patterns had changed. Prior to COVID, they all ate together, but during the pandemic they were unable to. He missed his social connections, disliked being isolated in his room, hated everyone in masks.

He was a bit demented, but not so much that he couldn’t communicate with me or remember where his grandson was going to law school. I wasn’t allowed inside the facility, which was hard on him. I hadn’t told him his wife died because the hospice social workers advised me that I shouldn’t give him news that he couldn’t process readily until I could spend time with him. Unfortunately, that time never came. In December 2020, he got COVID. One of the people in that facility had gone to the hospital, came back, and tested negative, but actually had COVID and gave it to my dad. The guy who gave it to my dad didn’t die but my dad was terribly ill. He died 2 weeks short of getting his vaccine. He was coherent enough to have a conversation. I asked him: ‘Do you want to go to the hospital?’ And he said: ‘No, because it would be too scary,’ since he couldn’t be with me. I put him on hospice and held his hand as he died from pulmonary COVID, which was awful. I couldn’t give him enough morphine or valium to ease his breathing. But his last words to me were “I love you,” and at the very end he seemed peaceful, which was a blessing.

I got an autopsy, because he wanted one. Nothing else was wrong with him other than COVID. It destroyed his lungs. The rest of him was fine – no heart disease, cancer, or anything else. He died of COVID-19, the same as my mother.

That same week, my aunt, my only surviving older relative, who was in Des Moines, Iowa, died of COVID-19. All three family members died before the vaccine came out.

It was hard to lose my parents. I’m the only surviving child because my sister died in her 20s. It’s not been an easy pandemic. But what pandemic is easy? I just happened to have lost more people than most. Ironically, my grandfather was one of the legionnaires at the Bellevue-Stratford Hotel in Philadelphia in 1976 and died of Legionnaire’s disease before we knew what was causing the outbreak.
 

Q: Were you still struggling with COVID?

A: COVID impacted my whole body. I lost a lot of weight. I didn’t want to eat, and my gastrointestinal system was not happy. It took a while for my sense of taste and smell to come back. Nothing tasted good. I’m not a foodie; I don’t really care about food. We could get takeout or whatever, but none of it appealed to me. I’m not so sure it was a taste thing, I just didn’t feel like eating.

I didn’t realize I had “brain fog” per se, because I felt stressed and overwhelmed by the pandemic and my patients’ concerns. But one day, about 3 months after I had developed COVID, I woke up without the fog. Which made me aware that I hadn’t been feeling right up until that point.

The worst symptoms, however, were cardiac. I noticed also immediately that my heart rate went up very quickly with minimal exertion. My pulse has always been in the 55-60 bpm range, and suddenly just walking across a room made it go up to over 140 bpm. If I did any aerobic activity, it went up over 160 and would be associated with dyspnea and chest pain. I believed these were all post-COVID symptoms and felt validated when reports of others having similar issues were published in the literature.

Q: Did you continue seeing patients?

A: Yes, of course. Patients never needed their doctors more. In East L.A., where patients don’t have easy access to telemedicine, I kept going into clinic throughout the pandemic. In the more affluent Westside of Los Angeles, we switched to telemedicine, which was quite effective for most. However, because diabetes was associated with an increased risk of hospitalization and death from COVID, my patients were understandably afraid. I’ve never been busier, but (like all health care providers), I became more of a COVID provider than a diabetologist.

Q: Do you feel your battle with COVID impacted your work?

A: It didn’t affect me at work. If I was sitting still, I was fine. Sitting at home at a desk, I didn’t notice any symptoms. But as a habitual stair-user, I would be gasping for breath in the stairwell because I couldn’t go up the stairs to my office as I once could.

I think you empathize more with people who had COVID (when you’ve had it yourself). There was such a huge patient burden. And I think that’s been the thing that’s affected health care providers the most – no matter what specialty we’re in – that nobody has answers.
 

Q: What happened after you had your vaccine?

A: The vaccine itself was fine. I didn’t have any reaction to the first two doses. But the first booster made my cardiac issues worse.

By this point, my cardiac problems stopped me from exercising. I even went to the ER with chest pain once because I was having palpitations and chest pressure caused by simply taking my morning shower. Fortunately, I wasn’t having an MI, but I certainly wasn’t “normal.”

My measure of my fitness is the cross-country skiing trail I use in Montana. I know exactly how far I can ski. Usually I can do the loop in 35 minutes. After COVID, I lasted 10 minutes. I would be tachycardic, short of breath with chest pain radiating down my left arm. I would rest and try to keep going. But with each rest period, I only got worse. I would be laying in the snow and strangers would ask if I needed help.
 

Q: What helped you?

A: I’ve read a lot about long COVID and have tried to learn from the experts. Of course, I never went to a doctor directly, although I did ask colleagues for advice. What I learned was to never push myself. I forced myself to create an exercise schedule where I only exercised three times a week with rest days in between. When exercising, the second my heart rate went above 140 bpm, I stopped until I could get it back down. I would push against this new limit, even though my limit was low.

Additionally, I worked on my breathing patterns and did meditative breathing for 10 minutes twice daily using a commercially available app.

Although progress was slow, I did improve, and by June 2022, I seemed back to normal. I was not as fit as I was prior to COVID and needed to improve, but the tachycardic response to exercise and cardiac symptoms were gone. I felt like my normal self. Normal enough to go on a spot packing trip in the Sierras in August. (Horses carried us and a mule carried the gear over the 12,000-foot pass into the mountains, and then left my friend and me high in the Sierras for a week.) We were camped above 10,000 feet and every day hiked up to another high mountain lake where we fly-fished for trout that we ate for dinner. The hikes were a challenge, but not abnormally so. Not as they would have been while I had long COVID.
 

Q: What is the current atmosphere in your clinic?

A: COVID is much milder now in my vaccinated patients, but I feel most health care providers are exhausted. Many of my staff left when COVID hit because they didn’t want to keep working. It made practicing medicine exhausting. There’s been a shortage of nurses, a shortage of everything. We’ve been required to do a whole lot more than we ever did before. It’s much harder to be a doctor. This pandemic is the first time I’ve ever thought of quitting. Granted, I lost my whole family, or at least the older generation, but it’s just been almost overwhelming.

On the plus side, almost every one of my patients has been vaccinated, because early on, people would ask: “Do you trust this vaccine?” I would reply: “I saw my parents die from COVID when they weren’t vaccinated, so you’re getting vaccinated. This is real and the vaccines help.” It made me very good at convincing people to get vaccines because I knew what it was like to see someone dying from COVID up close.
 

Q: What advice do you have for those struggling with the COVID pandemic?

A: People need to decide what their own risk is for getting sick and how many times they want to get COVID. At this point, I want people to go out, but safely. In the beginning, when my patients said, “can I go visit my granddaughter?” I said, “no,” but that was before we had the vaccine. Now I feel it is safe to go out using common sense. I still have my patients wear masks on planes. I still have patients try to eat outside as much as possible. And I tell people to take the precautions that make sense, but I tell them to go out and do things because life is short.

I had a patient in his 70s who has many risk factors like heart disease and diabetes. His granddaughter’s Bat Mitzvah in Florida was coming up. He asked: “Can I go?” I told him “Yes,” but to be safe – to wear an N95 mask on the plane and at the event, and stay in his own hotel room, rather than with the whole family. I said, “You need to do this.” Earlier in the pandemic, I saw people who literally died from loneliness and isolation.

He and his wife flew there. He sent me a picture of himself with his granddaughter. When he returned, he showed me a handwritten note from her that said, “I love you so much. Everyone else canceled, which made me cry. You’re the only one who came. You have no idea how much this meant to me.”

He’s back in L.A., and he didn’t get COVID. He said, “It was the best thing I’ve done in years.” That’s what I need to help people with, navigating this world with COVID and assessing risks and benefits. As with all of medicine, my advice is individualized. My advice changes based on the major circulating variant and the rates of the virus in the population, as well as the risk factors of the individual.
 

Q: What are you doing now?

A: I’m trying to avoid getting COVID again, or another booster. I could get pre-exposure monoclonal antibodies but am waiting to do anything further until I see what happens over the fall and winter. I still wear a mask inside but now do a mix of in-person and telemedicine visits. I still try to go to outdoor restaurants, which is easy in California. But I’m flying to see my son in New York and plan to go to Europe this fall for a meeting. I also go to my cabin in Montana every month to get my “dose” of the wilderness. Overall, I travel for conferences and speaking engagements much less because I have learned the joy of staying home.

Thinking back on my life as a doctor, my career began as an intern at Stanford rotating through Ward 5B, the AIDS unit at San Francisco General Hospital, and will likely end with COVID. In spite of all our medical advances, my generation of physicians, much as many generations before us, has a front-row seat to the vulnerability of humans to infectious diseases and how far we still need to go to protect our patients from communicable illness.

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

Anne L. Peters, MD, is a professor of medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and director of the USC clinical diabetes programs. She has published more than 200 articles, reviews, and abstracts; three books on diabetes; and has been an investigator for more than 40 research studies. She has spoken internationally at over 400 programs and serves on many committees of several professional organizations.

Early in 2020, Anne Peters, MD, caught COVID-19. The author of Medscape’s “Peters on Diabetes” column was sick in March 2020 before state-mandated lockdowns, and well before there were any vaccines.

She remembers sitting in a small exam room with two patients who had flown to her Los Angeles office from New York. The elderly couple had hearing difficulties, so Dr. Peters sat close to them, putting on a continuous glucose monitor. “At that time, we didn’t think of COVID-19 as being in L.A.,” Dr. Peters recalled, “so I think we were not terribly consistent at mask-wearing due to the need to educate.”

“Several days later, I got COVID, but I didn’t know I had COVID per se. I felt crappy, had a terrible sore throat, lost my sense of taste and smell [which was not yet described as a COVID symptom], was completely exhausted, but had no fever or cough, which were the only criteria for getting COVID tested at the time. I didn’t know I had been exposed until 2 weeks later, when the patient’s assistant returned the sensor warning us to ‘be careful’ with it because the patient and his wife were recovering from COVID.”

That early battle with COVID-19 was just the beginning of what would become a 2-year struggle, including familial loss amid her own health problems and concerns about the under-resourced patients she cares for. Here, she shares her journey through the pandemic with this news organization.
 

Question: Thanks for talking to us. Let’s discuss your journey over these past 2.5 years.

Answer: Everybody has their own COVID story because we all went through this together. Some of us have worse COVID stories, and some of us have better ones, but all have been impacted.

I’m not a sick person. I’m a very healthy person but COVID made me so unwell for 2 years. The brain fog and fatigue were nothing compared to the autonomic neuropathy that affected my heart. It was really limiting for me. And I still don’t know the long-term implications, looking 20-30 years from now.
 

Q: When you initially had COVID, what were your symptoms? What was the impact?

A: I had all the symptoms of COVID, except for a cough and fever. I lost my sense of taste and smell. I had a horrible headache, a sore throat, and I was exhausted. I couldn’t get tested because I didn’t have the right symptoms.

Despite being sick, I never stopped working but just switched to telemedicine. I also took my regular monthly trip to our cabin in Montana. I unknowingly flew on a plane with COVID. I wore a well-fitted N95 mask, so I don’t think I gave anybody COVID. I didn’t give COVID to my partner, Eric, which is hard to believe as – at 77 – he’s older than me. He has diabetes, heart disease, and every other high-risk characteristic. If he’d gotten COVID back then, it would have been terrible, as there were no treatments, but luckily he didn’t get it.
 

