Feature

A renowned leader in colorectal cancer research, Scott Kopetz, MD, PhD, was recently honored for helping establish new standards of care for BRAF-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer.

Dr. Kopetz received the AACR-Waun Ki Hong Award in April. The American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) granted Dr. Kopetz this award to recognize his leadership in the development of novel therapies for patients with BRAF-mutated metastatic colon cancer with poor prognoses, according to a statement from the AACR.

What led to your medical career? Growing up, did you always want to be a doctor?

Dr. Kopetz: My interest initially was in engineering. I grew up in Tennessee from a family of engineers and doctors. In college, I completed a degree in biomedical engineering and electrical engineering.

I had the opportunity to spend one summer at the National Institutes of Health, where I did some research on the structure of the HIV integrase enzyme. It was fundamental basic research with some engineering overlay and required spending 4 days a week working in the dark in a laser lab to analyze the structure of this protein.

One day a week, I was at Georgetown in the HIV/AIDS Clinic, where I collected blood samples and saw HIV/AIDS patients. At the end of the summer, I reflected and realized that I really enjoyed that 1 day out of the week, much more than the other 4. I enjoyed working with patients and interacting with people and thought I’d enjoy the more direct way to help patients, so made a pivot into medicine.
 

Was the rest of your medical training more traditional?

Dr. Kopetz: My path was a little atypical for a physician scientist. I pursued a medical degree at Johns Hopkins, did internal medicine training at Duke, and then came down to MD Anderson Cancer Center [in Houston, Texas] to do a fellowship in medical oncology, and also obtained a PhD in cancer biology, where I explored mechanisms of resistance to colorectal cancer treatment.

While a traditional physician scientist typically obtains a PhD training in the middle of their medical school, I completed my medical training and then went back to get a PhD. It was a different, nontraditional route.
 

What is your current role, and what is most inspiring about your work?

Dr. Kopetz: I’ve been at MD Anderson now for 20 years in GI medical oncology. I recently stepped into a new role of helping facilitate translational research at the institution and am now Associate VP for translational research.

I’m excited about where we are in cancer research. I think we’re moving into an era where the amount of information that we can get out of patients and the rapidity in which we can move discoveries is much greater than it has ever been.

Our ability to extract information out of patient biopsies, surgical samples, or even minimally invasive techniques to sample the tumors, such as liquid biopsy, has provided tremendous insights into how tumors are evolving and adapting to therapies and [provides us] opportunities for novel interventions. This opens up ways where I think as a field, we can more readily accelerate our understanding of cancer.

The second component is seeing the rapidity in which we’re now able to execute ideas in the drug development space compared to years before. The pace of new drug development has increased and the innovations in the chemistries have opened up new opportunities and new targets that in the past were considered undruggable. For example, the mutated oncogene, KRAS, was once an extremely challenging therapeutic target and considered undruggable. Mutations in the p53 gene, a tumor suppressor gene, were similarly challenging. I think the convergence of these two trends are going to more rapidly accelerate the advances for our patients. I’m optimistic about the future.
 

Tell us more about the novel therapies for patients with BRAF-mutated metastatic colon cancer for which you were a lead researcher.

Dr. Kopetz: A lot of [my] work goes back over 10 years, where my [research colleagues and I] were targeting the BRAF V600E oncogene in colorectal cancer melanoma and identified that this worked well in melanoma but was relatively inactive in colorectal cancer despite the same drugs and the same mutations. This led to a recognition of optimal combination drugs that really blocked some of the adaptive feedback that we saw in colorectal cancer. This was a key recognition that these tumors, after you block one node of signaling, rapidly adapt and reactivate the signaling through alternate nodes. This finding really resonated with me with my engineering background, thinking about the networks, signaling networks, and the concepts of feedback regulation of complex systems.

The strategy of blocking the primary oncogene and then blocking the feedback mechanisms that the tumors were utilizing was adopted in colorectal cancer through this work. It took us 10 years to get to an FDA approval with this strategy, but it’s really encouraging that we’re now using this strategy and applying it to the new wave of KRAS inhibitors, where the exact same feedback pathway appears to be at play.
 

Does your engineering background impact your work today?

Dr. Kopetz: Yes, I’ve found that my engineering training has provided me with complementary skills that can significantly contribute to the development of innovative technologies, computational approaches, and interdisciplinary strategies for advancing cancer research.

Today, I do a lot of work understanding and recognizing complex networks of signaling, and it’s the same network theories that we learned and developed in engineering.

These same theories are now being applied to biology. For example, we are very interested in how tumors adapt over the longer term, over multiple lines of therapy, where there is both clonal selection and clonal evolution occurring with our various standard-of-care therapies. Our hope is that application of engineering principles can help uncover new vulnerabilities in cancer that weren’t evident when we were thinking about CRC as a static tumor.
 

I understand your recently awarded AACR-Waun Ki Hong Award for Outstanding Achievement in Translational and Clinical Cancer Research has special significance to you. Can you explain why that is?

Dr. Kopetz: This holds a special meaning for me, because Dr. Hong provided a lot of guidance [to me] over the years. He was the division head for cancer medicine at MD Anderson for many years and was instrumental in helping advocate [for me] and advance my career as well as the careers of so many others in and outside of the institution. I considered him a key mentor and sponsor. He helped provide me with guidance early in my oncology career, helping me identify high-value projects and critically evaluate research directions to pursue. He also helped me think about how to balance my research portfolio and provided guidance about how to work well within a team.

It’s really humbling to have a reward bearing his name as somebody who I so deeply respected, and I’m so grateful for the impact he had on my life.

A renowned leader in colorectal cancer research, Scott Kopetz, MD, PhD, was recently honored for helping establish new standards of care for BRAF-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer.

Dr. Kopetz received the AACR-Waun Ki Hong Award in April. The American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) granted Dr. Kopetz this award to recognize his leadership in the development of novel therapies for patients with BRAF-mutated metastatic colon cancer with poor prognoses, according to a statement from the AACR.

What led to your medical career? Growing up, did you always want to be a doctor?

Dr. Kopetz: My interest initially was in engineering. I grew up in Tennessee from a family of engineers and doctors. In college, I completed a degree in biomedical engineering and electrical engineering.

I had the opportunity to spend one summer at the National Institutes of Health, where I did some research on the structure of the HIV integrase enzyme. It was fundamental basic research with some engineering overlay and required spending 4 days a week working in the dark in a laser lab to analyze the structure of this protein.

One day a week, I was at Georgetown in the HIV/AIDS Clinic, where I collected blood samples and saw HIV/AIDS patients. At the end of the summer, I reflected and realized that I really enjoyed that 1 day out of the week, much more than the other 4. I enjoyed working with patients and interacting with people and thought I’d enjoy the more direct way to help patients, so made a pivot into medicine.
 

Was the rest of your medical training more traditional?

Dr. Kopetz: My path was a little atypical for a physician scientist. I pursued a medical degree at Johns Hopkins, did internal medicine training at Duke, and then came down to MD Anderson Cancer Center [in Houston, Texas] to do a fellowship in medical oncology, and also obtained a PhD in cancer biology, where I explored mechanisms of resistance to colorectal cancer treatment.

While a traditional physician scientist typically obtains a PhD training in the middle of their medical school, I completed my medical training and then went back to get a PhD. It was a different, nontraditional route.
 

What is your current role, and what is most inspiring about your work?

Dr. Kopetz: I’ve been at MD Anderson now for 20 years in GI medical oncology. I recently stepped into a new role of helping facilitate translational research at the institution and am now Associate VP for translational research.

I’m excited about where we are in cancer research. I think we’re moving into an era where the amount of information that we can get out of patients and the rapidity in which we can move discoveries is much greater than it has ever been.

Our ability to extract information out of patient biopsies, surgical samples, or even minimally invasive techniques to sample the tumors, such as liquid biopsy, has provided tremendous insights into how tumors are evolving and adapting to therapies and [provides us] opportunities for novel interventions. This opens up ways where I think as a field, we can more readily accelerate our understanding of cancer.

The second component is seeing the rapidity in which we’re now able to execute ideas in the drug development space compared to years before. The pace of new drug development has increased and the innovations in the chemistries have opened up new opportunities and new targets that in the past were considered undruggable. For example, the mutated oncogene, KRAS, was once an extremely challenging therapeutic target and considered undruggable. Mutations in the p53 gene, a tumor suppressor gene, were similarly challenging. I think the convergence of these two trends are going to more rapidly accelerate the advances for our patients. I’m optimistic about the future.
 

Tell us more about the novel therapies for patients with BRAF-mutated metastatic colon cancer for which you were a lead researcher.

Dr. Kopetz: A lot of [my] work goes back over 10 years, where my [research colleagues and I] were targeting the BRAF V600E oncogene in colorectal cancer melanoma and identified that this worked well in melanoma but was relatively inactive in colorectal cancer despite the same drugs and the same mutations. This led to a recognition of optimal combination drugs that really blocked some of the adaptive feedback that we saw in colorectal cancer. This was a key recognition that these tumors, after you block one node of signaling, rapidly adapt and reactivate the signaling through alternate nodes. This finding really resonated with me with my engineering background, thinking about the networks, signaling networks, and the concepts of feedback regulation of complex systems.

The strategy of blocking the primary oncogene and then blocking the feedback mechanisms that the tumors were utilizing was adopted in colorectal cancer through this work. It took us 10 years to get to an FDA approval with this strategy, but it’s really encouraging that we’re now using this strategy and applying it to the new wave of KRAS inhibitors, where the exact same feedback pathway appears to be at play.
 

Does your engineering background impact your work today?

Dr. Kopetz: Yes, I’ve found that my engineering training has provided me with complementary skills that can significantly contribute to the development of innovative technologies, computational approaches, and interdisciplinary strategies for advancing cancer research.

Today, I do a lot of work understanding and recognizing complex networks of signaling, and it’s the same network theories that we learned and developed in engineering.

These same theories are now being applied to biology. For example, we are very interested in how tumors adapt over the longer term, over multiple lines of therapy, where there is both clonal selection and clonal evolution occurring with our various standard-of-care therapies. Our hope is that application of engineering principles can help uncover new vulnerabilities in cancer that weren’t evident when we were thinking about CRC as a static tumor.
 

I understand your recently awarded AACR-Waun Ki Hong Award for Outstanding Achievement in Translational and Clinical Cancer Research has special significance to you. Can you explain why that is?

Dr. Kopetz: This holds a special meaning for me, because Dr. Hong provided a lot of guidance [to me] over the years. He was the division head for cancer medicine at MD Anderson for many years and was instrumental in helping advocate [for me] and advance my career as well as the careers of so many others in and outside of the institution. I considered him a key mentor and sponsor. He helped provide me with guidance early in my oncology career, helping me identify high-value projects and critically evaluate research directions to pursue. He also helped me think about how to balance my research portfolio and provided guidance about how to work well within a team.

It’s really humbling to have a reward bearing his name as somebody who I so deeply respected, and I’m so grateful for the impact he had on my life.

A renowned leader in colorectal cancer research, Scott Kopetz, MD, PhD, was recently honored for helping establish new standards of care for BRAF-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer.

Dr. Kopetz received the AACR-Waun Ki Hong Award in April. The American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) granted Dr. Kopetz this award to recognize his leadership in the development of novel therapies for patients with BRAF-mutated metastatic colon cancer with poor prognoses, according to a statement from the AACR.

What led to your medical career? Growing up, did you always want to be a doctor?

Dr. Kopetz: My interest initially was in engineering. I grew up in Tennessee from a family of engineers and doctors. In college, I completed a degree in biomedical engineering and electrical engineering.

I had the opportunity to spend one summer at the National Institutes of Health, where I did some research on the structure of the HIV integrase enzyme. It was fundamental basic research with some engineering overlay and required spending 4 days a week working in the dark in a laser lab to analyze the structure of this protein.

One day a week, I was at Georgetown in the HIV/AIDS Clinic, where I collected blood samples and saw HIV/AIDS patients. At the end of the summer, I reflected and realized that I really enjoyed that 1 day out of the week, much more than the other 4. I enjoyed working with patients and interacting with people and thought I’d enjoy the more direct way to help patients, so made a pivot into medicine.
 

Was the rest of your medical training more traditional?

Dr. Kopetz: My path was a little atypical for a physician scientist. I pursued a medical degree at Johns Hopkins, did internal medicine training at Duke, and then came down to MD Anderson Cancer Center [in Houston, Texas] to do a fellowship in medical oncology, and also obtained a PhD in cancer biology, where I explored mechanisms of resistance to colorectal cancer treatment.

While a traditional physician scientist typically obtains a PhD training in the middle of their medical school, I completed my medical training and then went back to get a PhD. It was a different, nontraditional route.
 

What is your current role, and what is most inspiring about your work?

Dr. Kopetz: I’ve been at MD Anderson now for 20 years in GI medical oncology. I recently stepped into a new role of helping facilitate translational research at the institution and am now Associate VP for translational research.

I’m excited about where we are in cancer research. I think we’re moving into an era where the amount of information that we can get out of patients and the rapidity in which we can move discoveries is much greater than it has ever been.

Our ability to extract information out of patient biopsies, surgical samples, or even minimally invasive techniques to sample the tumors, such as liquid biopsy, has provided tremendous insights into how tumors are evolving and adapting to therapies and [provides us] opportunities for novel interventions. This opens up ways where I think as a field, we can more readily accelerate our understanding of cancer.

The second component is seeing the rapidity in which we’re now able to execute ideas in the drug development space compared to years before. The pace of new drug development has increased and the innovations in the chemistries have opened up new opportunities and new targets that in the past were considered undruggable. For example, the mutated oncogene, KRAS, was once an extremely challenging therapeutic target and considered undruggable. Mutations in the p53 gene, a tumor suppressor gene, were similarly challenging. I think the convergence of these two trends are going to more rapidly accelerate the advances for our patients. I’m optimistic about the future.
 

Tell us more about the novel therapies for patients with BRAF-mutated metastatic colon cancer for which you were a lead researcher.

Dr. Kopetz: A lot of [my] work goes back over 10 years, where my [research colleagues and I] were targeting the BRAF V600E oncogene in colorectal cancer melanoma and identified that this worked well in melanoma but was relatively inactive in colorectal cancer despite the same drugs and the same mutations. This led to a recognition of optimal combination drugs that really blocked some of the adaptive feedback that we saw in colorectal cancer. This was a key recognition that these tumors, after you block one node of signaling, rapidly adapt and reactivate the signaling through alternate nodes. This finding really resonated with me with my engineering background, thinking about the networks, signaling networks, and the concepts of feedback regulation of complex systems.

The strategy of blocking the primary oncogene and then blocking the feedback mechanisms that the tumors were utilizing was adopted in colorectal cancer through this work. It took us 10 years to get to an FDA approval with this strategy, but it’s really encouraging that we’re now using this strategy and applying it to the new wave of KRAS inhibitors, where the exact same feedback pathway appears to be at play.
 

Does your engineering background impact your work today?

Dr. Kopetz: Yes, I’ve found that my engineering training has provided me with complementary skills that can significantly contribute to the development of innovative technologies, computational approaches, and interdisciplinary strategies for advancing cancer research.

Today, I do a lot of work understanding and recognizing complex networks of signaling, and it’s the same network theories that we learned and developed in engineering.

These same theories are now being applied to biology. For example, we are very interested in how tumors adapt over the longer term, over multiple lines of therapy, where there is both clonal selection and clonal evolution occurring with our various standard-of-care therapies. Our hope is that application of engineering principles can help uncover new vulnerabilities in cancer that weren’t evident when we were thinking about CRC as a static tumor.
 

I understand your recently awarded AACR-Waun Ki Hong Award for Outstanding Achievement in Translational and Clinical Cancer Research has special significance to you. Can you explain why that is?

Dr. Kopetz: This holds a special meaning for me, because Dr. Hong provided a lot of guidance [to me] over the years. He was the division head for cancer medicine at MD Anderson for many years and was instrumental in helping advocate [for me] and advance my career as well as the careers of so many others in and outside of the institution. I considered him a key mentor and sponsor. He helped provide me with guidance early in my oncology career, helping me identify high-value projects and critically evaluate research directions to pursue. He also helped me think about how to balance my research portfolio and provided guidance about how to work well within a team.

It’s really humbling to have a reward bearing his name as somebody who I so deeply respected, and I’m so grateful for the impact he had on my life.

Two decades after the landmark Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) changed the way clinicians thought about hormone therapy and cancer, new findings suggest this national health study is "the gift that keeps on giving."

Follow-up from two of the WHI’s randomized trials have found that estrogen alone in women with prior hysterectomy significantly increased ovarian cancer incidence and mortality in postmenopausal women. Estrogen and progesterone together, meanwhile, did not increase ovarian cancer risk, and significantly reduced the risk of endometrial cancer. Rowan T. Chlebowski, MD, PhD, of The Lundquist Institute in Torrance, California, presented these results from the latest WHI findings, at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Chicago.

Dr. Chlebowski and his colleagues conducted an analysis from two randomized, placebo-controlled trials, which between 1993 and 1998 enrolled nearly 28,000 postmenopausal women aged 50-79 years without prior cancer from 40 centers across the United States. (The full WHI effort involved a total cohort of 161,000 patients, and included an observational study and two other non-drug trials.)

In one of the hormone therapy trials, 17,000 women with a uterus at baseline were randomized to combined equine estrogen plus medroxyprogesterone acetate, or placebo. In the other trial, about 11,000 women with prior hysterectomy were randomized to daily estrogen alone or placebo. Both trials were stopped early: the estrogen-only trial due to an increased stroke risk, and the combined therapy trial due to findings of increased breast cancer and cardiovascular risk.

Mean exposure to hormone therapy was 5.6 years for the combined therapy trial and 7.2 years for estrogen alone trial.
 

Ovarian Cancer Incidence Doubles with Estrogen

At 20 years’ follow up, with mortality information available for nearly the full cohort, Dr. Chlebowski and his colleagues could determine that ovarian cancer incidence doubled among women who had taken estrogen alone (hazard ratio = 2.04; 95% CI 1.14-3.65; P = .01), a difference that reached statistical significance at 12 years’ follow up. Ovarian cancer mortality was also significantly increased (HR = 2.79 95% CI 1.30-5.99, P = .006). Absolute numbers were small, however, with 35 cases of ovarian cancer compared with 17 in the placebo group.

Combined therapy recipients saw no increased risk for ovarian cancer and significantly lower endometrial cancer incidence (106 cases vs. 140 HR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.56-0.92; P = .01).

Conjugated equine estrogen, Dr. Chlebowski said during his presentation at the meeting, “was introduced in US clinical practice in 1943 and used for over half a century, yet the question about hormone therapy’s influence on endometrial and ovarian cancer remains unsettled. Endometrial cancer and ovarian cancer are the fourth and fifth leading causes of cancer deaths in women ... and there’s some discordant findings from observational studies.”

Care of Ovarian Cancer Survivors Should Change

The new findings should prompt practice and guideline changes regarding the use of estrogen alone in ovarian cancer survivors, Dr. Chlebowski said.

In an interview, oncologist Eleonora Teplinsky, MD, of Valley-Mount Sinai Comprehensive Cancer Care in Paramus, New Jersey, said that apart from this subgroup of ovarian cancer survivors, the findings would not likely have much impact on how clinicians and patients approach hormone replacement therapy today.

“Twenty years ago the Women’s Health Initiative showed that hormone replacement therapy increases breast cancer risk, and everyone stopped taking HRT. And now people pushing back on it and saying wait a second – it was the estrogen plus progesterone that increased breast cancer, not estrogen alone. And now we’ve got these newer [estrogen] formulations.

“Yes, there’s a little bit of an increased risk [for ovarian cancer]. Patients should be aware. They should know the symptoms of ovarian cancer. But if they have indications and have been recommended HRT, this is not something that we would advise them against because of this very slightly increased risk,” Dr. Teplinsky said.

Oncologist Allison Kurian, MD of Stanford University in Stanford, California, who specializes in breast cancer, also noted that the duration of hormone treatment, treatment timing relative to age of menopause onset, and commonly used estrogen preparations had indeed changed since the time the WHI trials were conducted, making it harder to generalize the findings to current practice. Nonetheless, she argued, they still have real significance.

“WHI is an incredibly complex but also incredibly valuable resource,” said Dr. Kurian, who has conducted studies using WHI data. “The first big results came out in 2002, and we’re still learning from it. These are randomized trials, which offer the strongest form of scientific evidence that exists. So whenever we see results from this study, we have to take note of them,” she said.

Because the WHI trials had shown combined therapy, not estrogen alone, to be associated with breast cancer risk, clinicians have felt reassured over the years about using estrogen alone.

“You can’t give it to a person unless they have their uterus removed, because we know it will cause uterine cancer if the uterus is in place. But if the uterus is removed, the feeling was that you can give estrogen alone. I think the new piece that is going to get everyone’s attention is this signal for ovarian cancer.”

Something else the new findings show, Dr. Kurian said, is that WHI is “the gift that keeps on giving,” even after decades. “Some of the participants had a relatively short-term exposure to HRT. They took a medication for just a little while. But you didn’t see the effects until you followed people 12 years. So we’re now going to be a little more worried about ovarian cancer in this setting than we used to be. And that’s going to be something we’re all going to keep an eye on and think twice about in terms of talking to patients.”

These results help demonstrate what happens when a society invests in science on a national scale, Dr. Kurian said. “Here we have a really long-term, incredibly informative study that keeps generating knowledge to help women.”

When the WHI began, it “really was the first time that people decided it was important to systematically study women at midlife. It was a remarkable thing then that society got mobilized to do this, and we’re still seeing the benefits.”

Dr. Chlebowski disclosed receiving consulting or advisory fees from Pfizer. Dr. Teplinsky and Dr. Kurian disclosed no financial conflicts of interest.

Two decades after the landmark Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) changed the way clinicians thought about hormone therapy and cancer, new findings suggest this national health study is "the gift that keeps on giving."

Follow-up from two of the WHI’s randomized trials have found that estrogen alone in women with prior hysterectomy significantly increased ovarian cancer incidence and mortality in postmenopausal women. Estrogen and progesterone together, meanwhile, did not increase ovarian cancer risk, and significantly reduced the risk of endometrial cancer. Rowan T. Chlebowski, MD, PhD, of The Lundquist Institute in Torrance, California, presented these results from the latest WHI findings, at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Chicago.

Dr. Chlebowski and his colleagues conducted an analysis from two randomized, placebo-controlled trials, which between 1993 and 1998 enrolled nearly 28,000 postmenopausal women aged 50-79 years without prior cancer from 40 centers across the United States. (The full WHI effort involved a total cohort of 161,000 patients, and included an observational study and two other non-drug trials.)

In one of the hormone therapy trials, 17,000 women with a uterus at baseline were randomized to combined equine estrogen plus medroxyprogesterone acetate, or placebo. In the other trial, about 11,000 women with prior hysterectomy were randomized to daily estrogen alone or placebo. Both trials were stopped early: the estrogen-only trial due to an increased stroke risk, and the combined therapy trial due to findings of increased breast cancer and cardiovascular risk.

