Breast Cancer ICYMI

New policy hopes to be in line with full FDA approval expected in September. When the largest employer in the world makes any significant decision, everyone sits up and takes notice.

That’s what happened when Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin III sent out a memo to all US Department of Defense (DoD) employees saying he was seeking President Biden’s approval to make COVID-19 vaccines mandatory. His decision affects not only the 3.2 million employees on the payroll, but their families, communities, and states. Florida, for instance, where approximately 40% of the population remains unvaccinated has about 55,000 active duty service members and 36,000 reservists.

Vaccination rates in the military have lagged behind other populations, especially among Black and Hispanic service members. An April study published in Medical Surveillance Monthly Report found that “non-Hispanic Blacks, as well as those who were female, younger, of lower rank, with lower education levels, and those serving in the Army were less likely to initiate COVID-19 vaccination after adjusting for other factors.”

The decision had been in the offing for some time but when cases of the Delta variant of the virus began to spike in July, President Biden asked Sec. Austin to consider how and when the COVID vaccine could be added to the list of required vaccines for service members. It’s a long list already: Depending on their location, service members can get as many as 17 vaccines. It also folllows on the heals of the decision by the US Department of Veterans Affairs to require vaccinations for frontline health care workers.

Austin promised to “not let grass grow.” He consulted with Army Gen. Mark Milley, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, service chiefs, service secretaries, and medical professionals. Based on those discussions, he decided to ask for approval to make the vaccines mandatory no later than mid-September or immediately upon FDA licensure, whichever comes first.

However, he added, “[t]o defend this Nation, we need a healthy and ready force. I strongly encourage all DoD military and civilian personnel—as well as contractor personnel—to get vaccinated now and for military Service members to not wait for the mandate.” Currently, 73% of active-duty personnel have had at least one dose of the vaccine.

Leaping upon the news—and based on the wording in the memo—some in the media were reporting that it meant all troops have to be vaccinated by mid-September. “He’ll make the request by mid-September, unless or until FDA licensure occurs before that time, at which point the Secretary has the authority he needs…to make whatever vaccine is then given that license mandatory.”  That’s not the case, said Pentagon press secretary John Kirby in a briefing. Some voices also have called on the DoD to do more to dispel vaccine hesitancy among the troops.

In the meantime, Kirby said, “[T]wo things are going to happen. One, the services are going to be tasked to come back to the Secretary with implementation plans for how they’re going to get this moving.” Noting that mid-September isn’t far away, he pointed out that the services have a “fair but limited amount of time” to arrange their implementation plans. “I have every confidence that service leadership and your commanders will implement this new vaccination program with professionalism, skill, and compassion,” Austin wrote in his memo.

The second thing, Kirby said, was that DoD would be developing policies that comply with the President’s direction that the unvaccinated will have to be subjected to “certain requirements and restrictions.” The Delta variant is hitting the unvaccinated hardest. Austin said the DoD will keep a close eye on infection rates “and the impact these rates might have on our readiness. I will not hesitate to act sooner or recommend a different course to the President if I feel the need to do so.”

Kirby said he didn’t have all the details for that yet, but the department is “working hard” on a policy directive that will clarify what those requirements and restrictions might be.

President Biden replied almost immediately to Austin’s message. “I strongly support Secretary Austin’s message to the force today…. Secretary Austin and I share an unshakeable commitment to making sure our troops have every tool they need to do their jobs as safely as possible. These vaccines will save lives. Period.”

“All FDA-authorized COVID-19 vaccines are safe and highly effective,” Austin said in the close to his memo. “They will protect you and your family. They will protect your unit, your ship, and your co-workers. …Get the shot. Stay healthy. Stay ready.”

New policy hopes to be in line with full FDA approval expected in September. When the largest employer in the world makes any significant decision, everyone sits up and takes notice.

That’s what happened when Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin III sent out a memo to all US Department of Defense (DoD) employees saying he was seeking President Biden’s approval to make COVID-19 vaccines mandatory. His decision affects not only the 3.2 million employees on the payroll, but their families, communities, and states. Florida, for instance, where approximately 40% of the population remains unvaccinated has about 55,000 active duty service members and 36,000 reservists.