Q: When were you officially diagnosed?

A: Two or 3 months after I thought I might have had COVID, I checked my antibodies, which tested strongly positive for a prior COVID infection. That was when I knew all the symptoms I’d had were due to the disease.

Q: Not only were you dealing with your own illness, but also that of those close to you. Can you talk about that?

A: In April 2020, my mother who was in her 90s and otherwise healthy except for dementia, got COVID. She could have gotten it from me. I visited often but wore a mask. She had all the horrible pulmonary symptoms. In her advance directive, she didn’t want to be hospitalized so I kept her in her home. She died from COVID in her own bed. It was fairly brutal, but at least I kept her where she felt comforted.

My 91-year-old dad was living in a different residential facility. Throughout COVID he had become very depressed because his social patterns had changed. Prior to COVID, they all ate together, but during the pandemic they were unable to. He missed his social connections, disliked being isolated in his room, hated everyone in masks.

He was a bit demented, but not so much that he couldn’t communicate with me or remember where his grandson was going to law school. I wasn’t allowed inside the facility, which was hard on him. I hadn’t told him his wife died because the hospice social workers advised me that I shouldn’t give him news that he couldn’t process readily until I could spend time with him. Unfortunately, that time never came. In December 2020, he got COVID. One of the people in that facility had gone to the hospital, came back, and tested negative, but actually had COVID and gave it to my dad. The guy who gave it to my dad didn’t die but my dad was terribly ill. He died 2 weeks short of getting his vaccine. He was coherent enough to have a conversation. I asked him: ‘Do you want to go to the hospital?’ And he said: ‘No, because it would be too scary,’ since he couldn’t be with me. I put him on hospice and held his hand as he died from pulmonary COVID, which was awful. I couldn’t give him enough morphine or valium to ease his breathing. But his last words to me were “I love you,” and at the very end he seemed peaceful, which was a blessing.

I got an autopsy, because he wanted one. Nothing else was wrong with him other than COVID. It destroyed his lungs. The rest of him was fine – no heart disease, cancer, or anything else. He died of COVID-19, the same as my mother.

That same week, my aunt, my only surviving older relative, who was in Des Moines, Iowa, died of COVID-19. All three family members died before the vaccine came out.

It was hard to lose my parents. I’m the only surviving child because my sister died in her 20s. It’s not been an easy pandemic. But what pandemic is easy? I just happened to have lost more people than most. Ironically, my grandfather was one of the legionnaires at the Bellevue-Stratford Hotel in Philadelphia in 1976 and died of Legionnaire’s disease before we knew what was causing the outbreak.
 

Q: Were you still struggling with COVID?

A: COVID impacted my whole body. I lost a lot of weight. I didn’t want to eat, and my gastrointestinal system was not happy. It took a while for my sense of taste and smell to come back. Nothing tasted good. I’m not a foodie; I don’t really care about food. We could get takeout or whatever, but none of it appealed to me. I’m not so sure it was a taste thing, I just didn’t feel like eating.

I didn’t realize I had “brain fog” per se, because I felt stressed and overwhelmed by the pandemic and my patients’ concerns. But one day, about 3 months after I had developed COVID, I woke up without the fog. Which made me aware that I hadn’t been feeling right up until that point.

The worst symptoms, however, were cardiac. I noticed also immediately that my heart rate went up very quickly with minimal exertion. My pulse has always been in the 55-60 bpm range, and suddenly just walking across a room made it go up to over 140 bpm. If I did any aerobic activity, it went up over 160 and would be associated with dyspnea and chest pain. I believed these were all post-COVID symptoms and felt validated when reports of others having similar issues were published in the literature.

Q: Did you continue seeing patients?

A: Yes, of course. Patients never needed their doctors more. In East L.A., where patients don’t have easy access to telemedicine, I kept going into clinic throughout the pandemic. In the more affluent Westside of Los Angeles, we switched to telemedicine, which was quite effective for most. However, because diabetes was associated with an increased risk of hospitalization and death from COVID, my patients were understandably afraid. I’ve never been busier, but (like all health care providers), I became more of a COVID provider than a diabetologist.

Q: Do you feel your battle with COVID impacted your work?

A: It didn’t affect me at work. If I was sitting still, I was fine. Sitting at home at a desk, I didn’t notice any symptoms. But as a habitual stair-user, I would be gasping for breath in the stairwell because I couldn’t go up the stairs to my office as I once could.

I think you empathize more with people who had COVID (when you’ve had it yourself). There was such a huge patient burden. And I think that’s been the thing that’s affected health care providers the most – no matter what specialty we’re in – that nobody has answers.
 

Q: What happened after you had your vaccine?

A: The vaccine itself was fine. I didn’t have any reaction to the first two doses. But the first booster made my cardiac issues worse.

By this point, my cardiac problems stopped me from exercising. I even went to the ER with chest pain once because I was having palpitations and chest pressure caused by simply taking my morning shower. Fortunately, I wasn’t having an MI, but I certainly wasn’t “normal.”

My measure of my fitness is the cross-country skiing trail I use in Montana. I know exactly how far I can ski. Usually I can do the loop in 35 minutes. After COVID, I lasted 10 minutes. I would be tachycardic, short of breath with chest pain radiating down my left arm. I would rest and try to keep going. But with each rest period, I only got worse. I would be laying in the snow and strangers would ask if I needed help.
 

Q: What helped you?

A: I’ve read a lot about long COVID and have tried to learn from the experts. Of course, I never went to a doctor directly, although I did ask colleagues for advice. What I learned was to never push myself. I forced myself to create an exercise schedule where I only exercised three times a week with rest days in between. When exercising, the second my heart rate went above 140 bpm, I stopped until I could get it back down. I would push against this new limit, even though my limit was low.

Additionally, I worked on my breathing patterns and did meditative breathing for 10 minutes twice daily using a commercially available app.

Although progress was slow, I did improve, and by June 2022, I seemed back to normal. I was not as fit as I was prior to COVID and needed to improve, but the tachycardic response to exercise and cardiac symptoms were gone. I felt like my normal self. Normal enough to go on a spot packing trip in the Sierras in August. (Horses carried us and a mule carried the gear over the 12,000-foot pass into the mountains, and then left my friend and me high in the Sierras for a week.) We were camped above 10,000 feet and every day hiked up to another high mountain lake where we fly-fished for trout that we ate for dinner. The hikes were a challenge, but not abnormally so. Not as they would have been while I had long COVID.
 

Q: What is the current atmosphere in your clinic?

A: COVID is much milder now in my vaccinated patients, but I feel most health care providers are exhausted. Many of my staff left when COVID hit because they didn’t want to keep working. It made practicing medicine exhausting. There’s been a shortage of nurses, a shortage of everything. We’ve been required to do a whole lot more than we ever did before. It’s much harder to be a doctor. This pandemic is the first time I’ve ever thought of quitting. Granted, I lost my whole family, or at least the older generation, but it’s just been almost overwhelming.

On the plus side, almost every one of my patients has been vaccinated, because early on, people would ask: “Do you trust this vaccine?” I would reply: “I saw my parents die from COVID when they weren’t vaccinated, so you’re getting vaccinated. This is real and the vaccines help.” It made me very good at convincing people to get vaccines because I knew what it was like to see someone dying from COVID up close.
 

Q: What advice do you have for those struggling with the COVID pandemic?

A: People need to decide what their own risk is for getting sick and how many times they want to get COVID. At this point, I want people to go out, but safely. In the beginning, when my patients said, “can I go visit my granddaughter?” I said, “no,” but that was before we had the vaccine. Now I feel it is safe to go out using common sense. I still have my patients wear masks on planes. I still have patients try to eat outside as much as possible. And I tell people to take the precautions that make sense, but I tell them to go out and do things because life is short.

I had a patient in his 70s who has many risk factors like heart disease and diabetes. His granddaughter’s Bat Mitzvah in Florida was coming up. He asked: “Can I go?” I told him “Yes,” but to be safe – to wear an N95 mask on the plane and at the event, and stay in his own hotel room, rather than with the whole family. I said, “You need to do this.” Earlier in the pandemic, I saw people who literally died from loneliness and isolation.

He and his wife flew there. He sent me a picture of himself with his granddaughter. When he returned, he showed me a handwritten note from her that said, “I love you so much. Everyone else canceled, which made me cry. You’re the only one who came. You have no idea how much this meant to me.”

He’s back in L.A., and he didn’t get COVID. He said, “It was the best thing I’ve done in years.” That’s what I need to help people with, navigating this world with COVID and assessing risks and benefits. As with all of medicine, my advice is individualized. My advice changes based on the major circulating variant and the rates of the virus in the population, as well as the risk factors of the individual.
 

Q: What are you doing now?

A: I’m trying to avoid getting COVID again, or another booster. I could get pre-exposure monoclonal antibodies but am waiting to do anything further until I see what happens over the fall and winter. I still wear a mask inside but now do a mix of in-person and telemedicine visits. I still try to go to outdoor restaurants, which is easy in California. But I’m flying to see my son in New York and plan to go to Europe this fall for a meeting. I also go to my cabin in Montana every month to get my “dose” of the wilderness. Overall, I travel for conferences and speaking engagements much less because I have learned the joy of staying home.

Thinking back on my life as a doctor, my career began as an intern at Stanford rotating through Ward 5B, the AIDS unit at San Francisco General Hospital, and will likely end with COVID. In spite of all our medical advances, my generation of physicians, much as many generations before us, has a front-row seat to the vulnerability of humans to infectious diseases and how far we still need to go to protect our patients from communicable illness.

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

Anne L. Peters, MD, is a professor of medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and director of the USC clinical diabetes programs. She has published more than 200 articles, reviews, and abstracts; three books on diabetes; and has been an investigator for more than 40 research studies. She has spoken internationally at over 400 programs and serves on many committees of several professional organizations.

Early in 2020, Anne Peters, MD, caught COVID-19. The author of Medscape’s “Peters on Diabetes” column was sick in March 2020 before state-mandated lockdowns, and well before there were any vaccines.

She remembers sitting in a small exam room with two patients who had flown to her Los Angeles office from New York. The elderly couple had hearing difficulties, so Dr. Peters sat close to them, putting on a continuous glucose monitor. “At that time, we didn’t think of COVID-19 as being in L.A.,” Dr. Peters recalled, “so I think we were not terribly consistent at mask-wearing due to the need to educate.”

“Several days later, I got COVID, but I didn’t know I had COVID per se. I felt crappy, had a terrible sore throat, lost my sense of taste and smell [which was not yet described as a COVID symptom], was completely exhausted, but had no fever or cough, which were the only criteria for getting COVID tested at the time. I didn’t know I had been exposed until 2 weeks later, when the patient’s assistant returned the sensor warning us to ‘be careful’ with it because the patient and his wife were recovering from COVID.”

That early battle with COVID-19 was just the beginning of what would become a 2-year struggle, including familial loss amid her own health problems and concerns about the under-resourced patients she cares for. Here, she shares her journey through the pandemic with this news organization.
 

Question: Thanks for talking to us. Let’s discuss your journey over these past 2.5 years.