Mean exposure to hormone therapy was 5.6 years for the combined therapy trial and 7.2 years for estrogen alone trial.
 

Ovarian Cancer Incidence Doubles with Estrogen

At 20 years’ follow up, with mortality information available for nearly the full cohort, Dr. Chlebowski and his colleagues could determine that ovarian cancer incidence doubled among women who had taken estrogen alone (hazard ratio = 2.04; 95% CI 1.14-3.65; P = .01), a difference that reached statistical significance at 12 years’ follow up. Ovarian cancer mortality was also significantly increased (HR = 2.79 95% CI 1.30-5.99, P = .006). Absolute numbers were small, however, with 35 cases of ovarian cancer compared with 17 in the placebo group.

Combined therapy recipients saw no increased risk for ovarian cancer and significantly lower endometrial cancer incidence (106 cases vs. 140 HR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.56-0.92; P = .01).

Conjugated equine estrogen, Dr. Chlebowski said during his presentation at the meeting, “was introduced in US clinical practice in 1943 and used for over half a century, yet the question about hormone therapy’s influence on endometrial and ovarian cancer remains unsettled. Endometrial cancer and ovarian cancer are the fourth and fifth leading causes of cancer deaths in women ... and there’s some discordant findings from observational studies.”

Care of Ovarian Cancer Survivors Should Change

The new findings should prompt practice and guideline changes regarding the use of estrogen alone in ovarian cancer survivors, Dr. Chlebowski said.

In an interview, oncologist Eleonora Teplinsky, MD, of Valley-Mount Sinai Comprehensive Cancer Care in Paramus, New Jersey, said that apart from this subgroup of ovarian cancer survivors, the findings would not likely have much impact on how clinicians and patients approach hormone replacement therapy today.

“Twenty years ago the Women’s Health Initiative showed that hormone replacement therapy increases breast cancer risk, and everyone stopped taking HRT. And now people pushing back on it and saying wait a second – it was the estrogen plus progesterone that increased breast cancer, not estrogen alone. And now we’ve got these newer [estrogen] formulations.

“Yes, there’s a little bit of an increased risk [for ovarian cancer]. Patients should be aware. They should know the symptoms of ovarian cancer. But if they have indications and have been recommended HRT, this is not something that we would advise them against because of this very slightly increased risk,” Dr. Teplinsky said.

Oncologist Allison Kurian, MD of Stanford University in Stanford, California, who specializes in breast cancer, also noted that the duration of hormone treatment, treatment timing relative to age of menopause onset, and commonly used estrogen preparations had indeed changed since the time the WHI trials were conducted, making it harder to generalize the findings to current practice. Nonetheless, she argued, they still have real significance.

“WHI is an incredibly complex but also incredibly valuable resource,” said Dr. Kurian, who has conducted studies using WHI data. “The first big results came out in 2002, and we’re still learning from it. These are randomized trials, which offer the strongest form of scientific evidence that exists. So whenever we see results from this study, we have to take note of them,” she said.

Because the WHI trials had shown combined therapy, not estrogen alone, to be associated with breast cancer risk, clinicians have felt reassured over the years about using estrogen alone.

“You can’t give it to a person unless they have their uterus removed, because we know it will cause uterine cancer if the uterus is in place. But if the uterus is removed, the feeling was that you can give estrogen alone. I think the new piece that is going to get everyone’s attention is this signal for ovarian cancer.”

Something else the new findings show, Dr. Kurian said, is that WHI is “the gift that keeps on giving,” even after decades. “Some of the participants had a relatively short-term exposure to HRT. They took a medication for just a little while. But you didn’t see the effects until you followed people 12 years. So we’re now going to be a little more worried about ovarian cancer in this setting than we used to be. And that’s going to be something we’re all going to keep an eye on and think twice about in terms of talking to patients.”

These results help demonstrate what happens when a society invests in science on a national scale, Dr. Kurian said. “Here we have a really long-term, incredibly informative study that keeps generating knowledge to help women.”

When the WHI began, it “really was the first time that people decided it was important to systematically study women at midlife. It was a remarkable thing then that society got mobilized to do this, and we’re still seeing the benefits.”

Dr. Chlebowski disclosed receiving consulting or advisory fees from Pfizer. Dr. Teplinsky and Dr. Kurian disclosed no financial conflicts of interest.

Two decades after the landmark Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) changed the way clinicians thought about hormone therapy and cancer, new findings suggest this national health study is "the gift that keeps on giving."

Follow-up from two of the WHI’s randomized trials have found that estrogen alone in women with prior hysterectomy significantly increased ovarian cancer incidence and mortality in postmenopausal women. Estrogen and progesterone together, meanwhile, did not increase ovarian cancer risk, and significantly reduced the risk of endometrial cancer. Rowan T. Chlebowski, MD, PhD, of The Lundquist Institute in Torrance, California, presented these results from the latest WHI findings, at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Chicago.

Dr. Chlebowski and his colleagues conducted an analysis from two randomized, placebo-controlled trials, which between 1993 and 1998 enrolled nearly 28,000 postmenopausal women aged 50-79 years without prior cancer from 40 centers across the United States. (The full WHI effort involved a total cohort of 161,000 patients, and included an observational study and two other non-drug trials.)

In one of the hormone therapy trials, 17,000 women with a uterus at baseline were randomized to combined equine estrogen plus medroxyprogesterone acetate, or placebo. In the other trial, about 11,000 women with prior hysterectomy were randomized to daily estrogen alone or placebo. Both trials were stopped early: the estrogen-only trial due to an increased stroke risk, and the combined therapy trial due to findings of increased breast cancer and cardiovascular risk.

Mean exposure to hormone therapy was 5.6 years for the combined therapy trial and 7.2 years for estrogen alone trial.
 

Ovarian Cancer Incidence Doubles with Estrogen

At 20 years’ follow up, with mortality information available for nearly the full cohort, Dr. Chlebowski and his colleagues could determine that ovarian cancer incidence doubled among women who had taken estrogen alone (hazard ratio = 2.04; 95% CI 1.14-3.65; P = .01), a difference that reached statistical significance at 12 years’ follow up. Ovarian cancer mortality was also significantly increased (HR = 2.79 95% CI 1.30-5.99, P = .006). Absolute numbers were small, however, with 35 cases of ovarian cancer compared with 17 in the placebo group.

Combined therapy recipients saw no increased risk for ovarian cancer and significantly lower endometrial cancer incidence (106 cases vs. 140 HR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.56-0.92; P = .01).

Conjugated equine estrogen, Dr. Chlebowski said during his presentation at the meeting, “was introduced in US clinical practice in 1943 and used for over half a century, yet the question about hormone therapy’s influence on endometrial and ovarian cancer remains unsettled. Endometrial cancer and ovarian cancer are the fourth and fifth leading causes of cancer deaths in women ... and there’s some discordant findings from observational studies.”

Care of Ovarian Cancer Survivors Should Change

The new findings should prompt practice and guideline changes regarding the use of estrogen alone in ovarian cancer survivors, Dr. Chlebowski said.

In an interview, oncologist Eleonora Teplinsky, MD, of Valley-Mount Sinai Comprehensive Cancer Care in Paramus, New Jersey, said that apart from this subgroup of ovarian cancer survivors, the findings would not likely have much impact on how clinicians and patients approach hormone replacement therapy today.

“Twenty years ago the Women’s Health Initiative showed that hormone replacement therapy increases breast cancer risk, and everyone stopped taking HRT. And now people pushing back on it and saying wait a second – it was the estrogen plus progesterone that increased breast cancer, not estrogen alone. And now we’ve got these newer [estrogen] formulations.

“Yes, there’s a little bit of an increased risk [for ovarian cancer]. Patients should be aware. They should know the symptoms of ovarian cancer. But if they have indications and have been recommended HRT, this is not something that we would advise them against because of this very slightly increased risk,” Dr. Teplinsky said.

Oncologist Allison Kurian, MD of Stanford University in Stanford, California, who specializes in breast cancer, also noted that the duration of hormone treatment, treatment timing relative to age of menopause onset, and commonly used estrogen preparations had indeed changed since the time the WHI trials were conducted, making it harder to generalize the findings to current practice. Nonetheless, she argued, they still have real significance.

“WHI is an incredibly complex but also incredibly valuable resource,” said Dr. Kurian, who has conducted studies using WHI data. “The first big results came out in 2002, and we’re still learning from it. These are randomized trials, which offer the strongest form of scientific evidence that exists. So whenever we see results from this study, we have to take note of them,” she said.

Because the WHI trials had shown combined therapy, not estrogen alone, to be associated with breast cancer risk, clinicians have felt reassured over the years about using estrogen alone.

“You can’t give it to a person unless they have their uterus removed, because we know it will cause uterine cancer if the uterus is in place. But if the uterus is removed, the feeling was that you can give estrogen alone. I think the new piece that is going to get everyone’s attention is this signal for ovarian cancer.”

Something else the new findings show, Dr. Kurian said, is that WHI is “the gift that keeps on giving,” even after decades. “Some of the participants had a relatively short-term exposure to HRT. They took a medication for just a little while. But you didn’t see the effects until you followed people 12 years. So we’re now going to be a little more worried about ovarian cancer in this setting than we used to be. And that’s going to be something we’re all going to keep an eye on and think twice about in terms of talking to patients.”

These results help demonstrate what happens when a society invests in science on a national scale, Dr. Kurian said. “Here we have a really long-term, incredibly informative study that keeps generating knowledge to help women.”

When the WHI began, it “really was the first time that people decided it was important to systematically study women at midlife. It was a remarkable thing then that society got mobilized to do this, and we’re still seeing the benefits.”

Dr. Chlebowski disclosed receiving consulting or advisory fees from Pfizer. Dr. Teplinsky and Dr. Kurian disclosed no financial conflicts of interest.

Stuart Malcolm, MD, a primary care physician who practices in Oregon and northern California, started seeing patients with long COVID early in the pandemic. Back then, he was frustrated by the obstacles and lack of standard diagnostic tests and treatments. Four years later, well, he still is.

“Something I learned the last few years is the logistics to get people care is really, really hard,” he said. “There’s a lot of frustration. It’s mostly frustration.”

For long COVID doctors and patients, there has been little to no progress addressing the challenges, leaving many discouraged. Researchers and clinicians now have a greater understanding of what health agencies formally call post-COVID condition, but the wide spectrum of symptoms, slow progress in launching pharmacologic clinical trials, and the research toward understanding the underlying causes mean standardized diagnostic tests and definitive treatments remain elusive.

“The frustration is that we aren’t able to help everyone with our current knowledge base. And I think the frustration lies not just with us physicians but also with patients because they’re at the point where if they tried everything, literally everything and haven’t gotten better,” said Zijian Chen, MD, director of the Mount Sinai Center for Post-COVID Care in New York City.
 

Wanted: More Funding, More Doctors, More Clinics

Between 10% and 20% of the estimated hundreds of millions of people infected worldwide with SARS-CoV-2 in the first 2 years went on to develop long-term symptoms. While many recover over time, doctors who have treated long COVID since 2020 said they see some patients still wrestling with the condition after 4 years.

The latest Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Household Pulse Survey, taken between March 5 and April 1, 2024, estimated that nearly 7% of the adult population — more than 18 million people — currently have long COVID. Data from other countries also suggest that millions have been living with long COVID for years now, and hundreds of thousands have seen their day-to-day activities significantly affected.

There is an urgent need for more funding, long COVID clinicians, multidisciplinary clinics, and education for non–long COVID physicians and specialists, doctors said. Instead, funding remains limited, clinics are closing, wait times are “horrendously long,” patients are left in limbo, and physicians are burning out.

“What’s changed in some ways is that there’s even less access to COVID rehab, which sounds crazy because there was very little to begin with,” said Alexandra Rendely, MD, a physical medicine and rehabilitation physician with the interdisciplinary Toronto Rehab, a part of the University Health Network of teaching hospitals in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

“Patients are still being diagnosed every day, yet the resources available are becoming less and less.”

COVID-19 money earmarked during the pandemic was mostly limited to temporary emergency measures. As those funds dwindled, governments and institutions have decreased financial support. The Long COVID Moonshot campaign, organized by patients with long COVID, is pushing Congress to support $1 billion in annual research funding to close the financial chasm.
 

The Clinical Trial Conundrum

While long COVID clinics have come a long way in helping patients, gaps remain. Doctors may be unwilling to prescribe off-label treatments without proper clinical trials due to the potential risks and liabilities involved or due to the controversial or unconventional nature of the therapies, said Dr. Malcolm, who left his primary care practice more than 2 years ago to focus on long COVID.

In the absence of standard treatments, Dr. Malcolm and other doctors said they must take a trial-and-error approach in treating patients with long COVID that centers on addressing symptoms and not the underlying condition.

“There are actually a lot of treatments and a lot of them are not curative, but they can help people,” he said.

Dr. Malcolm, who is a medical director at Real Time Health Monitoring, a private clinic in the San Francisco Bay Area that specializes in long COVID and myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), said it was important for him to be with a clinical team that understood and was supportive of his treatment decisions and was able to offer clinical support for those treatments if needed.

For physicians looking for clinical data before prescribing certain medications, the wait may be long. More than $1.5 billion in US federal funding has been earmarked to study long COVID, but the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has faced criticism from patients and scientists alike for its slow progress and emphasis on observational studies instead of research that could unravel the biological roots of long COVID. Among the clinical trials announced by the NIH’s RECOVER initiative, only a handful involve studying pharmaceutical treatments.

A 2023 editorial published in The Lancet called out the “dismal state of clinical research relative to the substantial burden of [long COVID]” and said, “we are clearly lacking tested pharmacological interventions that treat the underlying pathophysiology.” At the time of publication, it noted that of the 386 long COVID trials listed on ClinicalTrials.gov, only 12 were actually testing pharmacologic interventions.

There are also diagnostic and insurance barriers. The specialized tests that can detect long COVID anomalies are neither commonly known by primary care practitioners nor easily requested at the local lab, can be expensive, and are typically not covered by insurance, Dr. Malcolm explained.

Patients with long COVID also have the added barrier of being unable to advocate as easily because of their energy limitations, doctors said. Patients may appear outwardly fine, but fatigue and brain fog are among the many problems that cannot be measured in appearances. The condition has upended lives, some losing jobs, even homes, and the mental toll is why there is a “not insignificant” suicide rate.
 

One Patient’s 4-Year Journey

Charlie McCone, 34, used to be a tennis player and an active musician. But he’s spent the past 4 years mostly housebound, grappling with the aftermath of a SARS-CoV-2 infection he contracted in March 2020. He went from biking daily to work 10 miles and back to having at most 2 hours of energy per day.

In the first year alone, Mr. McCone saw more than two dozen doctors and specialists. The conditions now associated with long COVID, like ME/CFS, mast cell activation syndrome (a condition in which a patient experiences episodes of allergic symptoms such as hives, swelling, low blood pressure, and difficulty breathing), or dysautonomia (conditions that affect the autonomic nervous system, which controls automatic processes in the body) were not on physicians’ radars.

Then in 2021, he became bedbound for more than half a year after a Delta variant reinfection. He developed neurologic symptoms, including incapacitating fatigue, post-exertional malaise (where symptoms worsened after minimal physical or mental activity), left-sided weakness, and cognitive impairment. He stopped working altogether. But the worst was the shortness of breath he felt 24/7, even at rest. A battery of lab tests revealed nothing abnormal. He tried numerous drugs and the classic respiratory treatments.

Mr. McCone eventually connected with Dr. Malcolm over X and developed what he describes as an effective patient-doctor collaboration. When studies came out suggesting microclots were a common issue with patients with long COVID and positive outcomes were reported from anticoagulant therapy, they knew it could be one of the answers.

“After 3 weeks on [the antiplatelet drug], I was like, oh my god, my lungs are finally opening up,” said Mr. McCone. He has taken the medication for more than a year and a half, and some days he doesn’t even think about his respiratory symptoms.

“That trial-and-error process is just really long and hard and costly,” said Dr. Malcolm.

Today, fatigue and cognitive stamina are Mr. McCone’s main challenges, and he is far from recovered.

“[I had a] very fulfilling, happy life and now, it’s hard to think about. I’ve come a long way with my mental health and all this, but I’ve lost 4 years,” Mr. McCone said. “The prospect of me being here when I’m 40 seems very real ... so it’s pretty devastating.”
 

Lessons Learned, Hope Amid Ongoing Research

Despite the daunting obstacle, doctors said the science has come a long way for a new disease. We now know long COVID is likely caused by a combination of triggers, including viral reservoir in the tissue, inflammation, autoimmunity, and microclots; severity of infection is not necessarily an accurate risk factor predictor — long COVID can strike even those who had a mild infection; upward of 200 symptoms have been identified; and we know more about potential biomarkers that could lead to better diagnostic tools.

Unlike many other diseases and conditions with standard treatment protocols, long COVID treatments are typically aimed at addressing individual symptoms.

“It is very detailed and individualized to the patient’s specific symptoms and to the patient’s specific needs,” Dr. Rendely said. Symptoms can also fluctuate, relapse, or wax and wane, for example, so what ails a patient at their first doctor’s appointment could be completely different at the next appointment 2 months later.

Doctors are still hopeful the RECOVER research, which includes trials that look at autonomic and cognitive dysfunctions, will pave the way for more effective long COVID therapies. In Canada, Dr. Rendely is also eying the RECLAIM trial that is currently testing the effectiveness of pentoxifylline, which helps blood flow, and ibudilast, an anti-inflammatory drug.

Doctors are also hopeful when they see patients who have made “tremendous gains” or even full recoveries through their clinics. “It’s a new diagnosis, so I always tell my patients to think of this as a journey because I’m learning along with you,” said Jai Marathe, MD, an infectious disease physician at Boston Medical Center and an assistant professor of infectious diseases at Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine.

“Now we have 4 years of experience, but at the same time, no two long COVID patients are alike.”

Long COVID has also changed the way physicians view healthcare and how they practice medicine.

“I am a completely different person than I used to be because of this illness, and I don’t even have it. That is how profoundly it has affected how I view the universe,” said Dr. Malcolm. “I’ve been doing this for 4 years, and I’m very hopeful. But I don’t think about this in terms of months anymore. I think about this in terms of years.”

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

Stuart Malcolm, MD, a primary care physician who practices in Oregon and northern California, started seeing patients with long COVID early in the pandemic. Back then, he was frustrated by the obstacles and lack of standard diagnostic tests and treatments. Four years later, well, he still is.

“Something I learned the last few years is the logistics to get people care is really, really hard,” he said. “There’s a lot of frustration. It’s mostly frustration.”

For long COVID doctors and patients, there has been little to no progress addressing the challenges, leaving many discouraged. Researchers and clinicians now have a greater understanding of what health agencies formally call post-COVID condition, but the wide spectrum of symptoms, slow progress in launching pharmacologic clinical trials, and the research toward understanding the underlying causes mean standardized diagnostic tests and definitive treatments remain elusive.

“The frustration is that we aren’t able to help everyone with our current knowledge base. And I think the frustration lies not just with us physicians but also with patients because they’re at the point where if they tried everything, literally everything and haven’t gotten better,” said Zijian Chen, MD, director of the Mount Sinai Center for Post-COVID Care in New York City.
 

Wanted: More Funding, More Doctors, More Clinics

Between 10% and 20% of the estimated hundreds of millions of people infected worldwide with SARS-CoV-2 in the first 2 years went on to develop long-term symptoms. While many recover over time, doctors who have treated long COVID since 2020 said they see some patients still wrestling with the condition after 4 years.

The latest Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Household Pulse Survey, taken between March 5 and April 1, 2024, estimated that nearly 7% of the adult population — more than 18 million people — currently have long COVID. Data from other countries also suggest that millions have been living with long COVID for years now, and hundreds of thousands have seen their day-to-day activities significantly affected.

There is an urgent need for more funding, long COVID clinicians, multidisciplinary clinics, and education for non–long COVID physicians and specialists, doctors said. Instead, funding remains limited, clinics are closing, wait times are “horrendously long,” patients are left in limbo, and physicians are burning out.

“What’s changed in some ways is that there’s even less access to COVID rehab, which sounds crazy because there was very little to begin with,” said Alexandra Rendely, MD, a physical medicine and rehabilitation physician with the interdisciplinary Toronto Rehab, a part of the University Health Network of teaching hospitals in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

“Patients are still being diagnosed every day, yet the resources available are becoming less and less.”

COVID-19 money earmarked during the pandemic was mostly limited to temporary emergency measures. As those funds dwindled, governments and institutions have decreased financial support. The Long COVID Moonshot campaign, organized by patients with long COVID, is pushing Congress to support $1 billion in annual research funding to close the financial chasm.
 

The Clinical Trial Conundrum

While long COVID clinics have come a long way in helping patients, gaps remain. Doctors may be unwilling to prescribe off-label treatments without proper clinical trials due to the potential risks and liabilities involved or due to the controversial or unconventional nature of the therapies, said Dr. Malcolm, who left his primary care practice more than 2 years ago to focus on long COVID.

In the absence of standard treatments, Dr. Malcolm and other doctors said they must take a trial-and-error approach in treating patients with long COVID that centers on addressing symptoms and not the underlying condition.

“There are actually a lot of treatments and a lot of them are not curative, but they can help people,” he said.

Dr. Malcolm, who is a medical director at Real Time Health Monitoring, a private clinic in the San Francisco Bay Area that specializes in long COVID and myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), said it was important for him to be with a clinical team that understood and was supportive of his treatment decisions and was able to offer clinical support for those treatments if needed.

For physicians looking for clinical data before prescribing certain medications, the wait may be long. More than $1.5 billion in US federal funding has been earmarked to study long COVID, but the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has faced criticism from patients and scientists alike for its slow progress and emphasis on observational studies instead of research that could unravel the biological roots of long COVID. Among the clinical trials announced by the NIH’s RECOVER initiative, only a handful involve studying pharmaceutical treatments.

A 2023 editorial published in The Lancet called out the “dismal state of clinical research relative to the substantial burden of [long COVID]” and said, “we are clearly lacking tested pharmacological interventions that treat the underlying pathophysiology.” At the time of publication, it noted that of the 386 long COVID trials listed on ClinicalTrials.gov, only 12 were actually testing pharmacologic interventions.

There are also diagnostic and insurance barriers. The specialized tests that can detect long COVID anomalies are neither commonly known by primary care practitioners nor easily requested at the local lab, can be expensive, and are typically not covered by insurance, Dr. Malcolm explained.

Patients with long COVID also have the added barrier of being unable to advocate as easily because of their energy limitations, doctors said. Patients may appear outwardly fine, but fatigue and brain fog are among the many problems that cannot be measured in appearances. The condition has upended lives, some losing jobs, even homes, and the mental toll is why there is a “not insignificant” suicide rate.
 

One Patient’s 4-Year Journey

Charlie McCone, 34, used to be a tennis player and an active musician. But he’s spent the past 4 years mostly housebound, grappling with the aftermath of a SARS-CoV-2 infection he contracted in March 2020. He went from biking daily to work 10 miles and back to having at most 2 hours of energy per day.