Vaccination rates in the military have lagged behind other populations, especially among Black and Hispanic service members. An April study published in Medical Surveillance Monthly Report found that “non-Hispanic Blacks, as well as those who were female, younger, of lower rank, with lower education levels, and those serving in the Army were less likely to initiate COVID-19 vaccination after adjusting for other factors.”

The decision had been in the offing for some time but when cases of the Delta variant of the virus began to spike in July, President Biden asked Sec. Austin to consider how and when the COVID vaccine could be added to the list of required vaccines for service members. It’s a long list already: Depending on their location, service members can get as many as 17 vaccines. It also folllows on the heals of the decision by the US Department of Veterans Affairs to require vaccinations for frontline health care workers.

Austin promised to “not let grass grow.” He consulted with Army Gen. Mark Milley, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, service chiefs, service secretaries, and medical professionals. Based on those discussions, he decided to ask for approval to make the vaccines mandatory no later than mid-September or immediately upon FDA licensure, whichever comes first.

However, he added, “[t]o defend this Nation, we need a healthy and ready force. I strongly encourage all DoD military and civilian personnel—as well as contractor personnel—to get vaccinated now and for military Service members to not wait for the mandate.” Currently, 73% of active-duty personnel have had at least one dose of the vaccine.

Leaping upon the news—and based on the wording in the memo—some in the media were reporting that it meant all troops have to be vaccinated by mid-September. “He’ll make the request by mid-September, unless or until FDA licensure occurs before that time, at which point the Secretary has the authority he needs…to make whatever vaccine is then given that license mandatory.”  That’s not the case, said Pentagon press secretary John Kirby in a briefing. Some voices also have called on the DoD to do more to dispel vaccine hesitancy among the troops.

In the meantime, Kirby said, “[T]wo things are going to happen. One, the services are going to be tasked to come back to the Secretary with implementation plans for how they’re going to get this moving.” Noting that mid-September isn’t far away, he pointed out that the services have a “fair but limited amount of time” to arrange their implementation plans. “I have every confidence that service leadership and your commanders will implement this new vaccination program with professionalism, skill, and compassion,” Austin wrote in his memo.

The second thing, Kirby said, was that DoD would be developing policies that comply with the President’s direction that the unvaccinated will have to be subjected to “certain requirements and restrictions.” The Delta variant is hitting the unvaccinated hardest. Austin said the DoD will keep a close eye on infection rates “and the impact these rates might have on our readiness. I will not hesitate to act sooner or recommend a different course to the President if I feel the need to do so.”

Kirby said he didn’t have all the details for that yet, but the department is “working hard” on a policy directive that will clarify what those requirements and restrictions might be.

President Biden replied almost immediately to Austin’s message. “I strongly support Secretary Austin’s message to the force today…. Secretary Austin and I share an unshakeable commitment to making sure our troops have every tool they need to do their jobs as safely as possible. These vaccines will save lives. Period.”

“All FDA-authorized COVID-19 vaccines are safe and highly effective,” Austin said in the close to his memo. “They will protect you and your family. They will protect your unit, your ship, and your co-workers. …Get the shot. Stay healthy. Stay ready.”

New policy hopes to be in line with full FDA approval expected in September. When the largest employer in the world makes any significant decision, everyone sits up and takes notice.

That’s what happened when Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin III sent out a memo to all US Department of Defense (DoD) employees saying he was seeking President Biden’s approval to make COVID-19 vaccines mandatory. His decision affects not only the 3.2 million employees on the payroll, but their families, communities, and states. Florida, for instance, where approximately 40% of the population remains unvaccinated has about 55,000 active duty service members and 36,000 reservists.

Vaccination rates in the military have lagged behind other populations, especially among Black and Hispanic service members. An April study published in Medical Surveillance Monthly Report found that “non-Hispanic Blacks, as well as those who were female, younger, of lower rank, with lower education levels, and those serving in the Army were less likely to initiate COVID-19 vaccination after adjusting for other factors.”

The decision had been in the offing for some time but when cases of the Delta variant of the virus began to spike in July, President Biden asked Sec. Austin to consider how and when the COVID vaccine could be added to the list of required vaccines for service members. It’s a long list already: Depending on their location, service members can get as many as 17 vaccines. It also folllows on the heals of the decision by the US Department of Veterans Affairs to require vaccinations for frontline health care workers.