Answer: Everybody has their own COVID story because we all went through this together. Some of us have worse COVID stories, and some of us have better ones, but all have been impacted.

I’m not a sick person. I’m a very healthy person but COVID made me so unwell for 2 years. The brain fog and fatigue were nothing compared to the autonomic neuropathy that affected my heart. It was really limiting for me. And I still don’t know the long-term implications, looking 20-30 years from now.
 

Q: When you initially had COVID, what were your symptoms? What was the impact?

A: I had all the symptoms of COVID, except for a cough and fever. I lost my sense of taste and smell. I had a horrible headache, a sore throat, and I was exhausted. I couldn’t get tested because I didn’t have the right symptoms.

Despite being sick, I never stopped working but just switched to telemedicine. I also took my regular monthly trip to our cabin in Montana. I unknowingly flew on a plane with COVID. I wore a well-fitted N95 mask, so I don’t think I gave anybody COVID. I didn’t give COVID to my partner, Eric, which is hard to believe as – at 77 – he’s older than me. He has diabetes, heart disease, and every other high-risk characteristic. If he’d gotten COVID back then, it would have been terrible, as there were no treatments, but luckily he didn’t get it.
 

Q: When were you officially diagnosed?

A: Two or 3 months after I thought I might have had COVID, I checked my antibodies, which tested strongly positive for a prior COVID infection. That was when I knew all the symptoms I’d had were due to the disease.

Q: Not only were you dealing with your own illness, but also that of those close to you. Can you talk about that?

A: In April 2020, my mother who was in her 90s and otherwise healthy except for dementia, got COVID. She could have gotten it from me. I visited often but wore a mask. She had all the horrible pulmonary symptoms. In her advance directive, she didn’t want to be hospitalized so I kept her in her home. She died from COVID in her own bed. It was fairly brutal, but at least I kept her where she felt comforted.

My 91-year-old dad was living in a different residential facility. Throughout COVID he had become very depressed because his social patterns had changed. Prior to COVID, they all ate together, but during the pandemic they were unable to. He missed his social connections, disliked being isolated in his room, hated everyone in masks.

He was a bit demented, but not so much that he couldn’t communicate with me or remember where his grandson was going to law school. I wasn’t allowed inside the facility, which was hard on him. I hadn’t told him his wife died because the hospice social workers advised me that I shouldn’t give him news that he couldn’t process readily until I could spend time with him. Unfortunately, that time never came. In December 2020, he got COVID. One of the people in that facility had gone to the hospital, came back, and tested negative, but actually had COVID and gave it to my dad. The guy who gave it to my dad didn’t die but my dad was terribly ill. He died 2 weeks short of getting his vaccine. He was coherent enough to have a conversation. I asked him: ‘Do you want to go to the hospital?’ And he said: ‘No, because it would be too scary,’ since he couldn’t be with me. I put him on hospice and held his hand as he died from pulmonary COVID, which was awful. I couldn’t give him enough morphine or valium to ease his breathing. But his last words to me were “I love you,” and at the very end he seemed peaceful, which was a blessing.

I got an autopsy, because he wanted one. Nothing else was wrong with him other than COVID. It destroyed his lungs. The rest of him was fine – no heart disease, cancer, or anything else. He died of COVID-19, the same as my mother.

That same week, my aunt, my only surviving older relative, who was in Des Moines, Iowa, died of COVID-19. All three family members died before the vaccine came out.

It was hard to lose my parents. I’m the only surviving child because my sister died in her 20s. It’s not been an easy pandemic. But what pandemic is easy? I just happened to have lost more people than most. Ironically, my grandfather was one of the legionnaires at the Bellevue-Stratford Hotel in Philadelphia in 1976 and died of Legionnaire’s disease before we knew what was causing the outbreak.
 

Q: Were you still struggling with COVID?

A: COVID impacted my whole body. I lost a lot of weight. I didn’t want to eat, and my gastrointestinal system was not happy. It took a while for my sense of taste and smell to come back. Nothing tasted good. I’m not a foodie; I don’t really care about food. We could get takeout or whatever, but none of it appealed to me. I’m not so sure it was a taste thing, I just didn’t feel like eating.

I didn’t realize I had “brain fog” per se, because I felt stressed and overwhelmed by the pandemic and my patients’ concerns. But one day, about 3 months after I had developed COVID, I woke up without the fog. Which made me aware that I hadn’t been feeling right up until that point.

The worst symptoms, however, were cardiac. I noticed also immediately that my heart rate went up very quickly with minimal exertion. My pulse has always been in the 55-60 bpm range, and suddenly just walking across a room made it go up to over 140 bpm. If I did any aerobic activity, it went up over 160 and would be associated with dyspnea and chest pain. I believed these were all post-COVID symptoms and felt validated when reports of others having similar issues were published in the literature.

Q: Did you continue seeing patients?

A: Yes, of course. Patients never needed their doctors more. In East L.A., where patients don’t have easy access to telemedicine, I kept going into clinic throughout the pandemic. In the more affluent Westside of Los Angeles, we switched to telemedicine, which was quite effective for most. However, because diabetes was associated with an increased risk of hospitalization and death from COVID, my patients were understandably afraid. I’ve never been busier, but (like all health care providers), I became more of a COVID provider than a diabetologist.

Q: Do you feel your battle with COVID impacted your work?

A: It didn’t affect me at work. If I was sitting still, I was fine. Sitting at home at a desk, I didn’t notice any symptoms. But as a habitual stair-user, I would be gasping for breath in the stairwell because I couldn’t go up the stairs to my office as I once could.

I think you empathize more with people who had COVID (when you’ve had it yourself). There was such a huge patient burden. And I think that’s been the thing that’s affected health care providers the most – no matter what specialty we’re in – that nobody has answers.
 

Q: What happened after you had your vaccine?

A: The vaccine itself was fine. I didn’t have any reaction to the first two doses. But the first booster made my cardiac issues worse.

By this point, my cardiac problems stopped me from exercising. I even went to the ER with chest pain once because I was having palpitations and chest pressure caused by simply taking my morning shower. Fortunately, I wasn’t having an MI, but I certainly wasn’t “normal.”

My measure of my fitness is the cross-country skiing trail I use in Montana. I know exactly how far I can ski. Usually I can do the loop in 35 minutes. After COVID, I lasted 10 minutes. I would be tachycardic, short of breath with chest pain radiating down my left arm. I would rest and try to keep going. But with each rest period, I only got worse. I would be laying in the snow and strangers would ask if I needed help.
 

Q: What helped you?

A: I’ve read a lot about long COVID and have tried to learn from the experts. Of course, I never went to a doctor directly, although I did ask colleagues for advice. What I learned was to never push myself. I forced myself to create an exercise schedule where I only exercised three times a week with rest days in between. When exercising, the second my heart rate went above 140 bpm, I stopped until I could get it back down. I would push against this new limit, even though my limit was low.

Additionally, I worked on my breathing patterns and did meditative breathing for 10 minutes twice daily using a commercially available app.

Although progress was slow, I did improve, and by June 2022, I seemed back to normal. I was not as fit as I was prior to COVID and needed to improve, but the tachycardic response to exercise and cardiac symptoms were gone. I felt like my normal self. Normal enough to go on a spot packing trip in the Sierras in August. (Horses carried us and a mule carried the gear over the 12,000-foot pass into the mountains, and then left my friend and me high in the Sierras for a week.) We were camped above 10,000 feet and every day hiked up to another high mountain lake where we fly-fished for trout that we ate for dinner. The hikes were a challenge, but not abnormally so. Not as they would have been while I had long COVID.
 

Q: What is the current atmosphere in your clinic?

A: COVID is much milder now in my vaccinated patients, but I feel most health care providers are exhausted. Many of my staff left when COVID hit because they didn’t want to keep working. It made practicing medicine exhausting. There’s been a shortage of nurses, a shortage of everything. We’ve been required to do a whole lot more than we ever did before. It’s much harder to be a doctor. This pandemic is the first time I’ve ever thought of quitting. Granted, I lost my whole family, or at least the older generation, but it’s just been almost overwhelming.

On the plus side, almost every one of my patients has been vaccinated, because early on, people would ask: “Do you trust this vaccine?” I would reply: “I saw my parents die from COVID when they weren’t vaccinated, so you’re getting vaccinated. This is real and the vaccines help.” It made me very good at convincing people to get vaccines because I knew what it was like to see someone dying from COVID up close.
 

Q: What advice do you have for those struggling with the COVID pandemic?

A: People need to decide what their own risk is for getting sick and how many times they want to get COVID. At this point, I want people to go out, but safely. In the beginning, when my patients said, “can I go visit my granddaughter?” I said, “no,” but that was before we had the vaccine. Now I feel it is safe to go out using common sense. I still have my patients wear masks on planes. I still have patients try to eat outside as much as possible. And I tell people to take the precautions that make sense, but I tell them to go out and do things because life is short.

I had a patient in his 70s who has many risk factors like heart disease and diabetes. His granddaughter’s Bat Mitzvah in Florida was coming up. He asked: “Can I go?” I told him “Yes,” but to be safe – to wear an N95 mask on the plane and at the event, and stay in his own hotel room, rather than with the whole family. I said, “You need to do this.” Earlier in the pandemic, I saw people who literally died from loneliness and isolation.

He and his wife flew there. He sent me a picture of himself with his granddaughter. When he returned, he showed me a handwritten note from her that said, “I love you so much. Everyone else canceled, which made me cry. You’re the only one who came. You have no idea how much this meant to me.”

He’s back in L.A., and he didn’t get COVID. He said, “It was the best thing I’ve done in years.” That’s what I need to help people with, navigating this world with COVID and assessing risks and benefits. As with all of medicine, my advice is individualized. My advice changes based on the major circulating variant and the rates of the virus in the population, as well as the risk factors of the individual.
 

Q: What are you doing now?

A: I’m trying to avoid getting COVID again, or another booster. I could get pre-exposure monoclonal antibodies but am waiting to do anything further until I see what happens over the fall and winter. I still wear a mask inside but now do a mix of in-person and telemedicine visits. I still try to go to outdoor restaurants, which is easy in California. But I’m flying to see my son in New York and plan to go to Europe this fall for a meeting. I also go to my cabin in Montana every month to get my “dose” of the wilderness. Overall, I travel for conferences and speaking engagements much less because I have learned the joy of staying home.

Thinking back on my life as a doctor, my career began as an intern at Stanford rotating through Ward 5B, the AIDS unit at San Francisco General Hospital, and will likely end with COVID. In spite of all our medical advances, my generation of physicians, much as many generations before us, has a front-row seat to the vulnerability of humans to infectious diseases and how far we still need to go to protect our patients from communicable illness.

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

Anne L. Peters, MD, is a professor of medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and director of the USC clinical diabetes programs. She has published more than 200 articles, reviews, and abstracts; three books on diabetes; and has been an investigator for more than 40 research studies. She has spoken internationally at over 400 programs and serves on many committees of several professional organizations.

Patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS) treated with intravenous ublituximab had fewer relapses and brain lesions compared with those treated with oral teriflunomide, although both therapies resulted in similar rates of worsening disability, according to results of the two identical phase 3 ULTIMATE I and II trials.