In the first year alone, Mr. McCone saw more than two dozen doctors and specialists. The conditions now associated with long COVID, like ME/CFS, mast cell activation syndrome (a condition in which a patient experiences episodes of allergic symptoms such as hives, swelling, low blood pressure, and difficulty breathing), or dysautonomia (conditions that affect the autonomic nervous system, which controls automatic processes in the body) were not on physicians’ radars.

Then in 2021, he became bedbound for more than half a year after a Delta variant reinfection. He developed neurologic symptoms, including incapacitating fatigue, post-exertional malaise (where symptoms worsened after minimal physical or mental activity), left-sided weakness, and cognitive impairment. He stopped working altogether. But the worst was the shortness of breath he felt 24/7, even at rest. A battery of lab tests revealed nothing abnormal. He tried numerous drugs and the classic respiratory treatments.

Mr. McCone eventually connected with Dr. Malcolm over X and developed what he describes as an effective patient-doctor collaboration. When studies came out suggesting microclots were a common issue with patients with long COVID and positive outcomes were reported from anticoagulant therapy, they knew it could be one of the answers.

“After 3 weeks on [the antiplatelet drug], I was like, oh my god, my lungs are finally opening up,” said Mr. McCone. He has taken the medication for more than a year and a half, and some days he doesn’t even think about his respiratory symptoms.

“That trial-and-error process is just really long and hard and costly,” said Dr. Malcolm.

Today, fatigue and cognitive stamina are Mr. McCone’s main challenges, and he is far from recovered.

“[I had a] very fulfilling, happy life and now, it’s hard to think about. I’ve come a long way with my mental health and all this, but I’ve lost 4 years,” Mr. McCone said. “The prospect of me being here when I’m 40 seems very real ... so it’s pretty devastating.”
 

Lessons Learned, Hope Amid Ongoing Research

Despite the daunting obstacle, doctors said the science has come a long way for a new disease. We now know long COVID is likely caused by a combination of triggers, including viral reservoir in the tissue, inflammation, autoimmunity, and microclots; severity of infection is not necessarily an accurate risk factor predictor — long COVID can strike even those who had a mild infection; upward of 200 symptoms have been identified; and we know more about potential biomarkers that could lead to better diagnostic tools.

Unlike many other diseases and conditions with standard treatment protocols, long COVID treatments are typically aimed at addressing individual symptoms.

“It is very detailed and individualized to the patient’s specific symptoms and to the patient’s specific needs,” Dr. Rendely said. Symptoms can also fluctuate, relapse, or wax and wane, for example, so what ails a patient at their first doctor’s appointment could be completely different at the next appointment 2 months later.

Doctors are still hopeful the RECOVER research, which includes trials that look at autonomic and cognitive dysfunctions, will pave the way for more effective long COVID therapies. In Canada, Dr. Rendely is also eying the RECLAIM trial that is currently testing the effectiveness of pentoxifylline, which helps blood flow, and ibudilast, an anti-inflammatory drug.

Doctors are also hopeful when they see patients who have made “tremendous gains” or even full recoveries through their clinics. “It’s a new diagnosis, so I always tell my patients to think of this as a journey because I’m learning along with you,” said Jai Marathe, MD, an infectious disease physician at Boston Medical Center and an assistant professor of infectious diseases at Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine.

“Now we have 4 years of experience, but at the same time, no two long COVID patients are alike.”

Long COVID has also changed the way physicians view healthcare and how they practice medicine.

“I am a completely different person than I used to be because of this illness, and I don’t even have it. That is how profoundly it has affected how I view the universe,” said Dr. Malcolm. “I’ve been doing this for 4 years, and I’m very hopeful. But I don’t think about this in terms of months anymore. I think about this in terms of years.”

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

Stuart Malcolm, MD, a primary care physician who practices in Oregon and northern California, started seeing patients with long COVID early in the pandemic. Back then, he was frustrated by the obstacles and lack of standard diagnostic tests and treatments. Four years later, well, he still is.

“Something I learned the last few years is the logistics to get people care is really, really hard,” he said. “There’s a lot of frustration. It’s mostly frustration.”

For long COVID doctors and patients, there has been little to no progress addressing the challenges, leaving many discouraged. Researchers and clinicians now have a greater understanding of what health agencies formally call post-COVID condition, but the wide spectrum of symptoms, slow progress in launching pharmacologic clinical trials, and the research toward understanding the underlying causes mean standardized diagnostic tests and definitive treatments remain elusive.

“The frustration is that we aren’t able to help everyone with our current knowledge base. And I think the frustration lies not just with us physicians but also with patients because they’re at the point where if they tried everything, literally everything and haven’t gotten better,” said Zijian Chen, MD, director of the Mount Sinai Center for Post-COVID Care in New York City.
 

Wanted: More Funding, More Doctors, More Clinics

Between 10% and 20% of the estimated hundreds of millions of people infected worldwide with SARS-CoV-2 in the first 2 years went on to develop long-term symptoms. While many recover over time, doctors who have treated long COVID since 2020 said they see some patients still wrestling with the condition after 4 years.

The latest Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Household Pulse Survey, taken between March 5 and April 1, 2024, estimated that nearly 7% of the adult population — more than 18 million people — currently have long COVID. Data from other countries also suggest that millions have been living with long COVID for years now, and hundreds of thousands have seen their day-to-day activities significantly affected.

There is an urgent need for more funding, long COVID clinicians, multidisciplinary clinics, and education for non–long COVID physicians and specialists, doctors said. Instead, funding remains limited, clinics are closing, wait times are “horrendously long,” patients are left in limbo, and physicians are burning out.

“What’s changed in some ways is that there’s even less access to COVID rehab, which sounds crazy because there was very little to begin with,” said Alexandra Rendely, MD, a physical medicine and rehabilitation physician with the interdisciplinary Toronto Rehab, a part of the University Health Network of teaching hospitals in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

“Patients are still being diagnosed every day, yet the resources available are becoming less and less.”

COVID-19 money earmarked during the pandemic was mostly limited to temporary emergency measures. As those funds dwindled, governments and institutions have decreased financial support. The Long COVID Moonshot campaign, organized by patients with long COVID, is pushing Congress to support $1 billion in annual research funding to close the financial chasm.
 

The Clinical Trial Conundrum

While long COVID clinics have come a long way in helping patients, gaps remain. Doctors may be unwilling to prescribe off-label treatments without proper clinical trials due to the potential risks and liabilities involved or due to the controversial or unconventional nature of the therapies, said Dr. Malcolm, who left his primary care practice more than 2 years ago to focus on long COVID.

In the absence of standard treatments, Dr. Malcolm and other doctors said they must take a trial-and-error approach in treating patients with long COVID that centers on addressing symptoms and not the underlying condition.

“There are actually a lot of treatments and a lot of them are not curative, but they can help people,” he said.

Dr. Malcolm, who is a medical director at Real Time Health Monitoring, a private clinic in the San Francisco Bay Area that specializes in long COVID and myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), said it was important for him to be with a clinical team that understood and was supportive of his treatment decisions and was able to offer clinical support for those treatments if needed.

For physicians looking for clinical data before prescribing certain medications, the wait may be long. More than $1.5 billion in US federal funding has been earmarked to study long COVID, but the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has faced criticism from patients and scientists alike for its slow progress and emphasis on observational studies instead of research that could unravel the biological roots of long COVID. Among the clinical trials announced by the NIH’s RECOVER initiative, only a handful involve studying pharmaceutical treatments.

A 2023 editorial published in The Lancet called out the “dismal state of clinical research relative to the substantial burden of [long COVID]” and said, “we are clearly lacking tested pharmacological interventions that treat the underlying pathophysiology.” At the time of publication, it noted that of the 386 long COVID trials listed on ClinicalTrials.gov, only 12 were actually testing pharmacologic interventions.

There are also diagnostic and insurance barriers. The specialized tests that can detect long COVID anomalies are neither commonly known by primary care practitioners nor easily requested at the local lab, can be expensive, and are typically not covered by insurance, Dr. Malcolm explained.

Patients with long COVID also have the added barrier of being unable to advocate as easily because of their energy limitations, doctors said. Patients may appear outwardly fine, but fatigue and brain fog are among the many problems that cannot be measured in appearances. The condition has upended lives, some losing jobs, even homes, and the mental toll is why there is a “not insignificant” suicide rate.
 

One Patient’s 4-Year Journey

Charlie McCone, 34, used to be a tennis player and an active musician. But he’s spent the past 4 years mostly housebound, grappling with the aftermath of a SARS-CoV-2 infection he contracted in March 2020. He went from biking daily to work 10 miles and back to having at most 2 hours of energy per day.

In the first year alone, Mr. McCone saw more than two dozen doctors and specialists. The conditions now associated with long COVID, like ME/CFS, mast cell activation syndrome (a condition in which a patient experiences episodes of allergic symptoms such as hives, swelling, low blood pressure, and difficulty breathing), or dysautonomia (conditions that affect the autonomic nervous system, which controls automatic processes in the body) were not on physicians’ radars.

Then in 2021, he became bedbound for more than half a year after a Delta variant reinfection. He developed neurologic symptoms, including incapacitating fatigue, post-exertional malaise (where symptoms worsened after minimal physical or mental activity), left-sided weakness, and cognitive impairment. He stopped working altogether. But the worst was the shortness of breath he felt 24/7, even at rest. A battery of lab tests revealed nothing abnormal. He tried numerous drugs and the classic respiratory treatments.

Mr. McCone eventually connected with Dr. Malcolm over X and developed what he describes as an effective patient-doctor collaboration. When studies came out suggesting microclots were a common issue with patients with long COVID and positive outcomes were reported from anticoagulant therapy, they knew it could be one of the answers.

“After 3 weeks on [the antiplatelet drug], I was like, oh my god, my lungs are finally opening up,” said Mr. McCone. He has taken the medication for more than a year and a half, and some days he doesn’t even think about his respiratory symptoms.

“That trial-and-error process is just really long and hard and costly,” said Dr. Malcolm.

Today, fatigue and cognitive stamina are Mr. McCone’s main challenges, and he is far from recovered.

“[I had a] very fulfilling, happy life and now, it’s hard to think about. I’ve come a long way with my mental health and all this, but I’ve lost 4 years,” Mr. McCone said. “The prospect of me being here when I’m 40 seems very real ... so it’s pretty devastating.”
 

Lessons Learned, Hope Amid Ongoing Research

Despite the daunting obstacle, doctors said the science has come a long way for a new disease. We now know long COVID is likely caused by a combination of triggers, including viral reservoir in the tissue, inflammation, autoimmunity, and microclots; severity of infection is not necessarily an accurate risk factor predictor — long COVID can strike even those who had a mild infection; upward of 200 symptoms have been identified; and we know more about potential biomarkers that could lead to better diagnostic tools.

Unlike many other diseases and conditions with standard treatment protocols, long COVID treatments are typically aimed at addressing individual symptoms.

“It is very detailed and individualized to the patient’s specific symptoms and to the patient’s specific needs,” Dr. Rendely said. Symptoms can also fluctuate, relapse, or wax and wane, for example, so what ails a patient at their first doctor’s appointment could be completely different at the next appointment 2 months later.

Doctors are still hopeful the RECOVER research, which includes trials that look at autonomic and cognitive dysfunctions, will pave the way for more effective long COVID therapies. In Canada, Dr. Rendely is also eying the RECLAIM trial that is currently testing the effectiveness of pentoxifylline, which helps blood flow, and ibudilast, an anti-inflammatory drug.

Doctors are also hopeful when they see patients who have made “tremendous gains” or even full recoveries through their clinics. “It’s a new diagnosis, so I always tell my patients to think of this as a journey because I’m learning along with you,” said Jai Marathe, MD, an infectious disease physician at Boston Medical Center and an assistant professor of infectious diseases at Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine.

“Now we have 4 years of experience, but at the same time, no two long COVID patients are alike.”

Long COVID has also changed the way physicians view healthcare and how they practice medicine.

“I am a completely different person than I used to be because of this illness, and I don’t even have it. That is how profoundly it has affected how I view the universe,” said Dr. Malcolm. “I’ve been doing this for 4 years, and I’m very hopeful. But I don’t think about this in terms of months anymore. I think about this in terms of years.”

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

Do drugs work better if taken by the clock?

A new analysis published in The Lancet journal’s eClinicalMedicine suggests: Yes, they do — if you consider the patient’s individual body clock. The study is the first to find that timing blood pressure drugs to a person’s personal “chronotype” — that is, whether they are a night owl or an early bird — may reduce the risk for a heart attack.

The findings represent a significant advance in the field of circadian medicine or “chronotherapy” — timing drug administration to circadian rhythms. A growing stack of research suggests this approach could reduce side effects and improve the effectiveness of a wide range of therapies, including vaccines, cancer treatments, and drugs for depression, glaucoma, pain, seizures, and other conditions. Still, despite decades of research, time of day is rarely considered in writing prescriptions.

“We are really just at the beginning of an exciting new way of looking at patient care,” said Kenneth A. Dyar, PhD, whose lab at Helmholtz Zentrum München’s Institute for Diabetes and Cancer focuses on metabolic physiology. Dr. Dyar is co-lead author of the new blood pressure analysis.

“Chronotherapy is a rapidly growing field,” he said, “and I suspect we are soon going to see more and more studies focused on ‘personalized chronotherapy,’ not only in hypertension but also potentially in other clinical areas.”
 

The ‘Missing Piece’ in Chronotherapy Research

Blood pressure drugs have long been chronotherapy’s battleground. After all, blood pressure follows a circadian rhythm, peaking in the morning and dropping at night.

That healthy overnight dip can disappear in people with diabetes, kidney disease, and obstructive sleep apnea. Some physicians have suggested a bed-time dose to restore that dip. But studies have had mixed results, so “take at bedtime” has become a less common recommendation in recent years.

But the debate continued. After a large 2019 Spanish study found that bedtime doses had benefits so big that the results drew questions, an even larger, 2022 randomized, controlled trial from the University of Dundee in Dundee, Scotland — called the TIME study — aimed to settle the question.

Researchers assigned over 21,000 people to take morning or night hypertension drugs for several years and found no difference in cardiovascular outcomes.

“We did this study thinking nocturnal blood pressure tablets might be better,” said Thomas MacDonald, MD, professor emeritus of clinical pharmacology and pharmacoepidemiology at the University of Dundee and principal investigator for the TIME study and the recent chronotype analysis. “But there was no difference for heart attacks, strokes, or vascular death.”

So, the researchers then looked at participants’ chronotypes, sorting outcomes based on whether the participants were late-to-bed, late-to-rise “night owls” or early-to-bed, early-to-rise “morning larks.”

Their analysis of these 5358 TIME participants found the following results: Risk for hospitalization for a heart attack was at least 34% lower for “owls” who took their drugs at bedtime. By contrast, owls’ heart attack risk was at least 62% higher with morning doses. For “larks,” the opposite was true. Morning doses were associated with an 11% lower heart attack risk and night doses with an 11% higher risk, according to supplemental data.

The personalized approach could explain why some previous chronotherapy studies have failed to show a benefit. Those studies did not individualize drug timing as this one did. But personalization could be key to circadian medicine’s success.

“Our ‘internal personal time’ appears to be an important variable to consider when dosing antihypertensives,” said co-lead author Filippo Pigazzani, MD, PhD, clinical senior lecturer and honorary consultant cardiologist at the University of Dundee School of Medicine. “Chronotherapy research has been going on for decades. We knew there was something important with time of day. But researchers haven’t considered the internal time of individual people. I think that is the missing piece.”

The analysis has several important limitations, the researchers said. A total of 95% of participants were White. And it was an observational study, not a true randomized comparison. “We started it late in the original TIME study,” Dr. MacDonald said. “You could argue we were reporting on those who survived long enough to get into the analysis.” More research is needed, they concluded.
 

Looking Beyond Blood Pressure

What about the rest of the body? “Almost all the cells of our body contain ‘circadian clocks’ that are synchronized by daily environmental cues, including light-dark, activity-rest, and feeding-fasting cycles,” said Dr. Dyar.

An estimated 50% of prescription drugs hit targets in the body that have circadian patterns. So, experts suspect that syncing a drug with a person’s body clock might increase effectiveness of many drugs.

A handful of US Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs already have time-of-day recommendations on the label for effectiveness or to limit side effects, including bedtime or evening for the insomnia drug Ambien, the HIV antiviral Atripla, and cholesterol-lowering Zocor. Others are intended to be taken with or after your last meal of the day, such as the long-acting insulin Levemir and the cardiovascular drug Xarelto. A morning recommendation comes with the proton pump inhibitor Nexium and the attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder drug Ritalin.

Interest is expanding. About one third of the papers published about chronotherapy in the past 25 years have come out in the past 5 years. The May 2024 meeting of the Society for Research on Biological Rhythms featured a day-long session aimed at bringing clinicians up to speed. An organization called the International Association of Circadian Health Clinics is trying to bring circadian medicine findings to clinicians and their patients and to support research.

Moreover, while recent research suggests minding the clock could have benefits for a wide range of treatments, ignoring it could cause problems.

In a Massachusetts Institute of Technology study published in April in Science Advances, researchers looked at engineered livers made from human donor cells and found more than 300 genes that operate on a circadian schedule, many with roles in drug metabolism. They also found that circadian patterns affected the toxicity of acetaminophen and atorvastatin. Identifying the time of day to take these drugs could maximize effectiveness and minimize adverse effects, the researchers said.
 

Timing and the Immune System

Circadian rhythms are also seen in immune processes. In a 2023 study in The Journal of Clinical Investigation of vaccine data from 1.5 million people in Israel, researchers found that children and older adults who got their second dose of the Pfizer mRNA COVID vaccine earlier in the day were about 36% less likely to be hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infection than those who got an evening shot.

“The sweet spot in our data was somewhere around late morning to late afternoon,” said lead researcher Jeffrey Haspel, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine in the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.

In a multicenter, 2024 analysis of 13 studies of immunotherapy for advanced cancers in 1663 people, researchers found treatment earlier in the day was associated with longer survival time and longer survival without cancer progression.

“Patients with selected metastatic cancers seemed to largely benefit from early [time of day] infusions, which is consistent with circadian mechanisms in immune-cell functions and trafficking,” the researchers noted. But “retrospective randomized trials are needed to establish recommendations for optimal circadian timing.”

Other research suggests or is investigating possible chronotherapy benefits for depression, glaucoma, respiratory diseases, stroke treatment, epilepsy, and sedatives used in surgery. So why aren’t healthcare providers adding time of day to more prescriptions? “What’s missing is more reliable data,” Dr. Dyar said.
 

Should You Use Chronotherapy Now?

Experts emphasize that more research is needed before doctors use chronotherapy and before medical organizations include it in treatment recommendations. But for some patients, circadian dosing may be worth a try:

Night owls whose blood pressure isn’t well controlled. Dr. Dyar and Dr. Pigazzani said night-time blood pressure drugs may be helpful for people with a “late chronotype.” Of course, patients shouldn’t change their medication schedule on their own, they said. And doctors may want to consider other concerns, like more overnight bathroom visits with evening diuretics.

In their study, the researchers determined participants’ chronotype with a few questions from the Munich Chronotype Questionnaire about what time they fell asleep and woke up on workdays and days off and whether they considered themselves “morning types” or “evening types.” (The questions can be found in supplementary data for the study.)

If a physician thinks matching the timing of a dose with chronotype would help, they can consider it, Dr. Pigazzani said. “However, I must add that this was an observational study, so I would advise healthcare practitioners to wait for our data to be confirmed in new RCTs of personalized chronotherapy of hypertension.”

Children and older adults getting vaccines. Timing COVID shots and possibly other vaccines from late morning to mid-afternoon could have a small benefit for individuals and a bigger public-health benefit, Dr. Haspel said. But the most important thing is getting vaccinated. “If you can only get one in the evening, it’s still worthwhile. Timing may add oomph at a public-health level for more vulnerable groups.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Do drugs work better if taken by the clock?

A new analysis published in The Lancet journal’s eClinicalMedicine suggests: Yes, they do — if you consider the patient’s individual body clock. The study is the first to find that timing blood pressure drugs to a person’s personal “chronotype” — that is, whether they are a night owl or an early bird — may reduce the risk for a heart attack.

The findings represent a significant advance in the field of circadian medicine or “chronotherapy” — timing drug administration to circadian rhythms. A growing stack of research suggests this approach could reduce side effects and improve the effectiveness of a wide range of therapies, including vaccines, cancer treatments, and drugs for depression, glaucoma, pain, seizures, and other conditions. Still, despite decades of research, time of day is rarely considered in writing prescriptions.

“We are really just at the beginning of an exciting new way of looking at patient care,” said Kenneth A. Dyar, PhD, whose lab at Helmholtz Zentrum München’s Institute for Diabetes and Cancer focuses on metabolic physiology. Dr. Dyar is co-lead author of the new blood pressure analysis.

“Chronotherapy is a rapidly growing field,” he said, “and I suspect we are soon going to see more and more studies focused on ‘personalized chronotherapy,’ not only in hypertension but also potentially in other clinical areas.”
 

The ‘Missing Piece’ in Chronotherapy Research

Blood pressure drugs have long been chronotherapy’s battleground. After all, blood pressure follows a circadian rhythm, peaking in the morning and dropping at night.

That healthy overnight dip can disappear in people with diabetes, kidney disease, and obstructive sleep apnea. Some physicians have suggested a bed-time dose to restore that dip. But studies have had mixed results, so “take at bedtime” has become a less common recommendation in recent years.

But the debate continued. After a large 2019 Spanish study found that bedtime doses had benefits so big that the results drew questions, an even larger, 2022 randomized, controlled trial from the University of Dundee in Dundee, Scotland — called the TIME study — aimed to settle the question.

Researchers assigned over 21,000 people to take morning or night hypertension drugs for several years and found no difference in cardiovascular outcomes.

“We did this study thinking nocturnal blood pressure tablets might be better,” said Thomas MacDonald, MD, professor emeritus of clinical pharmacology and pharmacoepidemiology at the University of Dundee and principal investigator for the TIME study and the recent chronotype analysis. “But there was no difference for heart attacks, strokes, or vascular death.”

So, the researchers then looked at participants’ chronotypes, sorting outcomes based on whether the participants were late-to-bed, late-to-rise “night owls” or early-to-bed, early-to-rise “morning larks.”

Their analysis of these 5358 TIME participants found the following results: Risk for hospitalization for a heart attack was at least 34% lower for “owls” who took their drugs at bedtime. By contrast, owls’ heart attack risk was at least 62% higher with morning doses. For “larks,” the opposite was true. Morning doses were associated with an 11% lower heart attack risk and night doses with an 11% higher risk, according to supplemental data.

The personalized approach could explain why some previous chronotherapy studies have failed to show a benefit. Those studies did not individualize drug timing as this one did. But personalization could be key to circadian medicine’s success.

“Our ‘internal personal time’ appears to be an important variable to consider when dosing antihypertensives,” said co-lead author Filippo Pigazzani, MD, PhD, clinical senior lecturer and honorary consultant cardiologist at the University of Dundee School of Medicine. “Chronotherapy research has been going on for decades. We knew there was something important with time of day. But researchers haven’t considered the internal time of individual people. I think that is the missing piece.”