Austin promised to “not let grass grow.” He consulted with Army Gen. Mark Milley, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, service chiefs, service secretaries, and medical professionals. Based on those discussions, he decided to ask for approval to make the vaccines mandatory no later than mid-September or immediately upon FDA licensure, whichever comes first.

However, he added, “[t]o defend this Nation, we need a healthy and ready force. I strongly encourage all DoD military and civilian personnel—as well as contractor personnel—to get vaccinated now and for military Service members to not wait for the mandate.” Currently, 73% of active-duty personnel have had at least one dose of the vaccine.

Leaping upon the news—and based on the wording in the memo—some in the media were reporting that it meant all troops have to be vaccinated by mid-September. “He’ll make the request by mid-September, unless or until FDA licensure occurs before that time, at which point the Secretary has the authority he needs…to make whatever vaccine is then given that license mandatory.”  That’s not the case, said Pentagon press secretary John Kirby in a briefing. Some voices also have called on the DoD to do more to dispel vaccine hesitancy among the troops.

In the meantime, Kirby said, “[T]wo things are going to happen. One, the services are going to be tasked to come back to the Secretary with implementation plans for how they’re going to get this moving.” Noting that mid-September isn’t far away, he pointed out that the services have a “fair but limited amount of time” to arrange their implementation plans. “I have every confidence that service leadership and your commanders will implement this new vaccination program with professionalism, skill, and compassion,” Austin wrote in his memo.

The second thing, Kirby said, was that DoD would be developing policies that comply with the President’s direction that the unvaccinated will have to be subjected to “certain requirements and restrictions.” The Delta variant is hitting the unvaccinated hardest. Austin said the DoD will keep a close eye on infection rates “and the impact these rates might have on our readiness. I will not hesitate to act sooner or recommend a different course to the President if I feel the need to do so.”

Kirby said he didn’t have all the details for that yet, but the department is “working hard” on a policy directive that will clarify what those requirements and restrictions might be.

President Biden replied almost immediately to Austin’s message. “I strongly support Secretary Austin’s message to the force today…. Secretary Austin and I share an unshakeable commitment to making sure our troops have every tool they need to do their jobs as safely as possible. These vaccines will save lives. Period.”

“All FDA-authorized COVID-19 vaccines are safe and highly effective,” Austin said in the close to his memo. “They will protect you and your family. They will protect your unit, your ship, and your co-workers. …Get the shot. Stay healthy. Stay ready.”

Intranasal dihydroergotamine mesylate (DHE) may provide safe and effective migraine relief, a new study suggests.

A phase 3, open-label trial of INP104, or Trudhesa – Impel NeuroPharma’s proprietary Precision Olfactory Delivery of DHE – found that most patients experienced symptom relief within 2 hours and reported that the medication was easy to use and preferable to their current therapy.
 

Another treatment option?

Of about 18 million diagnosed migraine patients in the United States, 4 million receive prescription treatment. Nearly 80% of migraine therapies involve triptans, but 30%-40% of patients don’t find adequate relief with triptans. Moreover, the majority of patients who do respond to triptans report that they’d like to try a different therapy.

“INP104 has the potential to deliver rapid symptom relief, without injection, that is well tolerated and suitable for outpatient us,” lead author Timothy Smith, MD, of StudyMetrix Research, St. Louis, and colleagues wrote in the paper.

The results were published online Aug. 7 in Headache.

A total of 360 patients aged 18-65 years with a diagnosis of migraine with or without aura with at least two attacks per month over the course of the previous 6 months were enrolled in the 24-week safety study, which had a 28-week extension period. Participants used their “best usual care” to treat their migraines during the initial 28-day screening period. Afterward, they were given 1.45-mg doses of INP04 to self-administer into the upper nasal space to treat self-recognized attacks. No more than two doses per 24 hours and three doses per 7 days were allowed. The Full Safety Set analysis comprised 354 patients who dosed at least once. The Primary Safety Set involved 185 patients who administered an average of two or more doses per 28-day period during the 24-week treatment period. A total of 4,515 self-recognized migraines were treated during the 24-week period; 6,332 doses of INP04 were analyzed.