“In these two 96-week trials involving participants with MS, annualized relapse rates were lower with intravenous ublituximab than with oral teriflunomide. Ublituximab was associated with infusion-related reactions. Larger and longer trials are required to determine the efficacy and safety of ublituximab in patients with relapsing MS, including comparison with other disease-modifying treatments such as existing anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies,” noted lead author Lawrence Steinman, MD, professor of neurology and neurological sciences, pediatrics, and genetics at Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues.

Two trials

The double-blind, double-dummy ULTIMATE I and II trials enrolled 549 and 545 participants respectively, with a median follow-up of 95 weeks. Subjects, aged between 18 and 55 years, were randomized to receive either oral placebo and intravenous ublituximab (150 mg on day 1, followed by 450 mg on day 15 and at weeks 24, 48, and 72), or oral teriflunomide (14 mg once daily) and intravenous placebo. The primary endpoint was the annualized relapse rate, defined as the number of confirmed MS relapses per participant-year, with a range of secondary end points including number of lesions on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) by 96 weeks, and worsening of disability confirmed at 12 weeks.

Prevention and management of infusion-related reactions was with oral antihistamine and dexamethasone, administered 30 to 60 minutes before each intravenous dose of ublituximab or placebo, as well as reductions in infusion flow rates and discretionary acetaminophen.

Results for the primary endpoint in ULTIMATE I showed the adjusted annualized relapse rate over a period of 96 weeks was 0.08 in the ublituximab group and 0.19 in the teriflunomide group (rate ratio, 0.41; P < .001). Corresponding rates for ULTIMATE II were 0.09 and 0.18 (rate ratio, 0.51; P = .002).

The mean number of lesions in both ublituximab arms of the trials was 0.02 and 0.01 compared with 0.49 and 0.25 in the teriflunomide arms (rate ratios 0.03 and 0.04 respectively; P < .001 for both).
 

Similar disability worsening in both groups

A pooled analysis of the two trials showed worsening disability in 5.2% of the ublituximab group, and 5.9% of the teriflunomide group (hazard ratio, 0.84; P = 0.51). “In both trials, teriflunomide was associated with a numerically lower rate of worsening of disability than that reported in previous studies with this drug, but no conclusions can be drawn from these comparisons,” noted the authors.

Infusion-related reactions occurred in 47.7% of the participants in the ublituximab group, consisting mainly of mild to moderate pyrexia, headache, chills, and influenza-like illness. “The reactions may have been related to cytokine release from immune cells (B and NK cells) on interaction of the Fc antibody domain with Fc gamma receptors on effector cells,” they suggested.

Although no opportunistic infections occurred, a higher frequency of infections, including serious infections, was observed with ublituximab (5.0%) than with teriflunomide (2.9%).

While the ULTIMATE trials showed no difference between ublituximab and teriflunomide in confirmed worsening of disability, only a small percentage of participants in either arm showed deterioration, Dr. Coyle remarked. “In a relatively short trial (96 weeks), in a relapsing population on active treatment, this result was not surprising … If the study was bigger, or longer it would increase the chances of seeing a progressive slow worsening component to affect the EDSS [Expanded Disability Status Scale],” she added.
 

Equivalent efficacy

Ultimately, “it appears likely” that ublituximab is “equivalent in efficacy” to the earlier anti-CD20 agents ocrelizumab and ofatumumab, Dr. Coyle said. While all three agents target B-cells, “ublituximab targets a novel CD20 binding site, and is bioengineered to have a particularly potent antibody dependent cell cytotoxicity lysis mechanism,” she added. “It has been touted to ultimately allow a short infusion of 1 hour.”

Although the serious infection rate is slightly higher with ublituximab (5.0% vs. 2.5% for ofatumumab, and 1.3% for ocrelizumab), “it is still low,” and infusion-related reactions are also higher with ublituximab, she added (47.7% vs. 20.2% and 34.3%, respectively). She suggested factors that might influence which treatment is chosen for a given patient might include cost, convenience, whether it is more or less likely to cause low IgG, interference with vaccination, or influence on cancer or COVID risk.

The trials were supported by TG Therapeutics.

Dr. Coyle has received consulting fees from Accordant, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Horizon, Janssen, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, and Viela Bio and grant funding from Actelion, Alkermes, Bristol Myers Squibb, CorEvitas LLD, Genentech/Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, MedDay, NINDS, and Novartis.

Patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS) treated with intravenous ublituximab had fewer relapses and brain lesions compared with those treated with oral teriflunomide, although both therapies resulted in similar rates of worsening disability, according to results of the two identical phase 3 ULTIMATE I and II trials.

“In these two 96-week trials involving participants with MS, annualized relapse rates were lower with intravenous ublituximab than with oral teriflunomide. Ublituximab was associated with infusion-related reactions. Larger and longer trials are required to determine the efficacy and safety of ublituximab in patients with relapsing MS, including comparison with other disease-modifying treatments such as existing anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies,” noted lead author Lawrence Steinman, MD, professor of neurology and neurological sciences, pediatrics, and genetics at Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues.

Two trials

The double-blind, double-dummy ULTIMATE I and II trials enrolled 549 and 545 participants respectively, with a median follow-up of 95 weeks. Subjects, aged between 18 and 55 years, were randomized to receive either oral placebo and intravenous ublituximab (150 mg on day 1, followed by 450 mg on day 15 and at weeks 24, 48, and 72), or oral teriflunomide (14 mg once daily) and intravenous placebo. The primary endpoint was the annualized relapse rate, defined as the number of confirmed MS relapses per participant-year, with a range of secondary end points including number of lesions on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) by 96 weeks, and worsening of disability confirmed at 12 weeks.

Prevention and management of infusion-related reactions was with oral antihistamine and dexamethasone, administered 30 to 60 minutes before each intravenous dose of ublituximab or placebo, as well as reductions in infusion flow rates and discretionary acetaminophen.

Results for the primary endpoint in ULTIMATE I showed the adjusted annualized relapse rate over a period of 96 weeks was 0.08 in the ublituximab group and 0.19 in the teriflunomide group (rate ratio, 0.41; P < .001). Corresponding rates for ULTIMATE II were 0.09 and 0.18 (rate ratio, 0.51; P = .002).

The mean number of lesions in both ublituximab arms of the trials was 0.02 and 0.01 compared with 0.49 and 0.25 in the teriflunomide arms (rate ratios 0.03 and 0.04 respectively; P < .001 for both).
 

Similar disability worsening in both groups

A pooled analysis of the two trials showed worsening disability in 5.2% of the ublituximab group, and 5.9% of the teriflunomide group (hazard ratio, 0.84; P = 0.51). “In both trials, teriflunomide was associated with a numerically lower rate of worsening of disability than that reported in previous studies with this drug, but no conclusions can be drawn from these comparisons,” noted the authors.

Infusion-related reactions occurred in 47.7% of the participants in the ublituximab group, consisting mainly of mild to moderate pyrexia, headache, chills, and influenza-like illness. “The reactions may have been related to cytokine release from immune cells (B and NK cells) on interaction of the Fc antibody domain with Fc gamma receptors on effector cells,” they suggested.

Although no opportunistic infections occurred, a higher frequency of infections, including serious infections, was observed with ublituximab (5.0%) than with teriflunomide (2.9%).

While the ULTIMATE trials showed no difference between ublituximab and teriflunomide in confirmed worsening of disability, only a small percentage of participants in either arm showed deterioration, Dr. Coyle remarked. “In a relatively short trial (96 weeks), in a relapsing population on active treatment, this result was not surprising … If the study was bigger, or longer it would increase the chances of seeing a progressive slow worsening component to affect the EDSS [Expanded Disability Status Scale],” she added.
 

Equivalent efficacy

Ultimately, “it appears likely” that ublituximab is “equivalent in efficacy” to the earlier anti-CD20 agents ocrelizumab and ofatumumab, Dr. Coyle said. While all three agents target B-cells, “ublituximab targets a novel CD20 binding site, and is bioengineered to have a particularly potent antibody dependent cell cytotoxicity lysis mechanism,” she added. “It has been touted to ultimately allow a short infusion of 1 hour.”

Although the serious infection rate is slightly higher with ublituximab (5.0% vs. 2.5% for ofatumumab, and 1.3% for ocrelizumab), “it is still low,” and infusion-related reactions are also higher with ublituximab, she added (47.7% vs. 20.2% and 34.3%, respectively). She suggested factors that might influence which treatment is chosen for a given patient might include cost, convenience, whether it is more or less likely to cause low IgG, interference with vaccination, or influence on cancer or COVID risk.

The trials were supported by TG Therapeutics.

Dr. Coyle has received consulting fees from Accordant, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Horizon, Janssen, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, and Viela Bio and grant funding from Actelion, Alkermes, Bristol Myers Squibb, CorEvitas LLD, Genentech/Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, MedDay, NINDS, and Novartis.

Patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS) treated with intravenous ublituximab had fewer relapses and brain lesions compared with those treated with oral teriflunomide, although both therapies resulted in similar rates of worsening disability, according to results of the two identical phase 3 ULTIMATE I and II trials.

“In these two 96-week trials involving participants with MS, annualized relapse rates were lower with intravenous ublituximab than with oral teriflunomide. Ublituximab was associated with infusion-related reactions. Larger and longer trials are required to determine the efficacy and safety of ublituximab in patients with relapsing MS, including comparison with other disease-modifying treatments such as existing anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies,” noted lead author Lawrence Steinman, MD, professor of neurology and neurological sciences, pediatrics, and genetics at Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues.

Two trials

The double-blind, double-dummy ULTIMATE I and II trials enrolled 549 and 545 participants respectively, with a median follow-up of 95 weeks. Subjects, aged between 18 and 55 years, were randomized to receive either oral placebo and intravenous ublituximab (150 mg on day 1, followed by 450 mg on day 15 and at weeks 24, 48, and 72), or oral teriflunomide (14 mg once daily) and intravenous placebo. The primary endpoint was the annualized relapse rate, defined as the number of confirmed MS relapses per participant-year, with a range of secondary end points including number of lesions on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) by 96 weeks, and worsening of disability confirmed at 12 weeks.

Prevention and management of infusion-related reactions was with oral antihistamine and dexamethasone, administered 30 to 60 minutes before each intravenous dose of ublituximab or placebo, as well as reductions in infusion flow rates and discretionary acetaminophen.

Results for the primary endpoint in ULTIMATE I showed the adjusted annualized relapse rate over a period of 96 weeks was 0.08 in the ublituximab group and 0.19 in the teriflunomide group (rate ratio, 0.41; P < .001). Corresponding rates for ULTIMATE II were 0.09 and 0.18 (rate ratio, 0.51; P = .002).

The mean number of lesions in both ublituximab arms of the trials was 0.02 and 0.01 compared with 0.49 and 0.25 in the teriflunomide arms (rate ratios 0.03 and 0.04 respectively; P < .001 for both).
 

Similar disability worsening in both groups

A pooled analysis of the two trials showed worsening disability in 5.2% of the ublituximab group, and 5.9% of the teriflunomide group (hazard ratio, 0.84; P = 0.51). “In both trials, teriflunomide was associated with a numerically lower rate of worsening of disability than that reported in previous studies with this drug, but no conclusions can be drawn from these comparisons,” noted the authors.