The analysis has several important limitations, the researchers said. A total of 95% of participants were White. And it was an observational study, not a true randomized comparison. “We started it late in the original TIME study,” Dr. MacDonald said. “You could argue we were reporting on those who survived long enough to get into the analysis.” More research is needed, they concluded.
 

Looking Beyond Blood Pressure

What about the rest of the body? “Almost all the cells of our body contain ‘circadian clocks’ that are synchronized by daily environmental cues, including light-dark, activity-rest, and feeding-fasting cycles,” said Dr. Dyar.

An estimated 50% of prescription drugs hit targets in the body that have circadian patterns. So, experts suspect that syncing a drug with a person’s body clock might increase effectiveness of many drugs.

A handful of US Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs already have time-of-day recommendations on the label for effectiveness or to limit side effects, including bedtime or evening for the insomnia drug Ambien, the HIV antiviral Atripla, and cholesterol-lowering Zocor. Others are intended to be taken with or after your last meal of the day, such as the long-acting insulin Levemir and the cardiovascular drug Xarelto. A morning recommendation comes with the proton pump inhibitor Nexium and the attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder drug Ritalin.

Interest is expanding. About one third of the papers published about chronotherapy in the past 25 years have come out in the past 5 years. The May 2024 meeting of the Society for Research on Biological Rhythms featured a day-long session aimed at bringing clinicians up to speed. An organization called the International Association of Circadian Health Clinics is trying to bring circadian medicine findings to clinicians and their patients and to support research.

Moreover, while recent research suggests minding the clock could have benefits for a wide range of treatments, ignoring it could cause problems.

In a Massachusetts Institute of Technology study published in April in Science Advances, researchers looked at engineered livers made from human donor cells and found more than 300 genes that operate on a circadian schedule, many with roles in drug metabolism. They also found that circadian patterns affected the toxicity of acetaminophen and atorvastatin. Identifying the time of day to take these drugs could maximize effectiveness and minimize adverse effects, the researchers said.
 

Timing and the Immune System

Circadian rhythms are also seen in immune processes. In a 2023 study in The Journal of Clinical Investigation of vaccine data from 1.5 million people in Israel, researchers found that children and older adults who got their second dose of the Pfizer mRNA COVID vaccine earlier in the day were about 36% less likely to be hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infection than those who got an evening shot.

“The sweet spot in our data was somewhere around late morning to late afternoon,” said lead researcher Jeffrey Haspel, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine in the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.

In a multicenter, 2024 analysis of 13 studies of immunotherapy for advanced cancers in 1663 people, researchers found treatment earlier in the day was associated with longer survival time and longer survival without cancer progression.

“Patients with selected metastatic cancers seemed to largely benefit from early [time of day] infusions, which is consistent with circadian mechanisms in immune-cell functions and trafficking,” the researchers noted. But “retrospective randomized trials are needed to establish recommendations for optimal circadian timing.”

Other research suggests or is investigating possible chronotherapy benefits for depression, glaucoma, respiratory diseases, stroke treatment, epilepsy, and sedatives used in surgery. So why aren’t healthcare providers adding time of day to more prescriptions? “What’s missing is more reliable data,” Dr. Dyar said.
 

Should You Use Chronotherapy Now?

Experts emphasize that more research is needed before doctors use chronotherapy and before medical organizations include it in treatment recommendations. But for some patients, circadian dosing may be worth a try:

Night owls whose blood pressure isn’t well controlled. Dr. Dyar and Dr. Pigazzani said night-time blood pressure drugs may be helpful for people with a “late chronotype.” Of course, patients shouldn’t change their medication schedule on their own, they said. And doctors may want to consider other concerns, like more overnight bathroom visits with evening diuretics.

In their study, the researchers determined participants’ chronotype with a few questions from the Munich Chronotype Questionnaire about what time they fell asleep and woke up on workdays and days off and whether they considered themselves “morning types” or “evening types.” (The questions can be found in supplementary data for the study.)

If a physician thinks matching the timing of a dose with chronotype would help, they can consider it, Dr. Pigazzani said. “However, I must add that this was an observational study, so I would advise healthcare practitioners to wait for our data to be confirmed in new RCTs of personalized chronotherapy of hypertension.”

Children and older adults getting vaccines. Timing COVID shots and possibly other vaccines from late morning to mid-afternoon could have a small benefit for individuals and a bigger public-health benefit, Dr. Haspel said. But the most important thing is getting vaccinated. “If you can only get one in the evening, it’s still worthwhile. Timing may add oomph at a public-health level for more vulnerable groups.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Do drugs work better if taken by the clock?

A new analysis published in The Lancet journal’s eClinicalMedicine suggests: Yes, they do — if you consider the patient’s individual body clock. The study is the first to find that timing blood pressure drugs to a person’s personal “chronotype” — that is, whether they are a night owl or an early bird — may reduce the risk for a heart attack.

The findings represent a significant advance in the field of circadian medicine or “chronotherapy” — timing drug administration to circadian rhythms. A growing stack of research suggests this approach could reduce side effects and improve the effectiveness of a wide range of therapies, including vaccines, cancer treatments, and drugs for depression, glaucoma, pain, seizures, and other conditions. Still, despite decades of research, time of day is rarely considered in writing prescriptions.

“We are really just at the beginning of an exciting new way of looking at patient care,” said Kenneth A. Dyar, PhD, whose lab at Helmholtz Zentrum München’s Institute for Diabetes and Cancer focuses on metabolic physiology. Dr. Dyar is co-lead author of the new blood pressure analysis.

“Chronotherapy is a rapidly growing field,” he said, “and I suspect we are soon going to see more and more studies focused on ‘personalized chronotherapy,’ not only in hypertension but also potentially in other clinical areas.”
 

The ‘Missing Piece’ in Chronotherapy Research

Blood pressure drugs have long been chronotherapy’s battleground. After all, blood pressure follows a circadian rhythm, peaking in the morning and dropping at night.

That healthy overnight dip can disappear in people with diabetes, kidney disease, and obstructive sleep apnea. Some physicians have suggested a bed-time dose to restore that dip. But studies have had mixed results, so “take at bedtime” has become a less common recommendation in recent years.

But the debate continued. After a large 2019 Spanish study found that bedtime doses had benefits so big that the results drew questions, an even larger, 2022 randomized, controlled trial from the University of Dundee in Dundee, Scotland — called the TIME study — aimed to settle the question.

Researchers assigned over 21,000 people to take morning or night hypertension drugs for several years and found no difference in cardiovascular outcomes.

“We did this study thinking nocturnal blood pressure tablets might be better,” said Thomas MacDonald, MD, professor emeritus of clinical pharmacology and pharmacoepidemiology at the University of Dundee and principal investigator for the TIME study and the recent chronotype analysis. “But there was no difference for heart attacks, strokes, or vascular death.”

So, the researchers then looked at participants’ chronotypes, sorting outcomes based on whether the participants were late-to-bed, late-to-rise “night owls” or early-to-bed, early-to-rise “morning larks.”

Their analysis of these 5358 TIME participants found the following results: Risk for hospitalization for a heart attack was at least 34% lower for “owls” who took their drugs at bedtime. By contrast, owls’ heart attack risk was at least 62% higher with morning doses. For “larks,” the opposite was true. Morning doses were associated with an 11% lower heart attack risk and night doses with an 11% higher risk, according to supplemental data.

The personalized approach could explain why some previous chronotherapy studies have failed to show a benefit. Those studies did not individualize drug timing as this one did. But personalization could be key to circadian medicine’s success.

“Our ‘internal personal time’ appears to be an important variable to consider when dosing antihypertensives,” said co-lead author Filippo Pigazzani, MD, PhD, clinical senior lecturer and honorary consultant cardiologist at the University of Dundee School of Medicine. “Chronotherapy research has been going on for decades. We knew there was something important with time of day. But researchers haven’t considered the internal time of individual people. I think that is the missing piece.”

The analysis has several important limitations, the researchers said. A total of 95% of participants were White. And it was an observational study, not a true randomized comparison. “We started it late in the original TIME study,” Dr. MacDonald said. “You could argue we were reporting on those who survived long enough to get into the analysis.” More research is needed, they concluded.
 

Looking Beyond Blood Pressure

What about the rest of the body? “Almost all the cells of our body contain ‘circadian clocks’ that are synchronized by daily environmental cues, including light-dark, activity-rest, and feeding-fasting cycles,” said Dr. Dyar.

An estimated 50% of prescription drugs hit targets in the body that have circadian patterns. So, experts suspect that syncing a drug with a person’s body clock might increase effectiveness of many drugs.

A handful of US Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs already have time-of-day recommendations on the label for effectiveness or to limit side effects, including bedtime or evening for the insomnia drug Ambien, the HIV antiviral Atripla, and cholesterol-lowering Zocor. Others are intended to be taken with or after your last meal of the day, such as the long-acting insulin Levemir and the cardiovascular drug Xarelto. A morning recommendation comes with the proton pump inhibitor Nexium and the attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder drug Ritalin.

Interest is expanding. About one third of the papers published about chronotherapy in the past 25 years have come out in the past 5 years. The May 2024 meeting of the Society for Research on Biological Rhythms featured a day-long session aimed at bringing clinicians up to speed. An organization called the International Association of Circadian Health Clinics is trying to bring circadian medicine findings to clinicians and their patients and to support research.

Moreover, while recent research suggests minding the clock could have benefits for a wide range of treatments, ignoring it could cause problems.

In a Massachusetts Institute of Technology study published in April in Science Advances, researchers looked at engineered livers made from human donor cells and found more than 300 genes that operate on a circadian schedule, many with roles in drug metabolism. They also found that circadian patterns affected the toxicity of acetaminophen and atorvastatin. Identifying the time of day to take these drugs could maximize effectiveness and minimize adverse effects, the researchers said.
 

Timing and the Immune System

Circadian rhythms are also seen in immune processes. In a 2023 study in The Journal of Clinical Investigation of vaccine data from 1.5 million people in Israel, researchers found that children and older adults who got their second dose of the Pfizer mRNA COVID vaccine earlier in the day were about 36% less likely to be hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infection than those who got an evening shot.

“The sweet spot in our data was somewhere around late morning to late afternoon,” said lead researcher Jeffrey Haspel, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine in the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.

In a multicenter, 2024 analysis of 13 studies of immunotherapy for advanced cancers in 1663 people, researchers found treatment earlier in the day was associated with longer survival time and longer survival without cancer progression.

“Patients with selected metastatic cancers seemed to largely benefit from early [time of day] infusions, which is consistent with circadian mechanisms in immune-cell functions and trafficking,” the researchers noted. But “retrospective randomized trials are needed to establish recommendations for optimal circadian timing.”

Other research suggests or is investigating possible chronotherapy benefits for depression, glaucoma, respiratory diseases, stroke treatment, epilepsy, and sedatives used in surgery. So why aren’t healthcare providers adding time of day to more prescriptions? “What’s missing is more reliable data,” Dr. Dyar said.
 

Should You Use Chronotherapy Now?

Experts emphasize that more research is needed before doctors use chronotherapy and before medical organizations include it in treatment recommendations. But for some patients, circadian dosing may be worth a try:

Night owls whose blood pressure isn’t well controlled. Dr. Dyar and Dr. Pigazzani said night-time blood pressure drugs may be helpful for people with a “late chronotype.” Of course, patients shouldn’t change their medication schedule on their own, they said. And doctors may want to consider other concerns, like more overnight bathroom visits with evening diuretics.

In their study, the researchers determined participants’ chronotype with a few questions from the Munich Chronotype Questionnaire about what time they fell asleep and woke up on workdays and days off and whether they considered themselves “morning types” or “evening types.” (The questions can be found in supplementary data for the study.)

If a physician thinks matching the timing of a dose with chronotype would help, they can consider it, Dr. Pigazzani said. “However, I must add that this was an observational study, so I would advise healthcare practitioners to wait for our data to be confirmed in new RCTs of personalized chronotherapy of hypertension.”

Children and older adults getting vaccines. Timing COVID shots and possibly other vaccines from late morning to mid-afternoon could have a small benefit for individuals and a bigger public-health benefit, Dr. Haspel said. But the most important thing is getting vaccinated. “If you can only get one in the evening, it’s still worthwhile. Timing may add oomph at a public-health level for more vulnerable groups.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

When doctors and patients consider the appendix, it’s often with urgency. In cases of appendicitis, the clock could be ticking down to a life-threatening burst. Thus, despite recent research suggesting antibiotics could be an alternative therapy, appendectomy remains standard for uncomplicated appendicitis.

But what if removing the appendix could raise the risk for gastrointestinal (GI) diseases like irritable bowel syndrome and colorectal cancer? That’s what some emerging science suggests. And though the research is early and mixed, it’s enough to give some health professionals pause.

“If there’s no reason to remove the appendix, then it’s better to have one,” said Heather Smith, PhD, a comparative anatomist at Midwestern University, Glendale, Arizona. Preemptive removal is not supported by the evidence, she said.

To be fair, we’ve come a long way since 1928, when American physician Miles Breuer, MD, suggested that people with infected appendixes should be left to perish, so as to remove their inferior DNA from the gene pool (he called such people “uncivilized” and “candidates for extinction”). Charles Darwin, while less radical, believed the appendix was at best useless — a mere vestige of our ancestors switching diets from leaves to fruits.

What we know now is that the appendix isn’t just a troublesome piece of worthless flesh. Instead, it may act as a safe house for friendly gut bacteria and a training camp for the immune system. It also appears to play a role in several medical conditions, from ulcerative colitis and colorectal cancer to Parkinson’s disease and lupus. The roughly 300,000 Americans who undergo appendectomy each year should be made aware of this, some experts say. But the frustrating truth is, scientists are still trying to figure out in which cases having an appendix is protective and in which we may be better off without it.
 

A ‘Worm’ as Intestinal Protection

The appendix is a blind pouch (meaning its ending is closed off) that extends from the large intestine. Not all mammals have one; it’s been found in several species of primates and rodents, as well as in rabbits, wombats, and Florida manatees, among others (dogs and cats don’t have it). While a human appendix “looks like a little worm,” Dr. Smith said, these anatomical structures come in various sizes and shapes. Some are thick, as in a beaver, while others are long and spiraling, like a rabbit’s.

Comparative anatomy studies reveal that the appendix has evolved independently at least 29 times throughout mammalian evolution. This suggests that “it has some kind of an adaptive function,” Dr. Smith said. When French scientists analyzed data from 258 species of mammals, they discovered that those that possess an appendix live longer than those without one. A possible explanation, the researchers wrote, may lie with the appendix’s role in preventing diarrhea.

Their 2023 study supported this hypothesis. Based on veterinary records of 45 different species of primates housed in a French zoo, the scientists established that primates with appendixes are far less likely to suffer severe diarrhea than those that don’t possess this organ. The appendix, it appears, might be our tiny weapon against bowel troubles.

For immunologist William Parker, PhD, a visiting scholar at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, these data are “about as good as we could hope for” in support of the idea that the appendix might protect mammals from GI problems. An experiment on humans would be unethical, Dr. Parker said. But observational studies offer clues.

One study showed that compared with people with an intact appendix, young adults with a history of appendectomy have more than double the risk of developing a serious infection with non-typhoidal Salmonella of the kind that would require hospitalization.
 

A ‘Safe House’ for Bacteria

Such studies add weight to a theory that Dr. Parker and his colleagues developed back in 2007: That the appendix acts as a “safe house” for beneficial gut bacteria.

Think of the colon as a wide pipe, Dr. Parker said, that may become contaminated with a pathogen such as Salmonella. Diarrhea follows, and the pipe gets repeatedly flushed, wiping everything clean, including your friendly gut microbiome. Luckily, “you’ve got this little offshoot of that pipe,” where the flow can’t really get in “because it’s so constricted,” Dr. Parker said. The friendly gut microbes can survive inside the appendix and repopulate the colon once diarrhea is over. Dr. Parker and his colleagues found that the human appendix contains a thick layer of beneficial bacteria. “They were right where we predicted they would be,” he said.

This safe house hypothesis could explain why the gut microbiome may be different in people who no longer have an appendix. In one small study, people who’d had an appendectomy had a less diverse microbiome, with a lower abundance of beneficial strains such as Butyricicoccus and Barnesiella, than did those with intact appendixes.

The appendix likely has a second function, too, Dr. Smith said: It may serve as a training camp for the immune system. “When there is an invading pathogen in the gut, it helps the GI system to mount the immune response,” she said. The human appendix is rich in special cells known as M cells. These act as scouts, detecting and capturing invasive bacteria and viruses and presenting them to the body’s defense team, such as the T lymphocytes.

If the appendix shelters beneficial bacteria and boosts immune response, that may explain its links to various diseases. According to an epidemiological study from Taiwan,patients who underwent an appendectomy have a 46% higher risk of developing irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) — a disease associated with a low abundance of Butyricicoccus bacteria. This is why, the study authors wrote, doctors should pay careful attention to people who’ve had their appendixes removed, monitoring them for potential symptoms of IBS.

The same database helped uncover other connections between appendectomy and disease. For one, there was type 2 diabetes: Within 3 years of the surgery, patients under 30 had double the risk of developing this disorder. Then there was lupus: While those who underwent appendectomy generally had higher risk for this autoimmune disease, women were particularly affected.
 

The Contentious Connections

The most heated scientific discussion surrounds the links between the appendix and conditions such as Parkinson’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and colorectal cancer. A small 2019 study showed, for example, that appendectomy may improve symptoms of certain forms of ulcerative colitis that don’t respond to standard medical treatments. A third of patients improved after their appendix was removed, and 17% fully recovered.

Why? According to Dr. Parker, appendectomy may work for ulcerative colitis because it’s “a way of suppressing the immune system, especially in the lower intestinal areas.” A 2023 meta-analysis found that people who’d had their appendix removed before being diagnosed with ulcerative colitis were less likely to need their colon removed later on.

Such a procedure may have a serious side effect, however: Colorectal cancer. French scientists discovered that removing the appendix may reduce the numbers of certain immune cells called CD3+ and CD8+ T cells, causing a weakened immune surveillance. As a result, tumor cells might escape detection.

Yet the links between appendix removal and cancer are far from clear. A recent meta-analysis found that while people with appendectomies generally had a higher risk for colorectal cancer, for Europeans, these effects were insignificant. In fact, removal of the appendix actually protected European women from this particular form of cancer. For Parker, such mixed results may stem from the fact that treatments and populations vary widely. The issue “may depend on complex social and medical factors,” Dr. Parker said.

Things also appear complicated with Parkinson’s disease — another condition linked to the appendix. A large epidemiological study showed that appendectomy is associated with a lower risk for Parkinson’s disease and a delayed age of Parkinson’s onset. It also found that a normal appendix contains α-synuclein, a protein that may accumulate in the brain and contribute to the development of Parkinson’s. “Although α-synuclein is toxic when in the brain, it appears to be quite normal when present in the appendix,” said Luis Vitetta, PhD, MD, a clinical epidemiologist at the University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia. Yet, not all studies find that removing the appendix lowers the risk for Parkinson’s. In fact, some show the opposite results.
 

How Should Doctors View the Appendix?

Even with these mysteries and contradictions, Dr. Vitetta said, a healthy appendix in a healthy body appears to be protective. This is why, he said, when someone is diagnosed with appendicitis, careful assessment is essential before surgery is performed.

“Perhaps an antibiotic can actually help fix it,” he said. A 2020 study published in The New England Journal of Medicine showed that antibiotics may indeed be a good alternative to surgery for the treatment of appendicitis. “We don’t want necessarily to remove an appendix that could be beneficial,” Dr. Smith said.

The many links between the appendix and various diseases mean that doctors should be more vigilant when treating patients who’ve had this organ removed, Dr. Parker said. “When a patient loses an appendix, depending on their environment, there may be effects on infection and cancer. So they might need more regular checkups,” he said. This could include monitoring for IBS and colorectal cancer.

What’s more, Dr. Parker believes that research on the appendix puts even more emphasis on the need to protect the gut microbiome — such as taking probiotics with antibiotics. And while we are still a long way from understanding how exactly this worm-like structure affects various diseases, one thing appears quite certain: The appendix is not useless. “If Darwin had the information that we have, he would not have drawn these conclusions,” Dr. Parker said.
 

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

When doctors and patients consider the appendix, it’s often with urgency. In cases of appendicitis, the clock could be ticking down to a life-threatening burst. Thus, despite recent research suggesting antibiotics could be an alternative therapy, appendectomy remains standard for uncomplicated appendicitis.

But what if removing the appendix could raise the risk for gastrointestinal (GI) diseases like irritable bowel syndrome and colorectal cancer? That’s what some emerging science suggests. And though the research is early and mixed, it’s enough to give some health professionals pause.

“If there’s no reason to remove the appendix, then it’s better to have one,” said Heather Smith, PhD, a comparative anatomist at Midwestern University, Glendale, Arizona. Preemptive removal is not supported by the evidence, she said.

To be fair, we’ve come a long way since 1928, when American physician Miles Breuer, MD, suggested that people with infected appendixes should be left to perish, so as to remove their inferior DNA from the gene pool (he called such people “uncivilized” and “candidates for extinction”). Charles Darwin, while less radical, believed the appendix was at best useless — a mere vestige of our ancestors switching diets from leaves to fruits.

What we know now is that the appendix isn’t just a troublesome piece of worthless flesh. Instead, it may act as a safe house for friendly gut bacteria and a training camp for the immune system. It also appears to play a role in several medical conditions, from ulcerative colitis and colorectal cancer to Parkinson’s disease and lupus. The roughly 300,000 Americans who undergo appendectomy each year should be made aware of this, some experts say. But the frustrating truth is, scientists are still trying to figure out in which cases having an appendix is protective and in which we may be better off without it.
 

A ‘Worm’ as Intestinal Protection

The appendix is a blind pouch (meaning its ending is closed off) that extends from the large intestine. Not all mammals have one; it’s been found in several species of primates and rodents, as well as in rabbits, wombats, and Florida manatees, among others (dogs and cats don’t have it). While a human appendix “looks like a little worm,” Dr. Smith said, these anatomical structures come in various sizes and shapes. Some are thick, as in a beaver, while others are long and spiraling, like a rabbit’s.

Comparative anatomy studies reveal that the appendix has evolved independently at least 29 times throughout mammalian evolution. This suggests that “it has some kind of an adaptive function,” Dr. Smith said. When French scientists analyzed data from 258 species of mammals, they discovered that those that possess an appendix live longer than those without one. A possible explanation, the researchers wrote, may lie with the appendix’s role in preventing diarrhea.

Their 2023 study supported this hypothesis. Based on veterinary records of 45 different species of primates housed in a French zoo, the scientists established that primates with appendixes are far less likely to suffer severe diarrhea than those that don’t possess this organ. The appendix, it appears, might be our tiny weapon against bowel troubles.

For immunologist William Parker, PhD, a visiting scholar at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, these data are “about as good as we could hope for” in support of the idea that the appendix might protect mammals from GI problems. An experiment on humans would be unethical, Dr. Parker said. But observational studies offer clues.