Infusion-related reactions occurred in 47.7% of the participants in the ublituximab group, consisting mainly of mild to moderate pyrexia, headache, chills, and influenza-like illness. “The reactions may have been related to cytokine release from immune cells (B and NK cells) on interaction of the Fc antibody domain with Fc gamma receptors on effector cells,” they suggested.

Although no opportunistic infections occurred, a higher frequency of infections, including serious infections, was observed with ublituximab (5.0%) than with teriflunomide (2.9%).

While the ULTIMATE trials showed no difference between ublituximab and teriflunomide in confirmed worsening of disability, only a small percentage of participants in either arm showed deterioration, Dr. Coyle remarked. “In a relatively short trial (96 weeks), in a relapsing population on active treatment, this result was not surprising … If the study was bigger, or longer it would increase the chances of seeing a progressive slow worsening component to affect the EDSS [Expanded Disability Status Scale],” she added.
 

Equivalent efficacy

Ultimately, “it appears likely” that ublituximab is “equivalent in efficacy” to the earlier anti-CD20 agents ocrelizumab and ofatumumab, Dr. Coyle said. While all three agents target B-cells, “ublituximab targets a novel CD20 binding site, and is bioengineered to have a particularly potent antibody dependent cell cytotoxicity lysis mechanism,” she added. “It has been touted to ultimately allow a short infusion of 1 hour.”

Although the serious infection rate is slightly higher with ublituximab (5.0% vs. 2.5% for ofatumumab, and 1.3% for ocrelizumab), “it is still low,” and infusion-related reactions are also higher with ublituximab, she added (47.7% vs. 20.2% and 34.3%, respectively). She suggested factors that might influence which treatment is chosen for a given patient might include cost, convenience, whether it is more or less likely to cause low IgG, interference with vaccination, or influence on cancer or COVID risk.

The trials were supported by TG Therapeutics.

Dr. Coyle has received consulting fees from Accordant, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Horizon, Janssen, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, and Viela Bio and grant funding from Actelion, Alkermes, Bristol Myers Squibb, CorEvitas LLD, Genentech/Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, MedDay, NINDS, and Novartis.

Giving a boost radiation dose to the tumor bed following breast-conserving surgery and whole breast irradiation (WBI) has been shown to be effective at reducing recurrence of invasive breast cancer, and now a multinational randomized trial has shown that it can do the same for patients with non–low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS).

“The results provide the first randomized trial data to support the use of boost radiation after postoperative WBI in these patients to improve local control,” wrote the authors, led by Boon H. Chua, PhD, from the University of New South Wales, Sydney.

Among 1,608 patients with DCIS with at least one clinical or pathological marker for increased risk of local recurrence, 5-year rates of freedom from local recurrence were 97.1% for patients assigned to received a tumor bed boost versus 92.7% for patients who did not receive a boost dose. This difference translated into a hazard ratio for recurrence with radiation boost of 0.47 (P < .001).

“Our results support the use of tumor-bed boost radiation after postoperative WBI in patients with non–low-risk DCIS to optimize local control, and the adoption of moderately hypofractionated whole breast irradiation in practice to improve the balance of local control, toxicity, and socioeconomic burdens of treatment,” the authors wrote in a study published in The Lancet.

The investigators, from cancer centers in Australia, Europe, and Canada, noted that the advent of screening mammography was followed by a substantial increase in the diagnosis of DCIS. They also noted that patients who undergo breast-conserving surgery for DCIS are at risk for local recurrence, and half of recurrences present as invasive disease.

In addition, they said, there were high recurrence rates in randomized clinical for patients with DCIS who received conventionally fractionated WBI without a tumor boost following surgery.

“Further, the inconvenience of a 5- to 6-week course of conventionally fractionated WBI decreased the quality of life of patients. Thus, tailoring radiation dose fractionation according to recurrence risk is a prominent controversy in the radiation treatment of DCIS,” they wrote.
 

Four-way trial

To see whether a tumor-bed boost following WBI and alternative WBI fractionation schedules could improve outcomes for patients with non–low-risk DCIS, the researchers enrolled patients and assigned them on an equal basis to one of four groups, in which they would receive either conventional or hypofractionated WBI with or without a tumor-bed boost.

The conventional WBI regimen consisted of a total of 50 Gy delivered over 25 fractions. The hypofractionated regimen consisted of a total dose of 42.5 Gy delivered in 16 fractions. Patients assigned to get a boost dose to the tumor bed received an additional 16 Gy in eight fractions after WBI.

Of the 1,608 patients enrolled who eligible for randomization, 803 received a boost dose and 805 did not. As noted before, the risk of recurrence at 5 years was significantly lower with boosting, with 5-year free-from-local-recurrence rates of 97.1%, compared with 92.7% for patients who did not get a tumor-bed boost.

There were no significant differences according to fractionation schedule, however: among all randomly assigned patients the rate of 5-year freedom from recurrence was 94.9% for both the conventionally fractionated and hypofractionated WBI groups.

Not surprisingly, patients who received the boost dose had higher rates of grade 2 or greater toxicities, including breast pain (14% vs. 10%; P = .03) and induration (14% vs. 6%; P < .001).

The study was supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Susan G. Komen for the Cure, Breast Cancer Now, OncoSuisse, Dutch Cancer Society, and Canadian Cancer Trials Group. Dr. Chua disclosed grant support from the organizations and others.

Giving a boost radiation dose to the tumor bed following breast-conserving surgery and whole breast irradiation (WBI) has been shown to be effective at reducing recurrence of invasive breast cancer, and now a multinational randomized trial has shown that it can do the same for patients with non–low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS).

“The results provide the first randomized trial data to support the use of boost radiation after postoperative WBI in these patients to improve local control,” wrote the authors, led by Boon H. Chua, PhD, from the University of New South Wales, Sydney.

Among 1,608 patients with DCIS with at least one clinical or pathological marker for increased risk of local recurrence, 5-year rates of freedom from local recurrence were 97.1% for patients assigned to received a tumor bed boost versus 92.7% for patients who did not receive a boost dose. This difference translated into a hazard ratio for recurrence with radiation boost of 0.47 (P < .001).

“Our results support the use of tumor-bed boost radiation after postoperative WBI in patients with non–low-risk DCIS to optimize local control, and the adoption of moderately hypofractionated whole breast irradiation in practice to improve the balance of local control, toxicity, and socioeconomic burdens of treatment,” the authors wrote in a study published in The Lancet.

The investigators, from cancer centers in Australia, Europe, and Canada, noted that the advent of screening mammography was followed by a substantial increase in the diagnosis of DCIS. They also noted that patients who undergo breast-conserving surgery for DCIS are at risk for local recurrence, and half of recurrences present as invasive disease.

In addition, they said, there were high recurrence rates in randomized clinical for patients with DCIS who received conventionally fractionated WBI without a tumor boost following surgery.

“Further, the inconvenience of a 5- to 6-week course of conventionally fractionated WBI decreased the quality of life of patients. Thus, tailoring radiation dose fractionation according to recurrence risk is a prominent controversy in the radiation treatment of DCIS,” they wrote.
 

Four-way trial

To see whether a tumor-bed boost following WBI and alternative WBI fractionation schedules could improve outcomes for patients with non–low-risk DCIS, the researchers enrolled patients and assigned them on an equal basis to one of four groups, in which they would receive either conventional or hypofractionated WBI with or without a tumor-bed boost.

The conventional WBI regimen consisted of a total of 50 Gy delivered over 25 fractions. The hypofractionated regimen consisted of a total dose of 42.5 Gy delivered in 16 fractions. Patients assigned to get a boost dose to the tumor bed received an additional 16 Gy in eight fractions after WBI.

Of the 1,608 patients enrolled who eligible for randomization, 803 received a boost dose and 805 did not. As noted before, the risk of recurrence at 5 years was significantly lower with boosting, with 5-year free-from-local-recurrence rates of 97.1%, compared with 92.7% for patients who did not get a tumor-bed boost.

There were no significant differences according to fractionation schedule, however: among all randomly assigned patients the rate of 5-year freedom from recurrence was 94.9% for both the conventionally fractionated and hypofractionated WBI groups.

Not surprisingly, patients who received the boost dose had higher rates of grade 2 or greater toxicities, including breast pain (14% vs. 10%; P = .03) and induration (14% vs. 6%; P < .001).

The study was supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Susan G. Komen for the Cure, Breast Cancer Now, OncoSuisse, Dutch Cancer Society, and Canadian Cancer Trials Group. Dr. Chua disclosed grant support from the organizations and others.

Giving a boost radiation dose to the tumor bed following breast-conserving surgery and whole breast irradiation (WBI) has been shown to be effective at reducing recurrence of invasive breast cancer, and now a multinational randomized trial has shown that it can do the same for patients with non–low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS).

“The results provide the first randomized trial data to support the use of boost radiation after postoperative WBI in these patients to improve local control,” wrote the authors, led by Boon H. Chua, PhD, from the University of New South Wales, Sydney.

Among 1,608 patients with DCIS with at least one clinical or pathological marker for increased risk of local recurrence, 5-year rates of freedom from local recurrence were 97.1% for patients assigned to received a tumor bed boost versus 92.7% for patients who did not receive a boost dose. This difference translated into a hazard ratio for recurrence with radiation boost of 0.47 (P < .001).

“Our results support the use of tumor-bed boost radiation after postoperative WBI in patients with non–low-risk DCIS to optimize local control, and the adoption of moderately hypofractionated whole breast irradiation in practice to improve the balance of local control, toxicity, and socioeconomic burdens of treatment,” the authors wrote in a study published in The Lancet.

The investigators, from cancer centers in Australia, Europe, and Canada, noted that the advent of screening mammography was followed by a substantial increase in the diagnosis of DCIS. They also noted that patients who undergo breast-conserving surgery for DCIS are at risk for local recurrence, and half of recurrences present as invasive disease.

In addition, they said, there were high recurrence rates in randomized clinical for patients with DCIS who received conventionally fractionated WBI without a tumor boost following surgery.

“Further, the inconvenience of a 5- to 6-week course of conventionally fractionated WBI decreased the quality of life of patients. Thus, tailoring radiation dose fractionation according to recurrence risk is a prominent controversy in the radiation treatment of DCIS,” they wrote.
 

Four-way trial

To see whether a tumor-bed boost following WBI and alternative WBI fractionation schedules could improve outcomes for patients with non–low-risk DCIS, the researchers enrolled patients and assigned them on an equal basis to one of four groups, in which they would receive either conventional or hypofractionated WBI with or without a tumor-bed boost.

The conventional WBI regimen consisted of a total of 50 Gy delivered over 25 fractions. The hypofractionated regimen consisted of a total dose of 42.5 Gy delivered in 16 fractions. Patients assigned to get a boost dose to the tumor bed received an additional 16 Gy in eight fractions after WBI.

Of the 1,608 patients enrolled who eligible for randomization, 803 received a boost dose and 805 did not. As noted before, the risk of recurrence at 5 years was significantly lower with boosting, with 5-year free-from-local-recurrence rates of 97.1%, compared with 92.7% for patients who did not get a tumor-bed boost.

There were no significant differences according to fractionation schedule, however: among all randomly assigned patients the rate of 5-year freedom from recurrence was 94.9% for both the conventionally fractionated and hypofractionated WBI groups.

Not surprisingly, patients who received the boost dose had higher rates of grade 2 or greater toxicities, including breast pain (14% vs. 10%; P = .03) and induration (14% vs. 6%; P < .001).