One study showed that compared with people with an intact appendix, young adults with a history of appendectomy have more than double the risk of developing a serious infection with non-typhoidal Salmonella of the kind that would require hospitalization.
 

A ‘Safe House’ for Bacteria

Such studies add weight to a theory that Dr. Parker and his colleagues developed back in 2007: That the appendix acts as a “safe house” for beneficial gut bacteria.

Think of the colon as a wide pipe, Dr. Parker said, that may become contaminated with a pathogen such as Salmonella. Diarrhea follows, and the pipe gets repeatedly flushed, wiping everything clean, including your friendly gut microbiome. Luckily, “you’ve got this little offshoot of that pipe,” where the flow can’t really get in “because it’s so constricted,” Dr. Parker said. The friendly gut microbes can survive inside the appendix and repopulate the colon once diarrhea is over. Dr. Parker and his colleagues found that the human appendix contains a thick layer of beneficial bacteria. “They were right where we predicted they would be,” he said.

This safe house hypothesis could explain why the gut microbiome may be different in people who no longer have an appendix. In one small study, people who’d had an appendectomy had a less diverse microbiome, with a lower abundance of beneficial strains such as Butyricicoccus and Barnesiella, than did those with intact appendixes.

The appendix likely has a second function, too, Dr. Smith said: It may serve as a training camp for the immune system. “When there is an invading pathogen in the gut, it helps the GI system to mount the immune response,” she said. The human appendix is rich in special cells known as M cells. These act as scouts, detecting and capturing invasive bacteria and viruses and presenting them to the body’s defense team, such as the T lymphocytes.

If the appendix shelters beneficial bacteria and boosts immune response, that may explain its links to various diseases. According to an epidemiological study from Taiwan,patients who underwent an appendectomy have a 46% higher risk of developing irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) — a disease associated with a low abundance of Butyricicoccus bacteria. This is why, the study authors wrote, doctors should pay careful attention to people who’ve had their appendixes removed, monitoring them for potential symptoms of IBS.

The same database helped uncover other connections between appendectomy and disease. For one, there was type 2 diabetes: Within 3 years of the surgery, patients under 30 had double the risk of developing this disorder. Then there was lupus: While those who underwent appendectomy generally had higher risk for this autoimmune disease, women were particularly affected.
 

The Contentious Connections

The most heated scientific discussion surrounds the links between the appendix and conditions such as Parkinson’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and colorectal cancer. A small 2019 study showed, for example, that appendectomy may improve symptoms of certain forms of ulcerative colitis that don’t respond to standard medical treatments. A third of patients improved after their appendix was removed, and 17% fully recovered.

Why? According to Dr. Parker, appendectomy may work for ulcerative colitis because it’s “a way of suppressing the immune system, especially in the lower intestinal areas.” A 2023 meta-analysis found that people who’d had their appendix removed before being diagnosed with ulcerative colitis were less likely to need their colon removed later on.

Such a procedure may have a serious side effect, however: Colorectal cancer. French scientists discovered that removing the appendix may reduce the numbers of certain immune cells called CD3+ and CD8+ T cells, causing a weakened immune surveillance. As a result, tumor cells might escape detection.

Yet the links between appendix removal and cancer are far from clear. A recent meta-analysis found that while people with appendectomies generally had a higher risk for colorectal cancer, for Europeans, these effects were insignificant. In fact, removal of the appendix actually protected European women from this particular form of cancer. For Parker, such mixed results may stem from the fact that treatments and populations vary widely. The issue “may depend on complex social and medical factors,” Dr. Parker said.

Things also appear complicated with Parkinson’s disease — another condition linked to the appendix. A large epidemiological study showed that appendectomy is associated with a lower risk for Parkinson’s disease and a delayed age of Parkinson’s onset. It also found that a normal appendix contains α-synuclein, a protein that may accumulate in the brain and contribute to the development of Parkinson’s. “Although α-synuclein is toxic when in the brain, it appears to be quite normal when present in the appendix,” said Luis Vitetta, PhD, MD, a clinical epidemiologist at the University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia. Yet, not all studies find that removing the appendix lowers the risk for Parkinson’s. In fact, some show the opposite results.
 

How Should Doctors View the Appendix?

Even with these mysteries and contradictions, Dr. Vitetta said, a healthy appendix in a healthy body appears to be protective. This is why, he said, when someone is diagnosed with appendicitis, careful assessment is essential before surgery is performed.

“Perhaps an antibiotic can actually help fix it,” he said. A 2020 study published in The New England Journal of Medicine showed that antibiotics may indeed be a good alternative to surgery for the treatment of appendicitis. “We don’t want necessarily to remove an appendix that could be beneficial,” Dr. Smith said.

The many links between the appendix and various diseases mean that doctors should be more vigilant when treating patients who’ve had this organ removed, Dr. Parker said. “When a patient loses an appendix, depending on their environment, there may be effects on infection and cancer. So they might need more regular checkups,” he said. This could include monitoring for IBS and colorectal cancer.

What’s more, Dr. Parker believes that research on the appendix puts even more emphasis on the need to protect the gut microbiome — such as taking probiotics with antibiotics. And while we are still a long way from understanding how exactly this worm-like structure affects various diseases, one thing appears quite certain: The appendix is not useless. “If Darwin had the information that we have, he would not have drawn these conclusions,” Dr. Parker said.
 

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

When doctors and patients consider the appendix, it’s often with urgency. In cases of appendicitis, the clock could be ticking down to a life-threatening burst. Thus, despite recent research suggesting antibiotics could be an alternative therapy, appendectomy remains standard for uncomplicated appendicitis.

But what if removing the appendix could raise the risk for gastrointestinal (GI) diseases like irritable bowel syndrome and colorectal cancer? That’s what some emerging science suggests. And though the research is early and mixed, it’s enough to give some health professionals pause.

“If there’s no reason to remove the appendix, then it’s better to have one,” said Heather Smith, PhD, a comparative anatomist at Midwestern University, Glendale, Arizona. Preemptive removal is not supported by the evidence, she said.

To be fair, we’ve come a long way since 1928, when American physician Miles Breuer, MD, suggested that people with infected appendixes should be left to perish, so as to remove their inferior DNA from the gene pool (he called such people “uncivilized” and “candidates for extinction”). Charles Darwin, while less radical, believed the appendix was at best useless — a mere vestige of our ancestors switching diets from leaves to fruits.

What we know now is that the appendix isn’t just a troublesome piece of worthless flesh. Instead, it may act as a safe house for friendly gut bacteria and a training camp for the immune system. It also appears to play a role in several medical conditions, from ulcerative colitis and colorectal cancer to Parkinson’s disease and lupus. The roughly 300,000 Americans who undergo appendectomy each year should be made aware of this, some experts say. But the frustrating truth is, scientists are still trying to figure out in which cases having an appendix is protective and in which we may be better off without it.
 

A ‘Worm’ as Intestinal Protection

The appendix is a blind pouch (meaning its ending is closed off) that extends from the large intestine. Not all mammals have one; it’s been found in several species of primates and rodents, as well as in rabbits, wombats, and Florida manatees, among others (dogs and cats don’t have it). While a human appendix “looks like a little worm,” Dr. Smith said, these anatomical structures come in various sizes and shapes. Some are thick, as in a beaver, while others are long and spiraling, like a rabbit’s.

Comparative anatomy studies reveal that the appendix has evolved independently at least 29 times throughout mammalian evolution. This suggests that “it has some kind of an adaptive function,” Dr. Smith said. When French scientists analyzed data from 258 species of mammals, they discovered that those that possess an appendix live longer than those without one. A possible explanation, the researchers wrote, may lie with the appendix’s role in preventing diarrhea.

Their 2023 study supported this hypothesis. Based on veterinary records of 45 different species of primates housed in a French zoo, the scientists established that primates with appendixes are far less likely to suffer severe diarrhea than those that don’t possess this organ. The appendix, it appears, might be our tiny weapon against bowel troubles.

For immunologist William Parker, PhD, a visiting scholar at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, these data are “about as good as we could hope for” in support of the idea that the appendix might protect mammals from GI problems. An experiment on humans would be unethical, Dr. Parker said. But observational studies offer clues.

One study showed that compared with people with an intact appendix, young adults with a history of appendectomy have more than double the risk of developing a serious infection with non-typhoidal Salmonella of the kind that would require hospitalization.
 

A ‘Safe House’ for Bacteria

Such studies add weight to a theory that Dr. Parker and his colleagues developed back in 2007: That the appendix acts as a “safe house” for beneficial gut bacteria.

Think of the colon as a wide pipe, Dr. Parker said, that may become contaminated with a pathogen such as Salmonella. Diarrhea follows, and the pipe gets repeatedly flushed, wiping everything clean, including your friendly gut microbiome. Luckily, “you’ve got this little offshoot of that pipe,” where the flow can’t really get in “because it’s so constricted,” Dr. Parker said. The friendly gut microbes can survive inside the appendix and repopulate the colon once diarrhea is over. Dr. Parker and his colleagues found that the human appendix contains a thick layer of beneficial bacteria. “They were right where we predicted they would be,” he said.

This safe house hypothesis could explain why the gut microbiome may be different in people who no longer have an appendix. In one small study, people who’d had an appendectomy had a less diverse microbiome, with a lower abundance of beneficial strains such as Butyricicoccus and Barnesiella, than did those with intact appendixes.

The appendix likely has a second function, too, Dr. Smith said: It may serve as a training camp for the immune system. “When there is an invading pathogen in the gut, it helps the GI system to mount the immune response,” she said. The human appendix is rich in special cells known as M cells. These act as scouts, detecting and capturing invasive bacteria and viruses and presenting them to the body’s defense team, such as the T lymphocytes.

If the appendix shelters beneficial bacteria and boosts immune response, that may explain its links to various diseases. According to an epidemiological study from Taiwan,patients who underwent an appendectomy have a 46% higher risk of developing irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) — a disease associated with a low abundance of Butyricicoccus bacteria. This is why, the study authors wrote, doctors should pay careful attention to people who’ve had their appendixes removed, monitoring them for potential symptoms of IBS.

The same database helped uncover other connections between appendectomy and disease. For one, there was type 2 diabetes: Within 3 years of the surgery, patients under 30 had double the risk of developing this disorder. Then there was lupus: While those who underwent appendectomy generally had higher risk for this autoimmune disease, women were particularly affected.
 

The Contentious Connections

The most heated scientific discussion surrounds the links between the appendix and conditions such as Parkinson’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and colorectal cancer. A small 2019 study showed, for example, that appendectomy may improve symptoms of certain forms of ulcerative colitis that don’t respond to standard medical treatments. A third of patients improved after their appendix was removed, and 17% fully recovered.

Why? According to Dr. Parker, appendectomy may work for ulcerative colitis because it’s “a way of suppressing the immune system, especially in the lower intestinal areas.” A 2023 meta-analysis found that people who’d had their appendix removed before being diagnosed with ulcerative colitis were less likely to need their colon removed later on.

Such a procedure may have a serious side effect, however: Colorectal cancer. French scientists discovered that removing the appendix may reduce the numbers of certain immune cells called CD3+ and CD8+ T cells, causing a weakened immune surveillance. As a result, tumor cells might escape detection.

Yet the links between appendix removal and cancer are far from clear. A recent meta-analysis found that while people with appendectomies generally had a higher risk for colorectal cancer, for Europeans, these effects were insignificant. In fact, removal of the appendix actually protected European women from this particular form of cancer. For Parker, such mixed results may stem from the fact that treatments and populations vary widely. The issue “may depend on complex social and medical factors,” Dr. Parker said.

Things also appear complicated with Parkinson’s disease — another condition linked to the appendix. A large epidemiological study showed that appendectomy is associated with a lower risk for Parkinson’s disease and a delayed age of Parkinson’s onset. It also found that a normal appendix contains α-synuclein, a protein that may accumulate in the brain and contribute to the development of Parkinson’s. “Although α-synuclein is toxic when in the brain, it appears to be quite normal when present in the appendix,” said Luis Vitetta, PhD, MD, a clinical epidemiologist at the University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia. Yet, not all studies find that removing the appendix lowers the risk for Parkinson’s. In fact, some show the opposite results.
 

How Should Doctors View the Appendix?

Even with these mysteries and contradictions, Dr. Vitetta said, a healthy appendix in a healthy body appears to be protective. This is why, he said, when someone is diagnosed with appendicitis, careful assessment is essential before surgery is performed.

“Perhaps an antibiotic can actually help fix it,” he said. A 2020 study published in The New England Journal of Medicine showed that antibiotics may indeed be a good alternative to surgery for the treatment of appendicitis. “We don’t want necessarily to remove an appendix that could be beneficial,” Dr. Smith said.

The many links between the appendix and various diseases mean that doctors should be more vigilant when treating patients who’ve had this organ removed, Dr. Parker said. “When a patient loses an appendix, depending on their environment, there may be effects on infection and cancer. So they might need more regular checkups,” he said. This could include monitoring for IBS and colorectal cancer.

What’s more, Dr. Parker believes that research on the appendix puts even more emphasis on the need to protect the gut microbiome — such as taking probiotics with antibiotics. And while we are still a long way from understanding how exactly this worm-like structure affects various diseases, one thing appears quite certain: The appendix is not useless. “If Darwin had the information that we have, he would not have drawn these conclusions,” Dr. Parker said.
 

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

The antibody-drug conjugate trastuzumab deruxtecan, or T-DXd, is an effective first-line treatment in patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer, conferring an additional 5 months’ progression-free survival over chemotherapy.

HER2-low cancers express levels of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 that are below standard thresholds for HER2-positive immunohistochemistry. In 2022, results from the DESTINY-Breast04 trial showed T-DXd (Enhertu, AstraZeneca) to be an effective second-line chemotherapy in patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer.

The highly awaited new findings, from the manufacturer-sponsored, open-label Phase 3 DESTINY-Breast06 trial, were presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) in Chicago, Illinois.

The findings not only definitively establish a role for T-DXd earlier in the treatment sequence for HER2-low cancers, they also suggest benefit in a group of patients designated for the purposes of this trial to be HER2-ultralow. These patients have cancers with only faintly detectable HER2 expression on currently used assays (J Clin Oncol 42, 2024 [suppl 17; abstr LBA 1000]).

In a separate set of findings also presented at ASCO, from the randomized phase 1B open-label study, DESTINY-Breast07, T-Dxd showed efficacy in previously untreated HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer patients both alone and in combination with the monoclonal antibody pertuzumab (Perjeta, Genentech).
 

DESTINY-Breast06 Methods and Results

The DESTINY-Breast06 findings were presented by lead investigator Guiseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, of the University of Milan and European Institute of Oncology. Dr. Curigliano and his colleagues randomized 866 patients with metastatic breast cancer: 436 to intravenous T-Dxd and 430 to the investigator’s choice of capecitabine, nab-paclitaxel, or paclitaxel chemotherapy. The investigators chose capecitabine 60% of the time.

Most patients had cancers classed as HER2 low (immunohistochemistry 1+ or 2+), while 153 had cancers classed by investigators as HER2-ultralow (IHC 0 with membrane staining or IHC under 1+). Patients enrolled in the study were those whose disease had progressed after endocrine therapy with or without targeted therapy. Patients’ median age was between 57 and 58, and all were chemotherapy-naive in the metastatic breast cancer setting.

The main outcome of the study was median progression-free survival in the HER2-low group. T-Dxd was seen improving progression-free survival, with median 13.2 months vs. 8.1 months (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.74; P < .0001). In the intention-to-treat population, which included the HER2 ultralow patients, the benefit was the same (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.53-0.75; P < .0001). This suggested that T-DXd is also effective in these patients, and it will be extremely important going forward to identify the lowest level of HER2 expression in metastatic breast cancers that can still benefit from therapy with T-DxD, Dr. Curigliano said.

Overall survival could not be assessed in the study cohort because complete data were not yet available, Dr. Curigliano said. However, trends pointed to an advantage for T-DXd, and tumor response rates were markedly higher with T-DXd: 57% compared with 31% for standard chemotherapy in the full cohort.

Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were more common in the T-Dxd–treated patients, with 11% of that arm developing drug-related interstitial lung disease, and three patients dying of it. Five patients in the T-DXd arm died of adverse events deemed treatment-related, and none died from treatment-related adverse events in the standard chemotherapy arm. Altogether 11 patients died in the T-DXd arm and 6 in the chemotherapy arm.
 

Clinical Implications of DESTINY-Breast06

The DESTINY-Breast06 data show that “we have to again change how we think about HER2 expression. Even very low levels of HER2 expression matter, and they can be leveraged to improve the treatment for our patients,” said Ian Krop, MD, PhD, of the Yale Cancer Center in New Haven, Connecticut, during the session where the results were presented.

But T-DXd may not be an appropriate first choice for all patients, especially given the safety concerns associated with T-DXd, he continued. With overall survival and quality-of-life data still lacking, clinicians will have to determine on a case-by-case basis who should get T-DXd in the first line.

“For patients who have symptomatic metastatic disease, who need a response to address those symptoms, those in whom you think chemotherapy may not work as well because they had, for example, a short recurrence interval after their adjuvant chemotherapy — using T-DXd in that first-line setting makes perfect sense to take advantage of the substantially higher response rate compared to chemo,” Dr. Krop said. “But for patients who have asymptomatic low burdens of disease, it seems very reasonable to consider using a well-tolerated chemotherapy like capecitabine in the first line, and then using T-DXd in the second line.”

In an interview, Erica Mayer, MD, of the Dana Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts, said patient choice will also matter in determining whether T-DXd is a first-line option. The known toxicity of T-DXd was underscored by the latest findings, she noted, while capecitabine, one of the chemotherapy choices in the control arm of the study, “really reflects what the majority of breast cancer doctors tend to offer, both because of the efficacy of the drug, but also because it’s oral, it’s well tolerated, and you don’t lose your hair.”
 

DESTINY-Breast07 Results

The DESTINY-Breast07 findings, from a Phase 1B open-label trial measuring safety and tolerability, were presented by Fabrice Andre, MD, PhD, of Université Paris Saclay in Paris, France. Dr. Andre and his colleagues presented the first data comparing T-DXd monotherapy and T-DXd with pertuzumab — a monoclonal antibody targeting HER2 — as a first-line treatment in patients with HER2-overexpressing (immunohistochemistry 3 and above) metastatic breast cancer. (J Clin Oncol 42, 2024 [suppl 16; abstr 1009]).

Current first-line standard of care for these patients is pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and docetaxel, based on results from the 2015 CLEOPATRA trial. T-DXd is currently approved as a second-line treatment.

Dr. Andre and his colleagues randomized 75 patients to monotherapy with T-DXd and 50 to combined therapy, with a median follow-up of 2 years.

After 1 year of treatment, combination of T-DXd and pertuzumab was seen to be associated with a progression-free survival of 89% at 1 year (80% CI, 81.9-93.9), compared with 80% in patients treated with T-DXd alone (80% CI, 73.7-86.1). Objective tumor response rate was 84% for the combined therapy at 12 weeks, with 20% of patients seeing a complete response, compared with 76% and 8%, respectively, for monotherapy.

As in the DESTINY-Breast06 trial, adverse events were high, with interstitial lung disease seen in 9% of patients in the monotherapy group and in 14% of the combined-therapy patients, although no treatment-related deaths occurred.

A randomized phase 3 trial, DESTINY Breast09, will now compare the monotherapy and the combined therapy with standard care.

T-DXd has seen a rapidly expanding role in treating breast and other solid tumors. The DESTINY Breast06 findings will move up its place in the treatment algorithm for metastatic breast cancer, “allowing us to now offer T-DXd as the first chemotherapy choice for patients who are making that transition to chemotherapy over many of the traditional provider choices that we previously have offered,” Dr. Mayer said.

The results “support the use of not only this specific agent, but also the concept of antibody drug conjugates as a very effective way to treat malignancy,” she added.

Dr. Curigliano reported receiving speaker’s fees, research funding, and other support from AstraZeneca and Daiichi Sankyo, among other companies, as did most of his co-authors, of whom three were AstraZeneca employees. Dr. Fabrice disclosed receiving research funding, travel compensation, and/or advisory fees from AstraZeneca and other entities, as did several of his co-authors. Two of his co-authors were employed by AstraZeneca and Roche, manufacturers of the study drugs. Dr. Krop and Dr. Mayer disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca and others.

The antibody-drug conjugate trastuzumab deruxtecan, or T-DXd, is an effective first-line treatment in patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer, conferring an additional 5 months’ progression-free survival over chemotherapy.

HER2-low cancers express levels of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 that are below standard thresholds for HER2-positive immunohistochemistry. In 2022, results from the DESTINY-Breast04 trial showed T-DXd (Enhertu, AstraZeneca) to be an effective second-line chemotherapy in patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer.

The highly awaited new findings, from the manufacturer-sponsored, open-label Phase 3 DESTINY-Breast06 trial, were presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) in Chicago, Illinois.

The findings not only definitively establish a role for T-DXd earlier in the treatment sequence for HER2-low cancers, they also suggest benefit in a group of patients designated for the purposes of this trial to be HER2-ultralow. These patients have cancers with only faintly detectable HER2 expression on currently used assays (J Clin Oncol 42, 2024 [suppl 17; abstr LBA 1000]).

In a separate set of findings also presented at ASCO, from the randomized phase 1B open-label study, DESTINY-Breast07, T-Dxd showed efficacy in previously untreated HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer patients both alone and in combination with the monoclonal antibody pertuzumab (Perjeta, Genentech).
 

DESTINY-Breast06 Methods and Results

The DESTINY-Breast06 findings were presented by lead investigator Guiseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, of the University of Milan and European Institute of Oncology. Dr. Curigliano and his colleagues randomized 866 patients with metastatic breast cancer: 436 to intravenous T-Dxd and 430 to the investigator’s choice of capecitabine, nab-paclitaxel, or paclitaxel chemotherapy. The investigators chose capecitabine 60% of the time.

Most patients had cancers classed as HER2 low (immunohistochemistry 1+ or 2+), while 153 had cancers classed by investigators as HER2-ultralow (IHC 0 with membrane staining or IHC under 1+). Patients enrolled in the study were those whose disease had progressed after endocrine therapy with or without targeted therapy. Patients’ median age was between 57 and 58, and all were chemotherapy-naive in the metastatic breast cancer setting.

The main outcome of the study was median progression-free survival in the HER2-low group. T-Dxd was seen improving progression-free survival, with median 13.2 months vs. 8.1 months (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.74; P < .0001). In the intention-to-treat population, which included the HER2 ultralow patients, the benefit was the same (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.53-0.75; P < .0001). This suggested that T-DXd is also effective in these patients, and it will be extremely important going forward to identify the lowest level of HER2 expression in metastatic breast cancers that can still benefit from therapy with T-DxD, Dr. Curigliano said.

Overall survival could not be assessed in the study cohort because complete data were not yet available, Dr. Curigliano said. However, trends pointed to an advantage for T-DXd, and tumor response rates were markedly higher with T-DXd: 57% compared with 31% for standard chemotherapy in the full cohort.

Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were more common in the T-Dxd–treated patients, with 11% of that arm developing drug-related interstitial lung disease, and three patients dying of it. Five patients in the T-DXd arm died of adverse events deemed treatment-related, and none died from treatment-related adverse events in the standard chemotherapy arm. Altogether 11 patients died in the T-DXd arm and 6 in the chemotherapy arm.
 

Clinical Implications of DESTINY-Breast06

The DESTINY-Breast06 data show that “we have to again change how we think about HER2 expression. Even very low levels of HER2 expression matter, and they can be leveraged to improve the treatment for our patients,” said Ian Krop, MD, PhD, of the Yale Cancer Center in New Haven, Connecticut, during the session where the results were presented.

But T-DXd may not be an appropriate first choice for all patients, especially given the safety concerns associated with T-DXd, he continued. With overall survival and quality-of-life data still lacking, clinicians will have to determine on a case-by-case basis who should get T-DXd in the first line.

“For patients who have symptomatic metastatic disease, who need a response to address those symptoms, those in whom you think chemotherapy may not work as well because they had, for example, a short recurrence interval after their adjuvant chemotherapy — using T-DXd in that first-line setting makes perfect sense to take advantage of the substantially higher response rate compared to chemo,” Dr. Krop said. “But for patients who have asymptomatic low burdens of disease, it seems very reasonable to consider using a well-tolerated chemotherapy like capecitabine in the first line, and then using T-DXd in the second line.”

In an interview, Erica Mayer, MD, of the Dana Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts, said patient choice will also matter in determining whether T-DXd is a first-line option. The known toxicity of T-DXd was underscored by the latest findings, she noted, while capecitabine, one of the chemotherapy choices in the control arm of the study, “really reflects what the majority of breast cancer doctors tend to offer, both because of the efficacy of the drug, but also because it’s oral, it’s well tolerated, and you don’t lose your hair.”
 

DESTINY-Breast07 Results

The DESTINY-Breast07 findings, from a Phase 1B open-label trial measuring safety and tolerability, were presented by Fabrice Andre, MD, PhD, of Université Paris Saclay in Paris, France. Dr. Andre and his colleagues presented the first data comparing T-DXd monotherapy and T-DXd with pertuzumab — a monoclonal antibody targeting HER2 — as a first-line treatment in patients with HER2-overexpressing (immunohistochemistry 3 and above) metastatic breast cancer. (J Clin Oncol 42, 2024 [suppl 16; abstr 1009]).

Current first-line standard of care for these patients is pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and docetaxel, based on results from the 2015 CLEOPATRA trial. T-DXd is currently approved as a second-line treatment.

Dr. Andre and his colleagues randomized 75 patients to monotherapy with T-DXd and 50 to combined therapy, with a median follow-up of 2 years.

After 1 year of treatment, combination of T-DXd and pertuzumab was seen to be associated with a progression-free survival of 89% at 1 year (80% CI, 81.9-93.9), compared with 80% in patients treated with T-DXd alone (80% CI, 73.7-86.1). Objective tumor response rate was 84% for the combined therapy at 12 weeks, with 20% of patients seeing a complete response, compared with 76% and 8%, respectively, for monotherapy.

As in the DESTINY-Breast06 trial, adverse events were high, with interstitial lung disease seen in 9% of patients in the monotherapy group and in 14% of the combined-therapy patients, although no treatment-related deaths occurred.

A randomized phase 3 trial, DESTINY Breast09, will now compare the monotherapy and the combined therapy with standard care.

T-DXd has seen a rapidly expanding role in treating breast and other solid tumors. The DESTINY Breast06 findings will move up its place in the treatment algorithm for metastatic breast cancer, “allowing us to now offer T-DXd as the first chemotherapy choice for patients who are making that transition to chemotherapy over many of the traditional provider choices that we previously have offered,” Dr. Mayer said.

The results “support the use of not only this specific agent, but also the concept of antibody drug conjugates as a very effective way to treat malignancy,” she added.

Dr. Curigliano reported receiving speaker’s fees, research funding, and other support from AstraZeneca and Daiichi Sankyo, among other companies, as did most of his co-authors, of whom three were AstraZeneca employees. Dr. Fabrice disclosed receiving research funding, travel compensation, and/or advisory fees from AstraZeneca and other entities, as did several of his co-authors. Two of his co-authors were employed by AstraZeneca and Roche, manufacturers of the study drugs. Dr. Krop and Dr. Mayer disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca and others.

The antibody-drug conjugate trastuzumab deruxtecan, or T-DXd, is an effective first-line treatment in patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer, conferring an additional 5 months’ progression-free survival over chemotherapy.

HER2-low cancers express levels of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 that are below standard thresholds for HER2-positive immunohistochemistry. In 2022, results from the DESTINY-Breast04 trial showed T-DXd (Enhertu, AstraZeneca) to be an effective second-line chemotherapy in patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer.

The highly awaited new findings, from the manufacturer-sponsored, open-label Phase 3 DESTINY-Breast06 trial, were presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) in Chicago, Illinois.

The findings not only definitively establish a role for T-DXd earlier in the treatment sequence for HER2-low cancers, they also suggest benefit in a group of patients designated for the purposes of this trial to be HER2-ultralow. These patients have cancers with only faintly detectable HER2 expression on currently used assays (J Clin Oncol 42, 2024 [suppl 17; abstr LBA 1000]).

In a separate set of findings also presented at ASCO, from the randomized phase 1B open-label study, DESTINY-Breast07, T-Dxd showed efficacy in previously untreated HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer patients both alone and in combination with the monoclonal antibody pertuzumab (Perjeta, Genentech).
 

DESTINY-Breast06 Methods and Results

The DESTINY-Breast06 findings were presented by lead investigator Guiseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, of the University of Milan and European Institute of Oncology. Dr. Curigliano and his colleagues randomized 866 patients with metastatic breast cancer: 436 to intravenous T-Dxd and 430 to the investigator’s choice of capecitabine, nab-paclitaxel, or paclitaxel chemotherapy. The investigators chose capecitabine 60% of the time.

Most patients had cancers classed as HER2 low (immunohistochemistry 1+ or 2+), while 153 had cancers classed by investigators as HER2-ultralow (IHC 0 with membrane staining or IHC under 1+). Patients enrolled in the study were those whose disease had progressed after endocrine therapy with or without targeted therapy. Patients’ median age was between 57 and 58, and all were chemotherapy-naive in the metastatic breast cancer setting.

The main outcome of the study was median progression-free survival in the HER2-low group. T-Dxd was seen improving progression-free survival, with median 13.2 months vs. 8.1 months (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.74; P < .0001). In the intention-to-treat population, which included the HER2 ultralow patients, the benefit was the same (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.53-0.75; P < .0001). This suggested that T-DXd is also effective in these patients, and it will be extremely important going forward to identify the lowest level of HER2 expression in metastatic breast cancers that can still benefit from therapy with T-DxD, Dr. Curigliano said.

Overall survival could not be assessed in the study cohort because complete data were not yet available, Dr. Curigliano said. However, trends pointed to an advantage for T-DXd, and tumor response rates were markedly higher with T-DXd: 57% compared with 31% for standard chemotherapy in the full cohort.

Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were more common in the T-Dxd–treated patients, with 11% of that arm developing drug-related interstitial lung disease, and three patients dying of it. Five patients in the T-DXd arm died of adverse events deemed treatment-related, and none died from treatment-related adverse events in the standard chemotherapy arm. Altogether 11 patients died in the T-DXd arm and 6 in the chemotherapy arm.
 

Clinical Implications of DESTINY-Breast06

The DESTINY-Breast06 data show that “we have to again change how we think about HER2 expression. Even very low levels of HER2 expression matter, and they can be leveraged to improve the treatment for our patients,” said Ian Krop, MD, PhD, of the Yale Cancer Center in New Haven, Connecticut, during the session where the results were presented.

But T-DXd may not be an appropriate first choice for all patients, especially given the safety concerns associated with T-DXd, he continued. With overall survival and quality-of-life data still lacking, clinicians will have to determine on a case-by-case basis who should get T-DXd in the first line.

“For patients who have symptomatic metastatic disease, who need a response to address those symptoms, those in whom you think chemotherapy may not work as well because they had, for example, a short recurrence interval after their adjuvant chemotherapy — using T-DXd in that first-line setting makes perfect sense to take advantage of the substantially higher response rate compared to chemo,” Dr. Krop said. “But for patients who have asymptomatic low burdens of disease, it seems very reasonable to consider using a well-tolerated chemotherapy like capecitabine in the first line, and then using T-DXd in the second line.”

In an interview, Erica Mayer, MD, of the Dana Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts, said patient choice will also matter in determining whether T-DXd is a first-line option. The known toxicity of T-DXd was underscored by the latest findings, she noted, while capecitabine, one of the chemotherapy choices in the control arm of the study, “really reflects what the majority of breast cancer doctors tend to offer, both because of the efficacy of the drug, but also because it’s oral, it’s well tolerated, and you don’t lose your hair.”
 

DESTINY-Breast07 Results

The DESTINY-Breast07 findings, from a Phase 1B open-label trial measuring safety and tolerability, were presented by Fabrice Andre, MD, PhD, of Université Paris Saclay in Paris, France. Dr. Andre and his colleagues presented the first data comparing T-DXd monotherapy and T-DXd with pertuzumab — a monoclonal antibody targeting HER2 — as a first-line treatment in patients with HER2-overexpressing (immunohistochemistry 3 and above) metastatic breast cancer. (J Clin Oncol 42, 2024 [suppl 16; abstr 1009]).

Current first-line standard of care for these patients is pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and docetaxel, based on results from the 2015 CLEOPATRA trial. T-DXd is currently approved as a second-line treatment.

Dr. Andre and his colleagues randomized 75 patients to monotherapy with T-DXd and 50 to combined therapy, with a median follow-up of 2 years.

After 1 year of treatment, combination of T-DXd and pertuzumab was seen to be associated with a progression-free survival of 89% at 1 year (80% CI, 81.9-93.9), compared with 80% in patients treated with T-DXd alone (80% CI, 73.7-86.1). Objective tumor response rate was 84% for the combined therapy at 12 weeks, with 20% of patients seeing a complete response, compared with 76% and 8%, respectively, for monotherapy.

As in the DESTINY-Breast06 trial, adverse events were high, with interstitial lung disease seen in 9% of patients in the monotherapy group and in 14% of the combined-therapy patients, although no treatment-related deaths occurred.

A randomized phase 3 trial, DESTINY Breast09, will now compare the monotherapy and the combined therapy with standard care.

T-DXd has seen a rapidly expanding role in treating breast and other solid tumors. The DESTINY Breast06 findings will move up its place in the treatment algorithm for metastatic breast cancer, “allowing us to now offer T-DXd as the first chemotherapy choice for patients who are making that transition to chemotherapy over many of the traditional provider choices that we previously have offered,” Dr. Mayer said.

The results “support the use of not only this specific agent, but also the concept of antibody drug conjugates as a very effective way to treat malignancy,” she added.

Dr. Curigliano reported receiving speaker’s fees, research funding, and other support from AstraZeneca and Daiichi Sankyo, among other companies, as did most of his co-authors, of whom three were AstraZeneca employees. Dr. Fabrice disclosed receiving research funding, travel compensation, and/or advisory fees from AstraZeneca and other entities, as did several of his co-authors. Two of his co-authors were employed by AstraZeneca and Roche, manufacturers of the study drugs. Dr. Krop and Dr. Mayer disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca and others.

Celiac disease is a chronic, immune-mediated, systemic disorder caused by intolerance to gluten — a protein present in rye, barley, and wheat grains — that affects genetically predisposed individuals.

Due to its wide spectrum of clinical manifestations, celiac disease resembles a multisystemic disorder. Its most common gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms include chronic diarrhea, weight loss, and abdominal distention. However, celiac disease can also manifest in myriad extraintestinal symptoms, ranging from headache and fatigue to delayed puberty and psychiatric disorders, with differing presentations in children and adults.

To date, the only treatment is adopting a gluten-free diet (GFD). Although key to preventing persistent villous atrophy, the main cause of complications in celiac disease, lifelong adherence to GFD is challenging and may not resolve all clinical issues. These shortcomings have driven recent efforts to develop novel therapeutic options for patients with this disease.

Here are five things to know about celiac disease.
 

1. Rising Prevalence of Celiac Disease and Other Autoimmune Disorders Suggests Environmental Factors May Be at Play

Gluten was first identified as the cause of celiac disease in the 1950s. At that time, the condition was thought to be a relatively rare GI disease of childhood that primarily affected people of European descent, but it is now known to be a common disease affecting those of various ages, races, and ethnicities.

A 2018 meta-analysis found the pooled global prevalence of celiac disease was 1.4%. Incidence has increased by as much as 7.5% annually over the past several decades.

Increased awareness among clinicians and improved detection likely play a role in the trend. However, the growth in celiac disease is consistent with that seen for other autoimmune disorders, according to a 2024 update of evidence surrounding celiac disease. Shared environmental factors have been proposed as triggers for celiac disease and other autoimmune diseases and appear to be influencing their rise, the authors noted. These factors include migration and population growth, changing dietary patterns and food processing practices, and altered wheat consumption.
 

2. No-Biopsy Diagnosis Is Accepted for Children and Shows Promise for Adults

It is estimated that almost 60 million people worldwide have celiac disease, but most remain undiagnosed or misdiagnosed, or they experience significant diagnostic delays.

Prospective data indicate that children with first-degree relatives with celiac disease are at a significantly higher risk of developing the condition, which should prompt screening efforts in this population.

The 2023 updated guidelines from the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) state that serology testing plays a central role in screening. This commonly involves serological testing for positive serological markers of the disease, including immunoglobulin A (IgA), anti-tissue transglutaminase IgA (tTG-IgA), anti-deamidated gliadin peptide, or endomysial antibodies.

To confirm diagnosis, clinicians have relied on intestinal biopsy since the late 1950s. The ACG still recommends esophagogastroduodenoscopy with multiple duodenal biopsies for confirmation of diagnosis in both children and adults with suspicion of celiac disease. However, recent years have seen a shift toward a no-biopsy approach.

For more than a decade in Europe, a no-biopsy approach has been established practice in pediatric patients, for whom the burden of obtaining a histological confirmation is understandably greater. Most guidelines now permit children to be diagnosed with celiac disease in the absence of a biopsy under specific circumstances (eg, characteristic symptoms of celiac disease and tTG-IgA levels > 10 times the upper limit of normal). The ACG guidelines state that “this approach is a reasonable alternative to the standard approach to a [celiac disease] diagnosis in selected children.”

The ACG does not recommend a no-biopsy approach in adults, noting that, in comparison with children, there is a relative lack of data indicating that serology is predictive in this population. However, it does recognize that physicians may encounter patients for whom a biopsy diagnosis may not be safe or practical. In such cases, an “after-the-fact” diagnosis of likely celiac disease can be given to symptomatic adult patients with a ≥ 10-fold elevation of tTG-IgA and a positive endomysial antibody in a second blood sample.

A 2024 meta-analysis of 18 studies involving over 12,103 adult patients from 15 countries concluded that a no-biopsy approach using tTG-IgA antibody levels ≥ 10 times the upper limit of normal was highly specific and predictive of celiac disease.
 

3. Celiac Disease Is Associated With Several Life-Threatening Conditions

Emerging data indicate that gastroenterologists should be vigilant in screening patients with celiac disease for several other GI conditions.

Inflammatory bowel disease and celiac disease have a strong bidirectional association, suggesting a possible genetic link between the conditions and indicating that physicians should consider the alternate diagnosis when symptoms persist after treatment.

Given the hypervigilance around food and diet inherent to celiac disease, patients are at an increased risk of developing avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder, according to a 2022 retrospective study.

In 2023, Italian investigators showed that children with celiac disease have an elevated prevalence of functional GI disorders even after adopting a GFD for a year, regardless of whether they consumed processed or natural foods. It was unclear whether this was due to a chronic inflammatory process or to nutritional factors.

Complications resulting from celiac disease are not limited to GI disorders. For a variety of underlying pathophysiological reasons, including intestinal permeability, hyposplenism, and malabsorption of nutrients, patients with celiac disease may be at a higher risk for non-GI conditions, such as osteopenia, women’s health disorders (eg, ovarian failure, endometriosis, or pregnancy loss), juvenile idiopathic arthritis in children and rheumatoid arthritis in adults, certain forms of cancer, infectious diseases, and cardiomyopathy.
 

4. GFD Is the Only Treatment, but It’s Imperfect and Frustrating for Patients

GFD is the only treatment for celiac disease and must be adhered to without deviation throughout a patient’s life.

Maintaining unwavering adherence reaps considerable benefits: Improved clinical symptoms, robust mucosal healing, and normalization of serological markers. Yet it also takes a considerable toll on patients. Patients with celiac disease struggle with a host of negative physical, psychological, and social impacts. They also report a higher treatment burden than those with gastroesophageal reflux disease or hypertension, and comparable with end-stage renal disease.

GFD also poses financial challenges. Although the price of gluten-free products has decreased in recent years, they still cost significantly more than items with gluten.

Adherence to GFD does not always equate to complete mucosal recovery. While mucosal recovery is achieved in 95% of children within 2 years of the diet’s adoption, only 34% and 66% of adults obtain it within 2 and 5 years, respectively.

GFD may lead to nutrient imbalances because gluten-free foods are typically low in alimentary fiber, micronutrients (eg, vitamin D, vitamin B12, or folate), and minerals (eg, iron, zinc, magnesium, or calcium). With higher sugar and fat content, GFD may leave patients susceptible to unwanted weight gain.

The pervasiveness of gluten in the food production system makes the risk for cross-contamination high. Gluten is often found in both naturally gluten-free foods and products labeled as such. Gluten-sensing technologies, some of which can be used via smartphone apps, have been developed to help patients identify possible cross-contamination. However, the ACG guidelines recommend against the use of these technologies until there is sufficient evidence supporting their ability to improve adherence and clinical outcomes.
 

5. Novel Therapies for Celiac Disease Are in the Pipeline

The limitations of GFD as the standard treatment for celiac disease have led to an increased focus on developing novel therapeutic interventions. They can be sorted into five key categories: Modulation of the immunostimulatory effects of toxic gluten peptides, elimination of toxic gluten peptides before they reach the intestine, induction of gluten tolerance, modulation of intestinal permeability, and restoration of gut microbiota balance.

Three therapies designed to block antigen presentation by HLA-DQ2/8, the gene alleles that predispose people to celiac disease, show promise: TPM502, an agent that contains three gluten-specific antigenic peptides with overlapping T-cell epitopes for the HLA-DQ2.5 gene; KAN-101, designed to induce gluten tolerance by targeting receptors on the liver; and DONQ52, a multi-specific antibody that targets HLA-DQ2. The KAN-101 therapy received Fast Track designation by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2022.

These and several other agents in clinical and preclinical development are discussed in detail in a 2024 review article. Although no therapies have reached phase 3 testing, when they do, it will undoubtedly be welcomed by those with celiac disease.

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

Celiac disease is a chronic, immune-mediated, systemic disorder caused by intolerance to gluten — a protein present in rye, barley, and wheat grains — that affects genetically predisposed individuals.

Due to its wide spectrum of clinical manifestations, celiac disease resembles a multisystemic disorder. Its most common gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms include chronic diarrhea, weight loss, and abdominal distention. However, celiac disease can also manifest in myriad extraintestinal symptoms, ranging from headache and fatigue to delayed puberty and psychiatric disorders, with differing presentations in children and adults.

To date, the only treatment is adopting a gluten-free diet (GFD). Although key to preventing persistent villous atrophy, the main cause of complications in celiac disease, lifelong adherence to GFD is challenging and may not resolve all clinical issues. These shortcomings have driven recent efforts to develop novel therapeutic options for patients with this disease.

Here are five things to know about celiac disease.
 

1. Rising Prevalence of Celiac Disease and Other Autoimmune Disorders Suggests Environmental Factors May Be at Play

Gluten was first identified as the cause of celiac disease in the 1950s. At that time, the condition was thought to be a relatively rare GI disease of childhood that primarily affected people of European descent, but it is now known to be a common disease affecting those of various ages, races, and ethnicities.

A 2018 meta-analysis found the pooled global prevalence of celiac disease was 1.4%. Incidence has increased by as much as 7.5% annually over the past several decades.

Increased awareness among clinicians and improved detection likely play a role in the trend. However, the growth in celiac disease is consistent with that seen for other autoimmune disorders, according to a 2024 update of evidence surrounding celiac disease. Shared environmental factors have been proposed as triggers for celiac disease and other autoimmune diseases and appear to be influencing their rise, the authors noted. These factors include migration and population growth, changing dietary patterns and food processing practices, and altered wheat consumption.
 

2. No-Biopsy Diagnosis Is Accepted for Children and Shows Promise for Adults

It is estimated that almost 60 million people worldwide have celiac disease, but most remain undiagnosed or misdiagnosed, or they experience significant diagnostic delays.

Prospective data indicate that children with first-degree relatives with celiac disease are at a significantly higher risk of developing the condition, which should prompt screening efforts in this population.

The 2023 updated guidelines from the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) state that serology testing plays a central role in screening. This commonly involves serological testing for positive serological markers of the disease, including immunoglobulin A (IgA), anti-tissue transglutaminase IgA (tTG-IgA), anti-deamidated gliadin peptide, or endomysial antibodies.

To confirm diagnosis, clinicians have relied on intestinal biopsy since the late 1950s. The ACG still recommends esophagogastroduodenoscopy with multiple duodenal biopsies for confirmation of diagnosis in both children and adults with suspicion of celiac disease. However, recent years have seen a shift toward a no-biopsy approach.

For more than a decade in Europe, a no-biopsy approach has been established practice in pediatric patients, for whom the burden of obtaining a histological confirmation is understandably greater. Most guidelines now permit children to be diagnosed with celiac disease in the absence of a biopsy under specific circumstances (eg, characteristic symptoms of celiac disease and tTG-IgA levels > 10 times the upper limit of normal). The ACG guidelines state that “this approach is a reasonable alternative to the standard approach to a [celiac disease] diagnosis in selected children.”

The ACG does not recommend a no-biopsy approach in adults, noting that, in comparison with children, there is a relative lack of data indicating that serology is predictive in this population. However, it does recognize that physicians may encounter patients for whom a biopsy diagnosis may not be safe or practical. In such cases, an “after-the-fact” diagnosis of likely celiac disease can be given to symptomatic adult patients with a ≥ 10-fold elevation of tTG-IgA and a positive endomysial antibody in a second blood sample.

A 2024 meta-analysis of 18 studies involving over 12,103 adult patients from 15 countries concluded that a no-biopsy approach using tTG-IgA antibody levels ≥ 10 times the upper limit of normal was highly specific and predictive of celiac disease.
 

3. Celiac Disease Is Associated With Several Life-Threatening Conditions

Emerging data indicate that gastroenterologists should be vigilant in screening patients with celiac disease for several other GI conditions.

Inflammatory bowel disease and celiac disease have a strong bidirectional association, suggesting a possible genetic link between the conditions and indicating that physicians should consider the alternate diagnosis when symptoms persist after treatment.