The study was supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Susan G. Komen for the Cure, Breast Cancer Now, OncoSuisse, Dutch Cancer Society, and Canadian Cancer Trials Group. Dr. Chua disclosed grant support from the organizations and others.

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)–guided through-the-needle biopsies (TTNBs) of pancreatic cystic lesions are sufficient for accurate molecular analysis, which offers a superior alternative to cyst fluid obtained via fine-needle aspiration, based on a prospective study.

For highest diagnostic clarity, next-generation sequencing (NGS) of TTNBs can be paired with histology, lead author Charlotte Vestrup Rift, MD, PhD, of Copenhagen University Hospital, and colleagues reported.

“The diagnostic algorithm for the management of [pancreatic cystic lesions] includes endoscopic ultrasound examination with aspiration of cyst fluid for cytology,” the investigators wrote in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. “However, the reported sensitivity of cytology is low [at 54%]. A new microforceps, introduced through a 19-gauge needle, has proven useful for procurement of [TTNBs] that represent both the epithelial and stromal component of the cyst wall. TTNBs have a high sensitivity of 86% for the diagnosis of mucinous cysts.”

Dr. Rift and colleagues evaluated the impact of introducing NGS to the diagnostic process. They noted that concomitant mutations in GNAS and KRAS are diagnostic for intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs), while other mutations have been linked with progression to cancer.

The study involved 101 patients with pancreatic cystic lesions larger than 15 mm in diameter, mean age of 68 years, among whom 91 had residual TTNBs available after microscopic analysis. These samples underwent a 51-gene NGS panel that included the “most prevalent hot-spot mutations.” Diagnoses were sorted into four categories: neoplastic cyst, mucinous cyst, IPMN, or serous cystic neoplasm.

The primary endpoint was diagnostic yield, both for molecular analysis of TTNBs and for molecular analysis plus histopathology of TTNBs. Sensitivity and specificity of NGS were also determined using histopathology as the gold standard.

Relying on NGS alone, diagnostic yields were 44.5% and 27.7% for detecting a mucinous cyst and determining type of cyst, respectively. These yields rose to 73.3% and 70.3%, respectively, when NGS was used with microscopic evaluation. Continuing with this combined approach, sensitivity and specificity were 83.7% and 81.8%, respectively, for the diagnosis of a mucinous cyst. Sensitivity and specificity were higher still, at 87.2% and 84.6%, respectively, for identifying IPMNs.

The adverse-event rate was 9.9%, with a risk of postprocedure acute pancreatitis of 8.9 % and procedure-associated intracystic bleeding of 3%, according to the authors.

Limitations of the study include the relatively small sample size and the single-center design.

“TTNB-NGS is not sufficient as a stand-alone diagnostic tool as of yet but has a high diagnostic yield when combined with microscopic evaluation and subtyping by immunohistochemistry,” the investigators concluded. “The advantage of EUS-TTNB over EUS–[fine-needle aspiration] is the ability to perform detailed cyst subtyping and the high technical success rate of the procedure. ... However, the procedure comes with a risk of adverse events and thus should be offered to patients where the value of an exact diagnosis outweighs the risks.”

“Molecular subtyping is emerging as a useful clinical test for diagnosing pancreatic cysts,” said Margaret Geraldine Keane, MBBS, MSc, of Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, although she noted that NGS remains expensive and sporadically available, “which limits its clinical utility and incorporation into diagnostic algorithms for pancreatic cysts. In the future, as the cost of sequencing reduces, and availability improves, this may change.”

For now, Dr. Keane advised physicians to reserve molecular subtyping for cases in which “accurate cyst subtyping will change management ... or when other tests have not provided a clear diagnosis.”

She said the present study is valuable because better diagnostic tests are badly needed for patients with pancreatic cysts, considering the high rate of surgical overtreatment.

“Having more diagnostic tests, such as those described in this publication [to be used on their own or in combination] to decide which patients need surgery, is important,” Dr. Keane said who was not involved in the study.

Better diagnostic tests could also improve outcomes for patients with pancreatic cancer, she said, noting a 5-year survival rate of 10%.

“This outcome is in large part attributable to the late stage at which the majority of patients are diagnosed,” Dr. Keane said. “If patients can be diagnosed earlier, survival dramatically improves. Improvements in diagnostic tests for premalignant pancreatic cystic lesions are therefore vital.”

The study was supported by Rigshospitalets Research Foundation, The Novo Nordisk Foundation, The Danish Cancer Society, and others, although they did not have a role in conducting the study or preparing the manuscript. One investigator disclosed a relationship with MediGlobe. The other investigators reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Keane disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)–guided through-the-needle biopsies (TTNBs) of pancreatic cystic lesions are sufficient for accurate molecular analysis, which offers a superior alternative to cyst fluid obtained via fine-needle aspiration, based on a prospective study.

For highest diagnostic clarity, next-generation sequencing (NGS) of TTNBs can be paired with histology, lead author Charlotte Vestrup Rift, MD, PhD, of Copenhagen University Hospital, and colleagues reported.

“The diagnostic algorithm for the management of [pancreatic cystic lesions] includes endoscopic ultrasound examination with aspiration of cyst fluid for cytology,” the investigators wrote in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. “However, the reported sensitivity of cytology is low [at 54%]. A new microforceps, introduced through a 19-gauge needle, has proven useful for procurement of [TTNBs] that represent both the epithelial and stromal component of the cyst wall. TTNBs have a high sensitivity of 86% for the diagnosis of mucinous cysts.”

Dr. Rift and colleagues evaluated the impact of introducing NGS to the diagnostic process. They noted that concomitant mutations in GNAS and KRAS are diagnostic for intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs), while other mutations have been linked with progression to cancer.

The study involved 101 patients with pancreatic cystic lesions larger than 15 mm in diameter, mean age of 68 years, among whom 91 had residual TTNBs available after microscopic analysis. These samples underwent a 51-gene NGS panel that included the “most prevalent hot-spot mutations.” Diagnoses were sorted into four categories: neoplastic cyst, mucinous cyst, IPMN, or serous cystic neoplasm.

The primary endpoint was diagnostic yield, both for molecular analysis of TTNBs and for molecular analysis plus histopathology of TTNBs. Sensitivity and specificity of NGS were also determined using histopathology as the gold standard.

Relying on NGS alone, diagnostic yields were 44.5% and 27.7% for detecting a mucinous cyst and determining type of cyst, respectively. These yields rose to 73.3% and 70.3%, respectively, when NGS was used with microscopic evaluation. Continuing with this combined approach, sensitivity and specificity were 83.7% and 81.8%, respectively, for the diagnosis of a mucinous cyst. Sensitivity and specificity were higher still, at 87.2% and 84.6%, respectively, for identifying IPMNs.

The adverse-event rate was 9.9%, with a risk of postprocedure acute pancreatitis of 8.9 % and procedure-associated intracystic bleeding of 3%, according to the authors.

Limitations of the study include the relatively small sample size and the single-center design.

“TTNB-NGS is not sufficient as a stand-alone diagnostic tool as of yet but has a high diagnostic yield when combined with microscopic evaluation and subtyping by immunohistochemistry,” the investigators concluded. “The advantage of EUS-TTNB over EUS–[fine-needle aspiration] is the ability to perform detailed cyst subtyping and the high technical success rate of the procedure. ... However, the procedure comes with a risk of adverse events and thus should be offered to patients where the value of an exact diagnosis outweighs the risks.”

“Molecular subtyping is emerging as a useful clinical test for diagnosing pancreatic cysts,” said Margaret Geraldine Keane, MBBS, MSc, of Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, although she noted that NGS remains expensive and sporadically available, “which limits its clinical utility and incorporation into diagnostic algorithms for pancreatic cysts. In the future, as the cost of sequencing reduces, and availability improves, this may change.”

For now, Dr. Keane advised physicians to reserve molecular subtyping for cases in which “accurate cyst subtyping will change management ... or when other tests have not provided a clear diagnosis.”

She said the present study is valuable because better diagnostic tests are badly needed for patients with pancreatic cysts, considering the high rate of surgical overtreatment.

“Having more diagnostic tests, such as those described in this publication [to be used on their own or in combination] to decide which patients need surgery, is important,” Dr. Keane said who was not involved in the study.

Better diagnostic tests could also improve outcomes for patients with pancreatic cancer, she said, noting a 5-year survival rate of 10%.

“This outcome is in large part attributable to the late stage at which the majority of patients are diagnosed,” Dr. Keane said. “If patients can be diagnosed earlier, survival dramatically improves. Improvements in diagnostic tests for premalignant pancreatic cystic lesions are therefore vital.”

The study was supported by Rigshospitalets Research Foundation, The Novo Nordisk Foundation, The Danish Cancer Society, and others, although they did not have a role in conducting the study or preparing the manuscript. One investigator disclosed a relationship with MediGlobe. The other investigators reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Keane disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)–guided through-the-needle biopsies (TTNBs) of pancreatic cystic lesions are sufficient for accurate molecular analysis, which offers a superior alternative to cyst fluid obtained via fine-needle aspiration, based on a prospective study.

For highest diagnostic clarity, next-generation sequencing (NGS) of TTNBs can be paired with histology, lead author Charlotte Vestrup Rift, MD, PhD, of Copenhagen University Hospital, and colleagues reported.

“The diagnostic algorithm for the management of [pancreatic cystic lesions] includes endoscopic ultrasound examination with aspiration of cyst fluid for cytology,” the investigators wrote in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. “However, the reported sensitivity of cytology is low [at 54%]. A new microforceps, introduced through a 19-gauge needle, has proven useful for procurement of [TTNBs] that represent both the epithelial and stromal component of the cyst wall. TTNBs have a high sensitivity of 86% for the diagnosis of mucinous cysts.”

Dr. Rift and colleagues evaluated the impact of introducing NGS to the diagnostic process. They noted that concomitant mutations in GNAS and KRAS are diagnostic for intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs), while other mutations have been linked with progression to cancer.

The study involved 101 patients with pancreatic cystic lesions larger than 15 mm in diameter, mean age of 68 years, among whom 91 had residual TTNBs available after microscopic analysis. These samples underwent a 51-gene NGS panel that included the “most prevalent hot-spot mutations.” Diagnoses were sorted into four categories: neoplastic cyst, mucinous cyst, IPMN, or serous cystic neoplasm.

The primary endpoint was diagnostic yield, both for molecular analysis of TTNBs and for molecular analysis plus histopathology of TTNBs. Sensitivity and specificity of NGS were also determined using histopathology as the gold standard.

Relying on NGS alone, diagnostic yields were 44.5% and 27.7% for detecting a mucinous cyst and determining type of cyst, respectively. These yields rose to 73.3% and 70.3%, respectively, when NGS was used with microscopic evaluation. Continuing with this combined approach, sensitivity and specificity were 83.7% and 81.8%, respectively, for the diagnosis of a mucinous cyst. Sensitivity and specificity were higher still, at 87.2% and 84.6%, respectively, for identifying IPMNs.

The adverse-event rate was 9.9%, with a risk of postprocedure acute pancreatitis of 8.9 % and procedure-associated intracystic bleeding of 3%, according to the authors.

Limitations of the study include the relatively small sample size and the single-center design.