Given the hypervigilance around food and diet inherent to celiac disease, patients are at an increased risk of developing avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder, according to a 2022 retrospective study.

In 2023, Italian investigators showed that children with celiac disease have an elevated prevalence of functional GI disorders even after adopting a GFD for a year, regardless of whether they consumed processed or natural foods. It was unclear whether this was due to a chronic inflammatory process or to nutritional factors.

Complications resulting from celiac disease are not limited to GI disorders. For a variety of underlying pathophysiological reasons, including intestinal permeability, hyposplenism, and malabsorption of nutrients, patients with celiac disease may be at a higher risk for non-GI conditions, such as osteopenia, women’s health disorders (eg, ovarian failure, endometriosis, or pregnancy loss), juvenile idiopathic arthritis in children and rheumatoid arthritis in adults, certain forms of cancer, infectious diseases, and cardiomyopathy.
 

4. GFD Is the Only Treatment, but It’s Imperfect and Frustrating for Patients

GFD is the only treatment for celiac disease and must be adhered to without deviation throughout a patient’s life.

Maintaining unwavering adherence reaps considerable benefits: Improved clinical symptoms, robust mucosal healing, and normalization of serological markers. Yet it also takes a considerable toll on patients. Patients with celiac disease struggle with a host of negative physical, psychological, and social impacts. They also report a higher treatment burden than those with gastroesophageal reflux disease or hypertension, and comparable with end-stage renal disease.

GFD also poses financial challenges. Although the price of gluten-free products has decreased in recent years, they still cost significantly more than items with gluten.

Adherence to GFD does not always equate to complete mucosal recovery. While mucosal recovery is achieved in 95% of children within 2 years of the diet’s adoption, only 34% and 66% of adults obtain it within 2 and 5 years, respectively.

GFD may lead to nutrient imbalances because gluten-free foods are typically low in alimentary fiber, micronutrients (eg, vitamin D, vitamin B12, or folate), and minerals (eg, iron, zinc, magnesium, or calcium). With higher sugar and fat content, GFD may leave patients susceptible to unwanted weight gain.

The pervasiveness of gluten in the food production system makes the risk for cross-contamination high. Gluten is often found in both naturally gluten-free foods and products labeled as such. Gluten-sensing technologies, some of which can be used via smartphone apps, have been developed to help patients identify possible cross-contamination. However, the ACG guidelines recommend against the use of these technologies until there is sufficient evidence supporting their ability to improve adherence and clinical outcomes.
 

5. Novel Therapies for Celiac Disease Are in the Pipeline

The limitations of GFD as the standard treatment for celiac disease have led to an increased focus on developing novel therapeutic interventions. They can be sorted into five key categories: Modulation of the immunostimulatory effects of toxic gluten peptides, elimination of toxic gluten peptides before they reach the intestine, induction of gluten tolerance, modulation of intestinal permeability, and restoration of gut microbiota balance.

Three therapies designed to block antigen presentation by HLA-DQ2/8, the gene alleles that predispose people to celiac disease, show promise: TPM502, an agent that contains three gluten-specific antigenic peptides with overlapping T-cell epitopes for the HLA-DQ2.5 gene; KAN-101, designed to induce gluten tolerance by targeting receptors on the liver; and DONQ52, a multi-specific antibody that targets HLA-DQ2. The KAN-101 therapy received Fast Track designation by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2022.

These and several other agents in clinical and preclinical development are discussed in detail in a 2024 review article. Although no therapies have reached phase 3 testing, when they do, it will undoubtedly be welcomed by those with celiac disease.

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

Celiac disease is a chronic, immune-mediated, systemic disorder caused by intolerance to gluten — a protein present in rye, barley, and wheat grains — that affects genetically predisposed individuals.

Due to its wide spectrum of clinical manifestations, celiac disease resembles a multisystemic disorder. Its most common gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms include chronic diarrhea, weight loss, and abdominal distention. However, celiac disease can also manifest in myriad extraintestinal symptoms, ranging from headache and fatigue to delayed puberty and psychiatric disorders, with differing presentations in children and adults.

To date, the only treatment is adopting a gluten-free diet (GFD). Although key to preventing persistent villous atrophy, the main cause of complications in celiac disease, lifelong adherence to GFD is challenging and may not resolve all clinical issues. These shortcomings have driven recent efforts to develop novel therapeutic options for patients with this disease.

Here are five things to know about celiac disease.
 

1. Rising Prevalence of Celiac Disease and Other Autoimmune Disorders Suggests Environmental Factors May Be at Play

Gluten was first identified as the cause of celiac disease in the 1950s. At that time, the condition was thought to be a relatively rare GI disease of childhood that primarily affected people of European descent, but it is now known to be a common disease affecting those of various ages, races, and ethnicities.

A 2018 meta-analysis found the pooled global prevalence of celiac disease was 1.4%. Incidence has increased by as much as 7.5% annually over the past several decades.

Increased awareness among clinicians and improved detection likely play a role in the trend. However, the growth in celiac disease is consistent with that seen for other autoimmune disorders, according to a 2024 update of evidence surrounding celiac disease. Shared environmental factors have been proposed as triggers for celiac disease and other autoimmune diseases and appear to be influencing their rise, the authors noted. These factors include migration and population growth, changing dietary patterns and food processing practices, and altered wheat consumption.
 

2. No-Biopsy Diagnosis Is Accepted for Children and Shows Promise for Adults

It is estimated that almost 60 million people worldwide have celiac disease, but most remain undiagnosed or misdiagnosed, or they experience significant diagnostic delays.

Prospective data indicate that children with first-degree relatives with celiac disease are at a significantly higher risk of developing the condition, which should prompt screening efforts in this population.

The 2023 updated guidelines from the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) state that serology testing plays a central role in screening. This commonly involves serological testing for positive serological markers of the disease, including immunoglobulin A (IgA), anti-tissue transglutaminase IgA (tTG-IgA), anti-deamidated gliadin peptide, or endomysial antibodies.

To confirm diagnosis, clinicians have relied on intestinal biopsy since the late 1950s. The ACG still recommends esophagogastroduodenoscopy with multiple duodenal biopsies for confirmation of diagnosis in both children and adults with suspicion of celiac disease. However, recent years have seen a shift toward a no-biopsy approach.

For more than a decade in Europe, a no-biopsy approach has been established practice in pediatric patients, for whom the burden of obtaining a histological confirmation is understandably greater. Most guidelines now permit children to be diagnosed with celiac disease in the absence of a biopsy under specific circumstances (eg, characteristic symptoms of celiac disease and tTG-IgA levels > 10 times the upper limit of normal). The ACG guidelines state that “this approach is a reasonable alternative to the standard approach to a [celiac disease] diagnosis in selected children.”

The ACG does not recommend a no-biopsy approach in adults, noting that, in comparison with children, there is a relative lack of data indicating that serology is predictive in this population. However, it does recognize that physicians may encounter patients for whom a biopsy diagnosis may not be safe or practical. In such cases, an “after-the-fact” diagnosis of likely celiac disease can be given to symptomatic adult patients with a ≥ 10-fold elevation of tTG-IgA and a positive endomysial antibody in a second blood sample.

A 2024 meta-analysis of 18 studies involving over 12,103 adult patients from 15 countries concluded that a no-biopsy approach using tTG-IgA antibody levels ≥ 10 times the upper limit of normal was highly specific and predictive of celiac disease.
 

3. Celiac Disease Is Associated With Several Life-Threatening Conditions

Emerging data indicate that gastroenterologists should be vigilant in screening patients with celiac disease for several other GI conditions.

Inflammatory bowel disease and celiac disease have a strong bidirectional association, suggesting a possible genetic link between the conditions and indicating that physicians should consider the alternate diagnosis when symptoms persist after treatment.

Given the hypervigilance around food and diet inherent to celiac disease, patients are at an increased risk of developing avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder, according to a 2022 retrospective study.

In 2023, Italian investigators showed that children with celiac disease have an elevated prevalence of functional GI disorders even after adopting a GFD for a year, regardless of whether they consumed processed or natural foods. It was unclear whether this was due to a chronic inflammatory process or to nutritional factors.

Complications resulting from celiac disease are not limited to GI disorders. For a variety of underlying pathophysiological reasons, including intestinal permeability, hyposplenism, and malabsorption of nutrients, patients with celiac disease may be at a higher risk for non-GI conditions, such as osteopenia, women’s health disorders (eg, ovarian failure, endometriosis, or pregnancy loss), juvenile idiopathic arthritis in children and rheumatoid arthritis in adults, certain forms of cancer, infectious diseases, and cardiomyopathy.
 

4. GFD Is the Only Treatment, but It’s Imperfect and Frustrating for Patients

GFD is the only treatment for celiac disease and must be adhered to without deviation throughout a patient’s life.

Maintaining unwavering adherence reaps considerable benefits: Improved clinical symptoms, robust mucosal healing, and normalization of serological markers. Yet it also takes a considerable toll on patients. Patients with celiac disease struggle with a host of negative physical, psychological, and social impacts. They also report a higher treatment burden than those with gastroesophageal reflux disease or hypertension, and comparable with end-stage renal disease.

GFD also poses financial challenges. Although the price of gluten-free products has decreased in recent years, they still cost significantly more than items with gluten.

Adherence to GFD does not always equate to complete mucosal recovery. While mucosal recovery is achieved in 95% of children within 2 years of the diet’s adoption, only 34% and 66% of adults obtain it within 2 and 5 years, respectively.

GFD may lead to nutrient imbalances because gluten-free foods are typically low in alimentary fiber, micronutrients (eg, vitamin D, vitamin B12, or folate), and minerals (eg, iron, zinc, magnesium, or calcium). With higher sugar and fat content, GFD may leave patients susceptible to unwanted weight gain.

The pervasiveness of gluten in the food production system makes the risk for cross-contamination high. Gluten is often found in both naturally gluten-free foods and products labeled as such. Gluten-sensing technologies, some of which can be used via smartphone apps, have been developed to help patients identify possible cross-contamination. However, the ACG guidelines recommend against the use of these technologies until there is sufficient evidence supporting their ability to improve adherence and clinical outcomes.
 

5. Novel Therapies for Celiac Disease Are in the Pipeline

The limitations of GFD as the standard treatment for celiac disease have led to an increased focus on developing novel therapeutic interventions. They can be sorted into five key categories: Modulation of the immunostimulatory effects of toxic gluten peptides, elimination of toxic gluten peptides before they reach the intestine, induction of gluten tolerance, modulation of intestinal permeability, and restoration of gut microbiota balance.

Three therapies designed to block antigen presentation by HLA-DQ2/8, the gene alleles that predispose people to celiac disease, show promise: TPM502, an agent that contains three gluten-specific antigenic peptides with overlapping T-cell epitopes for the HLA-DQ2.5 gene; KAN-101, designed to induce gluten tolerance by targeting receptors on the liver; and DONQ52, a multi-specific antibody that targets HLA-DQ2. The KAN-101 therapy received Fast Track designation by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2022.

These and several other agents in clinical and preclinical development are discussed in detail in a 2024 review article. Although no therapies have reached phase 3 testing, when they do, it will undoubtedly be welcomed by those with celiac disease.

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

PARIS — Allergic comorbidities such as asthma and rhinitis are common among pregnant women. During the 19th French-speaking Congress of Allergology, Dario Ebode, MD, otolaryngologist and cervicofacial surgeon at Hôpital de la Conception in Marseille, France, described gestational rhinitis and detailed its management.

A Hormonal Rhinitis

The prevalence of rhinitis during pregnancy ranges from 18% to 30%, whether it is pre-existing (eg, allergic or infectious) or newly diagnosed. About half of the cases of pre-existing rhinitis worsen during pregnancy, leading to gestational rhinitis, which has a prevalence of approximately 22%.

“The latter is characterized by its onset in the 2nd or 3rd trimester, a duration of > 6 weeks, an absence of associated allergic symptoms, and complete spontaneous resolution 2-3 weeks after delivery,” said Dr. Ebode.

Uncertainties about the pathophysiology of gestational rhinitis, a “hormonal rhinitis,” remain, he added. Beta-estradiol and progesterone hormones lead to an increase in H1 histamine receptors on epithelial and endothelial cells, which promotes the migration or degranulation of eosinophils.
 

Management

While gestational rhinitis is benign, its symptoms can still be bothersome and can be relieved. In addition to dietary and hygienic (nasal irrigation with large volumes) measures and allergen avoidance, local treatments include nasal corticosteroids, possibly combined with antihistamines, and systemic antihistamines. “During pregnancy, nasal corticosteroids, oral antihistamines [excluding azelastine hydrochloride before 10 weeks], and ipratropium bromide are allowed,” said Dr. Ebode. Regarding sprays that combine corticosteroids and antihistamines, the combination of mometasone furoate and olopatadine is possible but not the combination of azelastine hydrochloride and fluticasone propionate before 10 weeks.

Finally, oral vasoconstrictors (which are found in many over-the-counter medications) should be avoided, as should Kenacort (triamcinolone acetonide), “which also has no place in women outside of pregnancy due to an unfavorable risk-benefit balance in rhinitis,” said Dr. Ebode. Allergen immunotherapy plans should be postponed after delivery.

Dr. Ebode reported a financial relationship with Zambon.

This story was translated from the Medscape French edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

PARIS — Allergic comorbidities such as asthma and rhinitis are common among pregnant women. During the 19th French-speaking Congress of Allergology, Dario Ebode, MD, otolaryngologist and cervicofacial surgeon at Hôpital de la Conception in Marseille, France, described gestational rhinitis and detailed its management.

A Hormonal Rhinitis

The prevalence of rhinitis during pregnancy ranges from 18% to 30%, whether it is pre-existing (eg, allergic or infectious) or newly diagnosed. About half of the cases of pre-existing rhinitis worsen during pregnancy, leading to gestational rhinitis, which has a prevalence of approximately 22%.

“The latter is characterized by its onset in the 2nd or 3rd trimester, a duration of > 6 weeks, an absence of associated allergic symptoms, and complete spontaneous resolution 2-3 weeks after delivery,” said Dr. Ebode.

Uncertainties about the pathophysiology of gestational rhinitis, a “hormonal rhinitis,” remain, he added. Beta-estradiol and progesterone hormones lead to an increase in H1 histamine receptors on epithelial and endothelial cells, which promotes the migration or degranulation of eosinophils.
 

Management

While gestational rhinitis is benign, its symptoms can still be bothersome and can be relieved. In addition to dietary and hygienic (nasal irrigation with large volumes) measures and allergen avoidance, local treatments include nasal corticosteroids, possibly combined with antihistamines, and systemic antihistamines. “During pregnancy, nasal corticosteroids, oral antihistamines [excluding azelastine hydrochloride before 10 weeks], and ipratropium bromide are allowed,” said Dr. Ebode. Regarding sprays that combine corticosteroids and antihistamines, the combination of mometasone furoate and olopatadine is possible but not the combination of azelastine hydrochloride and fluticasone propionate before 10 weeks.

Finally, oral vasoconstrictors (which are found in many over-the-counter medications) should be avoided, as should Kenacort (triamcinolone acetonide), “which also has no place in women outside of pregnancy due to an unfavorable risk-benefit balance in rhinitis,” said Dr. Ebode. Allergen immunotherapy plans should be postponed after delivery.

Dr. Ebode reported a financial relationship with Zambon.

This story was translated from the Medscape French edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

PARIS — Allergic comorbidities such as asthma and rhinitis are common among pregnant women. During the 19th French-speaking Congress of Allergology, Dario Ebode, MD, otolaryngologist and cervicofacial surgeon at Hôpital de la Conception in Marseille, France, described gestational rhinitis and detailed its management.

A Hormonal Rhinitis

The prevalence of rhinitis during pregnancy ranges from 18% to 30%, whether it is pre-existing (eg, allergic or infectious) or newly diagnosed. About half of the cases of pre-existing rhinitis worsen during pregnancy, leading to gestational rhinitis, which has a prevalence of approximately 22%.

“The latter is characterized by its onset in the 2nd or 3rd trimester, a duration of > 6 weeks, an absence of associated allergic symptoms, and complete spontaneous resolution 2-3 weeks after delivery,” said Dr. Ebode.

Uncertainties about the pathophysiology of gestational rhinitis, a “hormonal rhinitis,” remain, he added. Beta-estradiol and progesterone hormones lead to an increase in H1 histamine receptors on epithelial and endothelial cells, which promotes the migration or degranulation of eosinophils.
 

Management

While gestational rhinitis is benign, its symptoms can still be bothersome and can be relieved. In addition to dietary and hygienic (nasal irrigation with large volumes) measures and allergen avoidance, local treatments include nasal corticosteroids, possibly combined with antihistamines, and systemic antihistamines. “During pregnancy, nasal corticosteroids, oral antihistamines [excluding azelastine hydrochloride before 10 weeks], and ipratropium bromide are allowed,” said Dr. Ebode. Regarding sprays that combine corticosteroids and antihistamines, the combination of mometasone furoate and olopatadine is possible but not the combination of azelastine hydrochloride and fluticasone propionate before 10 weeks.

Finally, oral vasoconstrictors (which are found in many over-the-counter medications) should be avoided, as should Kenacort (triamcinolone acetonide), “which also has no place in women outside of pregnancy due to an unfavorable risk-benefit balance in rhinitis,” said Dr. Ebode. Allergen immunotherapy plans should be postponed after delivery.

Dr. Ebode reported a financial relationship with Zambon.

This story was translated from the Medscape French edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

When Ezra Spier was diagnosed with long COVID in late 2022, his main symptom, postexertional malaise, caused fatigue so severe that it forced him to quit his job as a technology entrepreneur. Since then, it’s been a tough road for Spier, 37, who said he wouldn’t wish his hellish condition on anyone. 

Last spring, he enrolled in a clinical trial of a new long COVID therapy at Stanford University, and he’s about to start another at the University of California, San Francisco. 

For Spier, who lives in Oakland, California, being part of the clinical trials connected him with people dealing with similar health issues while also moving the needle toward better treatments for everyone. Yet many potential participants are unaware that these clinical trials exist. Clinical trial researchers also express frustration over the challenge of enrolling participants.

That’s why Spier created a new website to help match long COVID patients with clinical trials that can help.

“I wanted a way to make long COVID clinical trials more accessible to the general public,” he said. Spier’s website, aptly named Long Covid Studies, launched in March. The site already includes details from about 550 trials globally and, in the future, will include many more.
 

It’s Not the Number of Studies, It’s Navigating Them

In all, nearly 9300 long COVID trials are listed on ClinicalTrials.gov. But many patients find the site difficult to navigate, said David F. Putrino, PhD, who runs the long COVID clinic at Mount Sinai Health System in New York City. He said Spier’s website helps make trials easier for patients to manage in ways that remove the enrollment challenges.

“Ezra’s platform pulls data from ClinicalTrials.gov and puts it into a space that’s much easier for patients to manage,” said Dr. Putrino. The site only includes the most relevant information, such as the study location, eligibility, and purpose and how to sign up. 

Another of Spier’s goals is to make the process easier for patients who are already marginalized and often excluded from the healthcare system. Long COVID disproportionately impacts people in minority ethnic groups and women, as well as those who are impoverished or live in rural areas. 

According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), 1 in 4 patients with severe long COVID-19 are Black or Hispanic whereas only 1 in 7 are White. Yet participation by White persons in clinical trials is much higher overall: 77% of participants are White, compared with only 14% for Black persons and 15% for Hispanic persons. Without more balanced representation, research becomes skewed and less accurate, said Grace McComsey, MD, who leads one of the 15 nationwide long COVID centers funded by the federal RECOVER (Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery) Initiative in Cleveland. 

Websites that are easier for the layperson to access would allow for wider participation, said McComsey.
 

Too Many Barriers to Entry

A study published in the Journal of Applied Gerontology found that transportation plays an outsized role in influencing study participation, which may also lead to less diverse participation.

Decentralized trials — in which participants receive therapy at home — also make enrolling in clinical trials easier for marginalized patients and those too sick to make it to a research center, said Dr. Putrino. Research published recently in The American Journal of Medicine demonstrated that for many patients, remote studies are the future of COVID research. The study, focusing on the efficacy of Paxlovid, recruited patients living in the 48 contiguous US states. Participation was entirely remote. 

“We need to have more consideration for bedbound and housebound patients in our research,” said Dr. Putrino. “Some people don’t have the ability to show up to a prestigious university to take part in an academic trial.”

Dr. Putrino and colleagues at Yale School of Medicine’s Yale COVID Recovery Study plan to release a paper in the near future on the methodology for running decentralized or remote studies that could provide guidance for researchers elsewhere. 

Decentralized studies serve a larger audience, but they’re also more expensive and cost has plagued long COVID research from the start, said Michael Peluso, MD, an assistant research professor of infectious medicine at UCSF School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco. 

“You need to have a staff in place that’s trained to do home visits in order to conduct remote trials,” Dr. Peluso said, adding that his biggest challenge has been connecting patients to appropriate clinical trials. 

Individual eligibility has been an ongoing issue. For example, Dr. Peluso’s current trials are testing monoclonal antibodies — antibodies produced by cloning unique white blood cells to target viral persistence, which is thought to be a cause of long COVID. Only patients who were infected with certain variants of acute COVID are eligible because of the antibodies needed to target SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins. 

“This can lead to a lot of frustration among patients who might think they can participate, but aren’t eligible,” said Dr. Peluso.
 

Long Fight for Better Long COVID Research

For Spier, one of the hardest parts of his health issues and lack of energy is that they have sharply curtailed his social interactions with friends and colleagues. 

He has channeled his energies into researching new treatments that could potentially improve his symptoms. That research is partly what drove him to create the Long Covid Studies website.

His goal is still to help others with long COVID find trials that can improve their symptoms as well. The more people who participate, the closer scientists will come to providing effective treatments for everyone, he said.

“For all my frustrations, we’re still at the forefront of science globally,” he said. “And if we have the level of funding the NIH is equipped to provide, we can show the world what’s possible with long COVID research.”

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

When Ezra Spier was diagnosed with long COVID in late 2022, his main symptom, postexertional malaise, caused fatigue so severe that it forced him to quit his job as a technology entrepreneur. Since then, it’s been a tough road for Spier, 37, who said he wouldn’t wish his hellish condition on anyone. 

Last spring, he enrolled in a clinical trial of a new long COVID therapy at Stanford University, and he’s about to start another at the University of California, San Francisco. 

For Spier, who lives in Oakland, California, being part of the clinical trials connected him with people dealing with similar health issues while also moving the needle toward better treatments for everyone. Yet many potential participants are unaware that these clinical trials exist. Clinical trial researchers also express frustration over the challenge of enrolling participants.

That’s why Spier created a new website to help match long COVID patients with clinical trials that can help.

“I wanted a way to make long COVID clinical trials more accessible to the general public,” he said. Spier’s website, aptly named Long Covid Studies, launched in March. The site already includes details from about 550 trials globally and, in the future, will include many more.
 

It’s Not the Number of Studies, It’s Navigating Them

In all, nearly 9300 long COVID trials are listed on ClinicalTrials.gov. But many patients find the site difficult to navigate, said David F. Putrino, PhD, who runs the long COVID clinic at Mount Sinai Health System in New York City. He said Spier’s website helps make trials easier for patients to manage in ways that remove the enrollment challenges.

“Ezra’s platform pulls data from ClinicalTrials.gov and puts it into a space that’s much easier for patients to manage,” said Dr. Putrino. The site only includes the most relevant information, such as the study location, eligibility, and purpose and how to sign up. 

Another of Spier’s goals is to make the process easier for patients who are already marginalized and often excluded from the healthcare system. Long COVID disproportionately impacts people in minority ethnic groups and women, as well as those who are impoverished or live in rural areas. 

According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), 1 in 4 patients with severe long COVID-19 are Black or Hispanic whereas only 1 in 7 are White. Yet participation by White persons in clinical trials is much higher overall: 77% of participants are White, compared with only 14% for Black persons and 15% for Hispanic persons. Without more balanced representation, research becomes skewed and less accurate, said Grace McComsey, MD, who leads one of the 15 nationwide long COVID centers funded by the federal RECOVER (Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery) Initiative in Cleveland. 

Websites that are easier for the layperson to access would allow for wider participation, said McComsey.
 

Too Many Barriers to Entry

A study published in the Journal of Applied Gerontology found that transportation plays an outsized role in influencing study participation, which may also lead to less diverse participation.

Decentralized trials — in which participants receive therapy at home — also make enrolling in clinical trials easier for marginalized patients and those too sick to make it to a research center, said Dr. Putrino. Research published recently in The American Journal of Medicine demonstrated that for many patients, remote studies are the future of COVID research. The study, focusing on the efficacy of Paxlovid, recruited patients living in the 48 contiguous US states. Participation was entirely remote. 

“We need to have more consideration for bedbound and housebound patients in our research,” said Dr. Putrino. “Some people don’t have the ability to show up to a prestigious university to take part in an academic trial.”

Dr. Putrino and colleagues at Yale School of Medicine’s Yale COVID Recovery Study plan to release a paper in the near future on the methodology for running decentralized or remote studies that could provide guidance for researchers elsewhere. 

Decentralized studies serve a larger audience, but they’re also more expensive and cost has plagued long COVID research from the start, said Michael Peluso, MD, an assistant research professor of infectious medicine at UCSF School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco. 

“You need to have a staff in place that’s trained to do home visits in order to conduct remote trials,” Dr. Peluso said, adding that his biggest challenge has been connecting patients to appropriate clinical trials. 

Individual eligibility has been an ongoing issue. For example, Dr. Peluso’s current trials are testing monoclonal antibodies — antibodies produced by cloning unique white blood cells to target viral persistence, which is thought to be a cause of long COVID. Only patients who were infected with certain variants of acute COVID are eligible because of the antibodies needed to target SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins. 

“This can lead to a lot of frustration among patients who might think they can participate, but aren’t eligible,” said Dr. Peluso.
 

Long Fight for Better Long COVID Research

For Spier, one of the hardest parts of his health issues and lack of energy is that they have sharply curtailed his social interactions with friends and colleagues. 

He has channeled his energies into researching new treatments that could potentially improve his symptoms. That research is partly what drove him to create the Long Covid Studies website.

His goal is still to help others with long COVID find trials that can improve their symptoms as well. The more people who participate, the closer scientists will come to providing effective treatments for everyone, he said.

“For all my frustrations, we’re still at the forefront of science globally,” he said. “And if we have the level of funding the NIH is equipped to provide, we can show the world what’s possible with long COVID research.”

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

When Ezra Spier was diagnosed with long COVID in late 2022, his main symptom, postexertional malaise, caused fatigue so severe that it forced him to quit his job as a technology entrepreneur. Since then, it’s been a tough road for Spier, 37, who said he wouldn’t wish his hellish condition on anyone. 

Last spring, he enrolled in a clinical trial of a new long COVID therapy at Stanford University, and he’s about to start another at the University of California, San Francisco. 

For Spier, who lives in Oakland, California, being part of the clinical trials connected him with people dealing with similar health issues while also moving the needle toward better treatments for everyone. Yet many potential participants are unaware that these clinical trials exist. Clinical trial researchers also express frustration over the challenge of enrolling participants.

That’s why Spier created a new website to help match long COVID patients with clinical trials that can help.

“I wanted a way to make long COVID clinical trials more accessible to the general public,” he said. Spier’s website, aptly named Long Covid Studies, launched in March. The site already includes details from about 550 trials globally and, in the future, will include many more.
 

It’s Not the Number of Studies, It’s Navigating Them

In all, nearly 9300 long COVID trials are listed on ClinicalTrials.gov. But many patients find the site difficult to navigate, said David F. Putrino, PhD, who runs the long COVID clinic at Mount Sinai Health System in New York City. He said Spier’s website helps make trials easier for patients to manage in ways that remove the enrollment challenges.

“Ezra’s platform pulls data from ClinicalTrials.gov and puts it into a space that’s much easier for patients to manage,” said Dr. Putrino. The site only includes the most relevant information, such as the study location, eligibility, and purpose and how to sign up. 

Another of Spier’s goals is to make the process easier for patients who are already marginalized and often excluded from the healthcare system. Long COVID disproportionately impacts people in minority ethnic groups and women, as well as those who are impoverished or live in rural areas. 

According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), 1 in 4 patients with severe long COVID-19 are Black or Hispanic whereas only 1 in 7 are White. Yet participation by White persons in clinical trials is much higher overall: 77% of participants are White, compared with only 14% for Black persons and 15% for Hispanic persons. Without more balanced representation, research becomes skewed and less accurate, said Grace McComsey, MD, who leads one of the 15 nationwide long COVID centers funded by the federal RECOVER (Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery) Initiative in Cleveland. 

Websites that are easier for the layperson to access would allow for wider participation, said McComsey.
 

Too Many Barriers to Entry

A study published in the Journal of Applied Gerontology found that transportation plays an outsized role in influencing study participation, which may also lead to less diverse participation.

Decentralized trials — in which participants receive therapy at home — also make enrolling in clinical trials easier for marginalized patients and those too sick to make it to a research center, said Dr. Putrino. Research published recently in The American Journal of Medicine demonstrated that for many patients, remote studies are the future of COVID research. The study, focusing on the efficacy of Paxlovid, recruited patients living in the 48 contiguous US states. Participation was entirely remote. 

“We need to have more consideration for bedbound and housebound patients in our research,” said Dr. Putrino. “Some people don’t have the ability to show up to a prestigious university to take part in an academic trial.”

Dr. Putrino and colleagues at Yale School of Medicine’s Yale COVID Recovery Study plan to release a paper in the near future on the methodology for running decentralized or remote studies that could provide guidance for researchers elsewhere. 

Decentralized studies serve a larger audience, but they’re also more expensive and cost has plagued long COVID research from the start, said Michael Peluso, MD, an assistant research professor of infectious medicine at UCSF School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco. 

“You need to have a staff in place that’s trained to do home visits in order to conduct remote trials,” Dr. Peluso said, adding that his biggest challenge has been connecting patients to appropriate clinical trials. 

Individual eligibility has been an ongoing issue. For example, Dr. Peluso’s current trials are testing monoclonal antibodies — antibodies produced by cloning unique white blood cells to target viral persistence, which is thought to be a cause of long COVID. Only patients who were infected with certain variants of acute COVID are eligible because of the antibodies needed to target SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins. 

“This can lead to a lot of frustration among patients who might think they can participate, but aren’t eligible,” said Dr. Peluso.
 

Long Fight for Better Long COVID Research

For Spier, one of the hardest parts of his health issues and lack of energy is that they have sharply curtailed his social interactions with friends and colleagues. 

He has channeled his energies into researching new treatments that could potentially improve his symptoms. That research is partly what drove him to create the Long Covid Studies website.

His goal is still to help others with long COVID find trials that can improve their symptoms as well. The more people who participate, the closer scientists will come to providing effective treatments for everyone, he said.

“For all my frustrations, we’re still at the forefront of science globally,” he said. “And if we have the level of funding the NIH is equipped to provide, we can show the world what’s possible with long COVID research.”

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

For women with early-stage estrogen-receptor positive breast cancer, adjuvant endocrine therapy is known to decrease the likelihood of recurrence and improve survival, while omitting the therapy is associated with a higher risk of death.

For that reason, current guidelines, including those from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, recommend adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) for patients with estrogen-receptor positive (ER+) breast cancers.

But these and other guidelines do not make recommendations for a class of tumors deemed estrogen receptor low positive, often referred to as “ER-low,” a category in which ER is seen expressed in between 1% and 10% of cells. This is because benefits of endocrine therapy have not been demonstrated in patients with ER-low disease.

New research presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Chicago may change how clinicians and patients think about endocrine therapy. The findings showed that omitting endocrine therapy after surgery and chemotherapy was associated with a 25% higher chance of death within 3 years in ER-low patients.

Endocrine therapy, the investigators say, should therefore be offered to all patients with ER-low cancers, at least until it can be determined which subgroups are most likely to benefit.

How Was the Study Conducted?

Grace M. Choong, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, and her colleagues, looked at 2018-2020 data from the National Cancer Database for more than 350,000 female patients with stages 1-3, ER+ breast cancer. From among these they identified about 7000 patients with ER-low cancers who had undergone adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

“We specifically wanted to focus on those treated with chemotherapy as these patients have a higher risk of recurrence in our short interval follow-up,” Dr. Choong said during her presentation.

Patients’ median age was 55 years, and three-quarters of them were White. Their tumors were more likely to be HER2-negative (65%), PR-negative (73%), have higher Ki-67 expression, and have a higher clinical stage (73% grade III).

Forty-two percent of patients did not undergo AET as part of their treatment regimen, with various tumor factors seen associated with AET omission. At a median 3 years of follow-up, 586 patients had died. After the researchers controlled for age, comorbidities, year of diagnosis, tumor factors, and pathologic stage, the effect of omitting AET still resulted in significantly worse survival: (HR 1.25, 95% CI: 1.05-1.48, P = .01).

Mortality was driven by patients with residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, who comprised nearly half the study cohort. In these patients, omission of endocrine therapy was associated with a 27% higher risk of death (HR 1.27, 1.10-1.58). However, for those with a complete pathological response following chemotherapy, omission of endocrine therapy was not associated with a higher risk of death (HR 1.06; 0.62-1.80).

The investigators noted several limitations of their study, including a retrospective design and no information available on recurrence or the duration of endocrine therapy.
 

Why Is Endocrine Therapy So Frequently Omitted in This Patient Group?

Matthew P. Goetz, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, the study’s corresponding author, said in an interview that in Sweden, for example, ER-low patients are explicitly not offered endocrine therapy based on Swedish guidelines.

In other settings, he said, it is unclear what is happening.

“Are patients refusing it? Do physicians not even offer it because they think there is no value? We do not have that granular detail, but our data right now suggests a physician should be having this conversation with patients,” he said.
 

Which ER-Low Patients Are Likely To Benefit?

The findings apply mostly to patients with residual disease after chemotherapy, and underlying biological factors are likely the reason, Dr. Goetz said.

ER-low patients are a heterogeneous group, he explained.

“In genomic profiling, where we look at the underlying biology of these cancers, most of the ER-low cancers are considered the basal subtype of triple negative breast cancer. Those patients should have absolutely zero benefit from endocrine therapy. But there is another group, referred to as the luminal group, which comprises anywhere from 20% to 30% of the ER-low patients.”

Dr. Goetz said he expects to find that this latter group are the patients benefiting from endocrine therapy when they have residual disease.

“We are not yet at the point of saying to patients, ‘you have residual disease after chemotherapy. Let’s check your tumor to see if it is the basal or luminal subtype.’ But that is something that we are planning to look into. What is most important right now is that clinicians be aware of these data, and that there is a suggestion that omitting endocrine therapy may have detrimental effects on survival in this subgroup of patients.”
 

Are the Findings Compelling Enough To Change Clinical Practice Right Away?

In an interview about the findings, Eric Winer, MD, of the Yale Cancer Center in New Haven, Connecticut, cautioned that due to the retrospective study design, “we don’t know how doctors made decisions about who got endocrine therapy and who didn’t.”

The patients with the worst tumors tended not to get endocrine therapy, Dr. Winer noted, and despite attempts to adjust for this, “in any large data set like this, unlike in a randomized trial, you just can’t control for all the bias.”
 

What Should Doctors Tell Patients?

“In the setting of significant side effects from endocrine therapy, we’re still less certain about the benefits of endocrine therapy here than in somebody with an ER-high tumor,” Dr. Winer cautioned.

Nonetheless, he said, the new findings certainly suggest that there may be a benefit for endocrine therapy in patients with ER-low tumors, and doctors should make this known to patients. “It may not be the strongest evidence, but it’s evidence,” he said. “This is very much a question to be raised between the doctor and the patient.”

Dr. Choong and colleagues’ study was funded by a Mayo Clinic Breast Cancer SPORE grant. Dr. Goetz reported consulting fees and research support from pharmaceutical manufacturers, including AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Lilly, and Novartis. Dr. Choong and Dr. Winer reported no financial conflicts of interest.

For women with early-stage estrogen-receptor positive breast cancer, adjuvant endocrine therapy is known to decrease the likelihood of recurrence and improve survival, while omitting the therapy is associated with a higher risk of death.

For that reason, current guidelines, including those from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, recommend adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) for patients with estrogen-receptor positive (ER+) breast cancers.

But these and other guidelines do not make recommendations for a class of tumors deemed estrogen receptor low positive, often referred to as “ER-low,” a category in which ER is seen expressed in between 1% and 10% of cells. This is because benefits of endocrine therapy have not been demonstrated in patients with ER-low disease.

New research presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Chicago may change how clinicians and patients think about endocrine therapy. The findings showed that omitting endocrine therapy after surgery and chemotherapy was associated with a 25% higher chance of death within 3 years in ER-low patients.

Endocrine therapy, the investigators say, should therefore be offered to all patients with ER-low cancers, at least until it can be determined which subgroups are most likely to benefit.

How Was the Study Conducted?

Grace M. Choong, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, and her colleagues, looked at 2018-2020 data from the National Cancer Database for more than 350,000 female patients with stages 1-3, ER+ breast cancer. From among these they identified about 7000 patients with ER-low cancers who had undergone adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

“We specifically wanted to focus on those treated with chemotherapy as these patients have a higher risk of recurrence in our short interval follow-up,” Dr. Choong said during her presentation.

Patients’ median age was 55 years, and three-quarters of them were White. Their tumors were more likely to be HER2-negative (65%), PR-negative (73%), have higher Ki-67 expression, and have a higher clinical stage (73% grade III).

Forty-two percent of patients did not undergo AET as part of their treatment regimen, with various tumor factors seen associated with AET omission. At a median 3 years of follow-up, 586 patients had died. After the researchers controlled for age, comorbidities, year of diagnosis, tumor factors, and pathologic stage, the effect of omitting AET still resulted in significantly worse survival: (HR 1.25, 95% CI: 1.05-1.48, P = .01).

Mortality was driven by patients with residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, who comprised nearly half the study cohort. In these patients, omission of endocrine therapy was associated with a 27% higher risk of death (HR 1.27, 1.10-1.58). However, for those with a complete pathological response following chemotherapy, omission of endocrine therapy was not associated with a higher risk of death (HR 1.06; 0.62-1.80).

The investigators noted several limitations of their study, including a retrospective design and no information available on recurrence or the duration of endocrine therapy.
 

Why Is Endocrine Therapy So Frequently Omitted in This Patient Group?

Matthew P. Goetz, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, the study’s corresponding author, said in an interview that in Sweden, for example, ER-low patients are explicitly not offered endocrine therapy based on Swedish guidelines.

In other settings, he said, it is unclear what is happening.

“Are patients refusing it? Do physicians not even offer it because they think there is no value? We do not have that granular detail, but our data right now suggests a physician should be having this conversation with patients,” he said.
 

Which ER-Low Patients Are Likely To Benefit?

The findings apply mostly to patients with residual disease after chemotherapy, and underlying biological factors are likely the reason, Dr. Goetz said.

ER-low patients are a heterogeneous group, he explained.

“In genomic profiling, where we look at the underlying biology of these cancers, most of the ER-low cancers are considered the basal subtype of triple negative breast cancer. Those patients should have absolutely zero benefit from endocrine therapy. But there is another group, referred to as the luminal group, which comprises anywhere from 20% to 30% of the ER-low patients.”

Dr. Goetz said he expects to find that this latter group are the patients benefiting from endocrine therapy when they have residual disease.

“We are not yet at the point of saying to patients, ‘you have residual disease after chemotherapy. Let’s check your tumor to see if it is the basal or luminal subtype.’ But that is something that we are planning to look into. What is most important right now is that clinicians be aware of these data, and that there is a suggestion that omitting endocrine therapy may have detrimental effects on survival in this subgroup of patients.”
 

Are the Findings Compelling Enough To Change Clinical Practice Right Away?

In an interview about the findings, Eric Winer, MD, of the Yale Cancer Center in New Haven, Connecticut, cautioned that due to the retrospective study design, “we don’t know how doctors made decisions about who got endocrine therapy and who didn’t.”

The patients with the worst tumors tended not to get endocrine therapy, Dr. Winer noted, and despite attempts to adjust for this, “in any large data set like this, unlike in a randomized trial, you just can’t control for all the bias.”
 

What Should Doctors Tell Patients?

“In the setting of significant side effects from endocrine therapy, we’re still less certain about the benefits of endocrine therapy here than in somebody with an ER-high tumor,” Dr. Winer cautioned.

Nonetheless, he said, the new findings certainly suggest that there may be a benefit for endocrine therapy in patients with ER-low tumors, and doctors should make this known to patients. “It may not be the strongest evidence, but it’s evidence,” he said. “This is very much a question to be raised between the doctor and the patient.”

Dr. Choong and colleagues’ study was funded by a Mayo Clinic Breast Cancer SPORE grant. Dr. Goetz reported consulting fees and research support from pharmaceutical manufacturers, including AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Lilly, and Novartis. Dr. Choong and Dr. Winer reported no financial conflicts of interest.

For women with early-stage estrogen-receptor positive breast cancer, adjuvant endocrine therapy is known to decrease the likelihood of recurrence and improve survival, while omitting the therapy is associated with a higher risk of death.

For that reason, current guidelines, including those from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, recommend adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) for patients with estrogen-receptor positive (ER+) breast cancers.

But these and other guidelines do not make recommendations for a class of tumors deemed estrogen receptor low positive, often referred to as “ER-low,” a category in which ER is seen expressed in between 1% and 10% of cells. This is because benefits of endocrine therapy have not been demonstrated in patients with ER-low disease.

New research presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Chicago may change how clinicians and patients think about endocrine therapy. The findings showed that omitting endocrine therapy after surgery and chemotherapy was associated with a 25% higher chance of death within 3 years in ER-low patients.

Endocrine therapy, the investigators say, should therefore be offered to all patients with ER-low cancers, at least until it can be determined which subgroups are most likely to benefit.

How Was the Study Conducted?

Grace M. Choong, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, and her colleagues, looked at 2018-2020 data from the National Cancer Database for more than 350,000 female patients with stages 1-3, ER+ breast cancer. From among these they identified about 7000 patients with ER-low cancers who had undergone adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

“We specifically wanted to focus on those treated with chemotherapy as these patients have a higher risk of recurrence in our short interval follow-up,” Dr. Choong said during her presentation.

Patients’ median age was 55 years, and three-quarters of them were White. Their tumors were more likely to be HER2-negative (65%), PR-negative (73%), have higher Ki-67 expression, and have a higher clinical stage (73% grade III).

Forty-two percent of patients did not undergo AET as part of their treatment regimen, with various tumor factors seen associated with AET omission. At a median 3 years of follow-up, 586 patients had died. After the researchers controlled for age, comorbidities, year of diagnosis, tumor factors, and pathologic stage, the effect of omitting AET still resulted in significantly worse survival: (HR 1.25, 95% CI: 1.05-1.48, P = .01).

Mortality was driven by patients with residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, who comprised nearly half the study cohort. In these patients, omission of endocrine therapy was associated with a 27% higher risk of death (HR 1.27, 1.10-1.58). However, for those with a complete pathological response following chemotherapy, omission of endocrine therapy was not associated with a higher risk of death (HR 1.06; 0.62-1.80).

The investigators noted several limitations of their study, including a retrospective design and no information available on recurrence or the duration of endocrine therapy.
 

Why Is Endocrine Therapy So Frequently Omitted in This Patient Group?

Matthew P. Goetz, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, the study’s corresponding author, said in an interview that in Sweden, for example, ER-low patients are explicitly not offered endocrine therapy based on Swedish guidelines.

In other settings, he said, it is unclear what is happening.

“Are patients refusing it? Do physicians not even offer it because they think there is no value? We do not have that granular detail, but our data right now suggests a physician should be having this conversation with patients,” he said.
 

Which ER-Low Patients Are Likely To Benefit?

The findings apply mostly to patients with residual disease after chemotherapy, and underlying biological factors are likely the reason, Dr. Goetz said.

ER-low patients are a heterogeneous group, he explained.

“In genomic profiling, where we look at the underlying biology of these cancers, most of the ER-low cancers are considered the basal subtype of triple negative breast cancer. Those patients should have absolutely zero benefit from endocrine therapy. But there is another group, referred to as the luminal group, which comprises anywhere from 20% to 30% of the ER-low patients.”

Dr. Goetz said he expects to find that this latter group are the patients benefiting from endocrine therapy when they have residual disease.

“We are not yet at the point of saying to patients, ‘you have residual disease after chemotherapy. Let’s check your tumor to see if it is the basal or luminal subtype.’ But that is something that we are planning to look into. What is most important right now is that clinicians be aware of these data, and that there is a suggestion that omitting endocrine therapy may have detrimental effects on survival in this subgroup of patients.”
 

Are the Findings Compelling Enough To Change Clinical Practice Right Away?

In an interview about the findings, Eric Winer, MD, of the Yale Cancer Center in New Haven, Connecticut, cautioned that due to the retrospective study design, “we don’t know how doctors made decisions about who got endocrine therapy and who didn’t.”

The patients with the worst tumors tended not to get endocrine therapy, Dr. Winer noted, and despite attempts to adjust for this, “in any large data set like this, unlike in a randomized trial, you just can’t control for all the bias.”
 

What Should Doctors Tell Patients?

“In the setting of significant side effects from endocrine therapy, we’re still less certain about the benefits of endocrine therapy here than in somebody with an ER-high tumor,” Dr. Winer cautioned.

Nonetheless, he said, the new findings certainly suggest that there may be a benefit for endocrine therapy in patients with ER-low tumors, and doctors should make this known to patients. “It may not be the strongest evidence, but it’s evidence,” he said. “This is very much a question to be raised between the doctor and the patient.”

Dr. Choong and colleagues’ study was funded by a Mayo Clinic Breast Cancer SPORE grant. Dr. Goetz reported consulting fees and research support from pharmaceutical manufacturers, including AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Lilly, and Novartis. Dr. Choong and Dr. Winer reported no financial conflicts of interest.