“TTNB-NGS is not sufficient as a stand-alone diagnostic tool as of yet but has a high diagnostic yield when combined with microscopic evaluation and subtyping by immunohistochemistry,” the investigators concluded. “The advantage of EUS-TTNB over EUS–[fine-needle aspiration] is the ability to perform detailed cyst subtyping and the high technical success rate of the procedure. ... However, the procedure comes with a risk of adverse events and thus should be offered to patients where the value of an exact diagnosis outweighs the risks.”

“Molecular subtyping is emerging as a useful clinical test for diagnosing pancreatic cysts,” said Margaret Geraldine Keane, MBBS, MSc, of Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, although she noted that NGS remains expensive and sporadically available, “which limits its clinical utility and incorporation into diagnostic algorithms for pancreatic cysts. In the future, as the cost of sequencing reduces, and availability improves, this may change.”

For now, Dr. Keane advised physicians to reserve molecular subtyping for cases in which “accurate cyst subtyping will change management ... or when other tests have not provided a clear diagnosis.”

She said the present study is valuable because better diagnostic tests are badly needed for patients with pancreatic cysts, considering the high rate of surgical overtreatment.

“Having more diagnostic tests, such as those described in this publication [to be used on their own or in combination] to decide which patients need surgery, is important,” Dr. Keane said who was not involved in the study.

Better diagnostic tests could also improve outcomes for patients with pancreatic cancer, she said, noting a 5-year survival rate of 10%.

“This outcome is in large part attributable to the late stage at which the majority of patients are diagnosed,” Dr. Keane said. “If patients can be diagnosed earlier, survival dramatically improves. Improvements in diagnostic tests for premalignant pancreatic cystic lesions are therefore vital.”

The study was supported by Rigshospitalets Research Foundation, The Novo Nordisk Foundation, The Danish Cancer Society, and others, although they did not have a role in conducting the study or preparing the manuscript. One investigator disclosed a relationship with MediGlobe. The other investigators reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Keane disclosed no conflicts of interest.

An international team of researchers have developed a “molecular map” of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and used it to refine genetic subtypes and variations that appear to be linked to clinical outcomes.

Released in a report in Nature Genetics, the map has doubled the number of genetic traits linked the disease from around 100 to 202, lead author Binyamin A. Knisbacher, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard Medical Schoo, Boston, said in an interview.

“It also delineated the molecular landscape of the two immunoglobulin gene (IGHV) subtypes, refined CLL subtyping, and built richer genetic prognostic models,” he said.

According to Dr. Knisbacher, CLL “has been at the forefront of genomic discovery,” and research has shown that there’s a wide variety of somatic mutations that drive CLL initiation across the patient population. However, as many as 10% of cases don’t appear to be driven by any known genetic variation, he said, and there’s a need to identify more subtypes and “build richer prognostic models of patient survival” based on genetics and multiomics such as genomics, transcriptomics, and epigenomics.

For the new study, researchers analyzed RNA and DNA from 1,095 patients with CLL and 54 patients with monoclonal B cell lymphocytosis and built what they say is the largest CLL dataset in existence. It’s twice the size of previous datasets, Dr. Knisbacher said.

“We found that RNA expression data was extremely informative for characterizing CLL,” Dr. Knisbacher said. “The RNA expression subtypes refined the ‘classic’ two IGHV subtypes. It is well documented that patients with U-CLL (IGHV-unmutated CLL) have substantially worse clinical outcome in comparison to M-CLL patients (IGHV-mutated CLLs). We found that M-CLLs that have RNA expression profiles similar to U-CLLs have worse survival than M-CLLs with a typical expression profile. Failure-free survival was 50% shorter – 5.3 versus 10.7 years median failure-free survival.”

In addition, he said, “U-CLLs with expression similar to M-CLLs had better survival than U-CLLs with an RNA expression profile typical to U-CLLs.”

The researchers have made their molecular map publicly available at https://cllmap.org/. Researchers can use it “to discover more about each subtype of CLL, and these future studies can help to improve clinical prognosis for the benefit of the patient,” Dr. Knisbacher said.

The study authors added that “this molecular foundation may allow for better prediction of response to therapy or provide the basis for rational combination of novel agents.”

Lee Greenberger, PhD, chief science officer of the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, said in an interview that the study “provides foundational data further subtyping CLL patients and outcomes. It identifies new targets for therapy or diagnostic predictions in the future. This type of foundational work has proven invaluable in the development of new medicines for cancer in general.”

While there are many medications that have improved therapeutic outcomes in CLL, he added, “cures – or life-long disease control –remain elusive for many patients. Therefore, new molecular insights are needed that could personalize therapies or even lead to entirely new therapies.”

In addition, he said, although prevention of CLL still remains elusive, “it is conceivable that some of the mutations found in this paper occur early in the CLL trajectory, perhaps even before the disease is presented clinically.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Broad/IBM Cancer Resistance Research Project. Dr. Knisbacher and several other authors disclose that they are inventors on a patent related to CLL. Several authors report various relationships with industry. Dr. Greenberger has no disclosures.
 

An international team of researchers have developed a “molecular map” of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and used it to refine genetic subtypes and variations that appear to be linked to clinical outcomes.

Released in a report in Nature Genetics, the map has doubled the number of genetic traits linked the disease from around 100 to 202, lead author Binyamin A. Knisbacher, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard Medical Schoo, Boston, said in an interview.

“It also delineated the molecular landscape of the two immunoglobulin gene (IGHV) subtypes, refined CLL subtyping, and built richer genetic prognostic models,” he said.

According to Dr. Knisbacher, CLL “has been at the forefront of genomic discovery,” and research has shown that there’s a wide variety of somatic mutations that drive CLL initiation across the patient population. However, as many as 10% of cases don’t appear to be driven by any known genetic variation, he said, and there’s a need to identify more subtypes and “build richer prognostic models of patient survival” based on genetics and multiomics such as genomics, transcriptomics, and epigenomics.

For the new study, researchers analyzed RNA and DNA from 1,095 patients with CLL and 54 patients with monoclonal B cell lymphocytosis and built what they say is the largest CLL dataset in existence. It’s twice the size of previous datasets, Dr. Knisbacher said.

“We found that RNA expression data was extremely informative for characterizing CLL,” Dr. Knisbacher said. “The RNA expression subtypes refined the ‘classic’ two IGHV subtypes. It is well documented that patients with U-CLL (IGHV-unmutated CLL) have substantially worse clinical outcome in comparison to M-CLL patients (IGHV-mutated CLLs). We found that M-CLLs that have RNA expression profiles similar to U-CLLs have worse survival than M-CLLs with a typical expression profile. Failure-free survival was 50% shorter – 5.3 versus 10.7 years median failure-free survival.”

In addition, he said, “U-CLLs with expression similar to M-CLLs had better survival than U-CLLs with an RNA expression profile typical to U-CLLs.”

The researchers have made their molecular map publicly available at https://cllmap.org/. Researchers can use it “to discover more about each subtype of CLL, and these future studies can help to improve clinical prognosis for the benefit of the patient,” Dr. Knisbacher said.

The study authors added that “this molecular foundation may allow for better prediction of response to therapy or provide the basis for rational combination of novel agents.”

Lee Greenberger, PhD, chief science officer of the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, said in an interview that the study “provides foundational data further subtyping CLL patients and outcomes. It identifies new targets for therapy or diagnostic predictions in the future. This type of foundational work has proven invaluable in the development of new medicines for cancer in general.”

While there are many medications that have improved therapeutic outcomes in CLL, he added, “cures – or life-long disease control –remain elusive for many patients. Therefore, new molecular insights are needed that could personalize therapies or even lead to entirely new therapies.”

In addition, he said, although prevention of CLL still remains elusive, “it is conceivable that some of the mutations found in this paper occur early in the CLL trajectory, perhaps even before the disease is presented clinically.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Broad/IBM Cancer Resistance Research Project. Dr. Knisbacher and several other authors disclose that they are inventors on a patent related to CLL. Several authors report various relationships with industry. Dr. Greenberger has no disclosures.
 

An international team of researchers have developed a “molecular map” of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and used it to refine genetic subtypes and variations that appear to be linked to clinical outcomes.

Released in a report in Nature Genetics, the map has doubled the number of genetic traits linked the disease from around 100 to 202, lead author Binyamin A. Knisbacher, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard Medical Schoo, Boston, said in an interview.

“It also delineated the molecular landscape of the two immunoglobulin gene (IGHV) subtypes, refined CLL subtyping, and built richer genetic prognostic models,” he said.

According to Dr. Knisbacher, CLL “has been at the forefront of genomic discovery,” and research has shown that there’s a wide variety of somatic mutations that drive CLL initiation across the patient population. However, as many as 10% of cases don’t appear to be driven by any known genetic variation, he said, and there’s a need to identify more subtypes and “build richer prognostic models of patient survival” based on genetics and multiomics such as genomics, transcriptomics, and epigenomics.

For the new study, researchers analyzed RNA and DNA from 1,095 patients with CLL and 54 patients with monoclonal B cell lymphocytosis and built what they say is the largest CLL dataset in existence. It’s twice the size of previous datasets, Dr. Knisbacher said.

“We found that RNA expression data was extremely informative for characterizing CLL,” Dr. Knisbacher said. “The RNA expression subtypes refined the ‘classic’ two IGHV subtypes. It is well documented that patients with U-CLL (IGHV-unmutated CLL) have substantially worse clinical outcome in comparison to M-CLL patients (IGHV-mutated CLLs). We found that M-CLLs that have RNA expression profiles similar to U-CLLs have worse survival than M-CLLs with a typical expression profile. Failure-free survival was 50% shorter – 5.3 versus 10.7 years median failure-free survival.”

In addition, he said, “U-CLLs with expression similar to M-CLLs had better survival than U-CLLs with an RNA expression profile typical to U-CLLs.”

The researchers have made their molecular map publicly available at https://cllmap.org/. Researchers can use it “to discover more about each subtype of CLL, and these future studies can help to improve clinical prognosis for the benefit of the patient,” Dr. Knisbacher said.

The study authors added that “this molecular foundation may allow for better prediction of response to therapy or provide the basis for rational combination of novel agents.”

Lee Greenberger, PhD, chief science officer of the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, said in an interview that the study “provides foundational data further subtyping CLL patients and outcomes. It identifies new targets for therapy or diagnostic predictions in the future. This type of foundational work has proven invaluable in the development of new medicines for cancer in general.”

While there are many medications that have improved therapeutic outcomes in CLL, he added, “cures – or life-long disease control –remain elusive for many patients. Therefore, new molecular insights are needed that could personalize therapies or even lead to entirely new therapies.”

In addition, he said, although prevention of CLL still remains elusive, “it is conceivable that some of the mutations found in this paper occur early in the CLL trajectory, perhaps even before the disease is presented clinically.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Broad/IBM Cancer Resistance Research Project. Dr. Knisbacher and several other authors disclose that they are inventors on a patent related to CLL. Several authors report various relationships with industry. Dr. Greenberger has no disclosures.
 

BARCELONA – Fewer than half the adults in Denmark with type 2 diabetes in 2015 had a recent assessment for albuminuria, and those who underwent testing and had albuminuria had a greater than 50% increased rate of incident heart failure, MI, stroke, or all-cause death during 4-year follow-up, in a study of more than 74,000 Danish residents.

Even those in this study with type 2 diabetes but without albuminuria had a 19% rate of these adverse outcomes, highlighting the “substantial” cardiovascular disease risk faced by people with type 2 diabetes even without a clear indication of nephropathy, Saaima Parveen, MD, a cardiology researcher at Herlev and Gentofte University Hospital in Copenhagen, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

This high rate of heart failure, MI, stroke, or death even in the absence of what is conventionally defined as albuminuria – a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) of at least 30 mg/g – suggests that this threshold for albuminuria may be too high, commented Luis M. Ruilope, MD, professor of public health and preventive medicine at Autonoma University, Madrid, who was not involved with the Danish study.

The study reported by Dr. Parveen “is very important because it shows that the risk of events is high not only in people with diabetes with albuminuria, but also in those without albuminuria,” Dr. Ruilope said in an interview.

The profile of albuminuria as a risk marker for people with type 2 diabetes spiked following the 2021 U.S. approval of finerenone (Kerendia) as an agent specifically targeted to adults with type 2 diabetes and albuminuria. (Finerenone gained marketing approval by in Europe in February 2022 under the same brand name.)
 

A lower threshold for albuminuria?

“Even patients with a UACR of 10-29 mg/g have risk and should be considered for finerenone treatment, said Dr. Ruilope. “People with type 2 diabetes with a UACR of 10-29 mg/g could explain” the high background risk shown by Dr. Parveen in her reported data. “In people with type 2 diabetes and a UACR of 10-29 mg/g we also see progression of kidney disease, but it’s slower” than in those who meet the current, standard threshold for albuminuria.

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

Dr. Ruilope was a coinvestigator for both of the finerenone pivotal trials, FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD. Although the design of both these studies specified enrollment of people with type 2 diabetes and a UACR of at least 30 mg/g, a few hundred of the total combined enrollment of more than 13,000 patients had UACR values below this level, and analysis of this subgroup could provide some important insights into the value of finerenone for people with “high normal” albuminuria, he said.

The study led by Dr. Parveen used data routinely collected in Danish national records and focused on all Danish adults diagnosed with type 2 diabetes as of Jan. 1, 2015, who also had information in their records for a UACR and an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) within the preceding year.

The records showed that only 47% of these people had a UACR value during this time frame, and that 57% had a recent measure of their eGFR, despite prevailing recommendations for routine and regular measurements of these parameters for all people with type 2 diabetes.

Dr. Parveen hypothesized that UACR measurement may lag for several reasons, such as reliance by primary care physicians on urine dipstick assessments, which preclude calculation of a UACR, poor adherence to regular medical assessment by people in low socioeconomic groups, and medical examination done outside of morning time periods, which is the best time of day for assessing UACR.

More albuminuria measurement needed in primary care

“Measurement of albuminuria in people with type 2 diabetes is improving in Europe, but is not yet at the level that’s needed,” commented Dr. Ruilope. “We are pushing to have it done more often in primary care practices,” he said.

Among the 74,014 people with type 2 diabetes who had the measurement records that allowed for their inclusion in the study, 40% had albuminuria and 60% did not.

During 4 years of follow-up, the incidence of heart failure, MI, stroke, or all-cause death was 28.6% in those with albuminuria and 18.7% among those without albuminuria, reported Dr. Parveen.

The rates for each event type in those with albuminuria were 7.0% for heart failure, 4.4% for MI, 7.6% for stroke, and 16.6% for all-cause death (each patient could tally more than one type of event). Among those without albuminuria, the rates were 4.0%, 3.2%, 5.5%, and 9.3%, respectively.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Parveen and Dr. Ruilope had no disclosures.

BARCELONA – Fewer than half the adults in Denmark with type 2 diabetes in 2015 had a recent assessment for albuminuria, and those who underwent testing and had albuminuria had a greater than 50% increased rate of incident heart failure, MI, stroke, or all-cause death during 4-year follow-up, in a study of more than 74,000 Danish residents.

Even those in this study with type 2 diabetes but without albuminuria had a 19% rate of these adverse outcomes, highlighting the “substantial” cardiovascular disease risk faced by people with type 2 diabetes even without a clear indication of nephropathy, Saaima Parveen, MD, a cardiology researcher at Herlev and Gentofte University Hospital in Copenhagen, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

This high rate of heart failure, MI, stroke, or death even in the absence of what is conventionally defined as albuminuria – a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) of at least 30 mg/g – suggests that this threshold for albuminuria may be too high, commented Luis M. Ruilope, MD, professor of public health and preventive medicine at Autonoma University, Madrid, who was not involved with the Danish study.

The study reported by Dr. Parveen “is very important because it shows that the risk of events is high not only in people with diabetes with albuminuria, but also in those without albuminuria,” Dr. Ruilope said in an interview.

The profile of albuminuria as a risk marker for people with type 2 diabetes spiked following the 2021 U.S. approval of finerenone (Kerendia) as an agent specifically targeted to adults with type 2 diabetes and albuminuria. (Finerenone gained marketing approval by in Europe in February 2022 under the same brand name.)
 

A lower threshold for albuminuria?

“Even patients with a UACR of 10-29 mg/g have risk and should be considered for finerenone treatment, said Dr. Ruilope. “People with type 2 diabetes with a UACR of 10-29 mg/g could explain” the high background risk shown by Dr. Parveen in her reported data. “In people with type 2 diabetes and a UACR of 10-29 mg/g we also see progression of kidney disease, but it’s slower” than in those who meet the current, standard threshold for albuminuria.

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

Dr. Ruilope was a coinvestigator for both of the finerenone pivotal trials, FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD. Although the design of both these studies specified enrollment of people with type 2 diabetes and a UACR of at least 30 mg/g, a few hundred of the total combined enrollment of more than 13,000 patients had UACR values below this level, and analysis of this subgroup could provide some important insights into the value of finerenone for people with “high normal” albuminuria, he said.

The study led by Dr. Parveen used data routinely collected in Danish national records and focused on all Danish adults diagnosed with type 2 diabetes as of Jan. 1, 2015, who also had information in their records for a UACR and an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) within the preceding year.

The records showed that only 47% of these people had a UACR value during this time frame, and that 57% had a recent measure of their eGFR, despite prevailing recommendations for routine and regular measurements of these parameters for all people with type 2 diabetes.

Dr. Parveen hypothesized that UACR measurement may lag for several reasons, such as reliance by primary care physicians on urine dipstick assessments, which preclude calculation of a UACR, poor adherence to regular medical assessment by people in low socioeconomic groups, and medical examination done outside of morning time periods, which is the best time of day for assessing UACR.

More albuminuria measurement needed in primary care

“Measurement of albuminuria in people with type 2 diabetes is improving in Europe, but is not yet at the level that’s needed,” commented Dr. Ruilope. “We are pushing to have it done more often in primary care practices,” he said.

Among the 74,014 people with type 2 diabetes who had the measurement records that allowed for their inclusion in the study, 40% had albuminuria and 60% did not.

During 4 years of follow-up, the incidence of heart failure, MI, stroke, or all-cause death was 28.6% in those with albuminuria and 18.7% among those without albuminuria, reported Dr. Parveen.

The rates for each event type in those with albuminuria were 7.0% for heart failure, 4.4% for MI, 7.6% for stroke, and 16.6% for all-cause death (each patient could tally more than one type of event). Among those without albuminuria, the rates were 4.0%, 3.2%, 5.5%, and 9.3%, respectively.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Parveen and Dr. Ruilope had no disclosures.

BARCELONA – Fewer than half the adults in Denmark with type 2 diabetes in 2015 had a recent assessment for albuminuria, and those who underwent testing and had albuminuria had a greater than 50% increased rate of incident heart failure, MI, stroke, or all-cause death during 4-year follow-up, in a study of more than 74,000 Danish residents.

Even those in this study with type 2 diabetes but without albuminuria had a 19% rate of these adverse outcomes, highlighting the “substantial” cardiovascular disease risk faced by people with type 2 diabetes even without a clear indication of nephropathy, Saaima Parveen, MD, a cardiology researcher at Herlev and Gentofte University Hospital in Copenhagen, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

This high rate of heart failure, MI, stroke, or death even in the absence of what is conventionally defined as albuminuria – a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) of at least 30 mg/g – suggests that this threshold for albuminuria may be too high, commented Luis M. Ruilope, MD, professor of public health and preventive medicine at Autonoma University, Madrid, who was not involved with the Danish study.

The study reported by Dr. Parveen “is very important because it shows that the risk of events is high not only in people with diabetes with albuminuria, but also in those without albuminuria,” Dr. Ruilope said in an interview.

The profile of albuminuria as a risk marker for people with type 2 diabetes spiked following the 2021 U.S. approval of finerenone (Kerendia) as an agent specifically targeted to adults with type 2 diabetes and albuminuria. (Finerenone gained marketing approval by in Europe in February 2022 under the same brand name.)
 

A lower threshold for albuminuria?

“Even patients with a UACR of 10-29 mg/g have risk and should be considered for finerenone treatment, said Dr. Ruilope. “People with type 2 diabetes with a UACR of 10-29 mg/g could explain” the high background risk shown by Dr. Parveen in her reported data. “In people with type 2 diabetes and a UACR of 10-29 mg/g we also see progression of kidney disease, but it’s slower” than in those who meet the current, standard threshold for albuminuria.

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

Dr. Ruilope was a coinvestigator for both of the finerenone pivotal trials, FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD. Although the design of both these studies specified enrollment of people with type 2 diabetes and a UACR of at least 30 mg/g, a few hundred of the total combined enrollment of more than 13,000 patients had UACR values below this level, and analysis of this subgroup could provide some important insights into the value of finerenone for people with “high normal” albuminuria, he said.

The study led by Dr. Parveen used data routinely collected in Danish national records and focused on all Danish adults diagnosed with type 2 diabetes as of Jan. 1, 2015, who also had information in their records for a UACR and an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) within the preceding year.

The records showed that only 47% of these people had a UACR value during this time frame, and that 57% had a recent measure of their eGFR, despite prevailing recommendations for routine and regular measurements of these parameters for all people with type 2 diabetes.

Dr. Parveen hypothesized that UACR measurement may lag for several reasons, such as reliance by primary care physicians on urine dipstick assessments, which preclude calculation of a UACR, poor adherence to regular medical assessment by people in low socioeconomic groups, and medical examination done outside of morning time periods, which is the best time of day for assessing UACR.

More albuminuria measurement needed in primary care

“Measurement of albuminuria in people with type 2 diabetes is improving in Europe, but is not yet at the level that’s needed,” commented Dr. Ruilope. “We are pushing to have it done more often in primary care practices,” he said.

Among the 74,014 people with type 2 diabetes who had the measurement records that allowed for their inclusion in the study, 40% had albuminuria and 60% did not.

During 4 years of follow-up, the incidence of heart failure, MI, stroke, or all-cause death was 28.6% in those with albuminuria and 18.7% among those without albuminuria, reported Dr. Parveen.

The rates for each event type in those with albuminuria were 7.0% for heart failure, 4.4% for MI, 7.6% for stroke, and 16.6% for all-cause death (each patient could tally more than one type of event). Among those without albuminuria, the rates were 4.0%, 3.2%, 5.5%, and 9.3%, respectively.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Parveen and Dr. Ruilope had no disclosures.