Nearly 37% (130/354) of patients reported treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs); 6.8% (24/354) discontinued treatment because of the TEAEs over the 24 weeks. The most common TEAE was nasal congestion (15%, 53/354), followed by nausea (6.8%, 24/354).

Within an hour of INP104 administration, 47.6% of patients reported pain relief. After 2 hours of INP104 administration, 38% reported pain freedom and 66.3% reported pain relief. Headache recurrence was observed in 7.1% and 14.3% of patients at 24 and 48 hours, respectively.

In a questionnaire, 84% of patients agreed or strongly agreed that INP04 was easy to use. Most reported that INP104 slowed the recurrence of their migraines and was more rapidly and consistently effective than their previous best usual care treatment.

Intranasal delivery of DHE was developed in response to the challenges of traditional IV administration.

“While intravenous (IV) dihydroergotamine (DHE) mesylate has a long, established history as an effective migraine therapy, its use as an acute treatment can be limited by the high rate of nausea and vomiting reported by patients, which often requires pretreatment with antiemetics,” Dr. Smith and colleagues wrote. “Furthermore, IV DHE mesylate needs to be administered in emergency room settings or by headache specialists, limiting convenience.”
 

A novel delivery system

“There’s already a nasal spray on the market right now which doesn’t seem to work that well in a large number of people. This device [INP04] was designed to get the same substances to a part of the nose that’s higher and farther back, where there may be better absorption,” said Alan Rapoport, MD, clinical professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. Dr. Rapoport was not involved with the study.

The proprietary Precision Olfactory Delivery (POD) is meant to improve on current nasal delivery methods such as sprays, droppers, and pumps, which may deliver “less than 5% of the active drug to the upper nasal space,” according to a press release from Impel NeuroPharma.

Nasal delivery also may have advantages over oral medications. People with migraines may be more likely to have gastroparesis – delayed stomach emptying – which may affect their ability to absorb oral medications and delay symptom relief. However, patients may hesitate to agree to a medication that involves nasal delivery, Dr. Rapoport said.

“I will say it’s a little more difficult getting your patients to take a nasal spray,” Dr. Rapoport said. “Patients are used to taking tablets for their headaches,” he said. “But if the doctor spends a little more time with the patient and says, ‘Look, this could work faster for your migraine as a nasal spray. Why don’t you try it a couple of times and see if you like it or not?’ patients are usually willing to give it a try.”

The study’s limitations include the lack of a control group given that it was an open-label trial. It was carried out at 38 sites in one geographical area, which may affect the generalizability of the results. The study did not assess patients with new-onset migraine or chronic migraine.

The Food and Drug Administration approved Trudhesa on Sept. 2, 2021.

The study was funded by Impel NeuroPharma. Dr. Smith has received funding from a number of pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Rapoport disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Intranasal dihydroergotamine mesylate (DHE) may provide safe and effective migraine relief, a new study suggests.

A phase 3, open-label trial of INP104, or Trudhesa – Impel NeuroPharma’s proprietary Precision Olfactory Delivery of DHE – found that most patients experienced symptom relief within 2 hours and reported that the medication was easy to use and preferable to their current therapy.
 

Another treatment option?

Of about 18 million diagnosed migraine patients in the United States, 4 million receive prescription treatment. Nearly 80% of migraine therapies involve triptans, but 30%-40% of patients don’t find adequate relief with triptans. Moreover, the majority of patients who do respond to triptans report that they’d like to try a different therapy.

“INP104 has the potential to deliver rapid symptom relief, without injection, that is well tolerated and suitable for outpatient us,” lead author Timothy Smith, MD, of StudyMetrix Research, St. Louis, and colleagues wrote in the paper.

The results were published online Aug. 7 in Headache.

A total of 360 patients aged 18-65 years with a diagnosis of migraine with or without aura with at least two attacks per month over the course of the previous 6 months were enrolled in the 24-week safety study, which had a 28-week extension period. Participants used their “best usual care” to treat their migraines during the initial 28-day screening period. Afterward, they were given 1.45-mg doses of INP04 to self-administer into the upper nasal space to treat self-recognized attacks. No more than two doses per 24 hours and three doses per 7 days were allowed. The Full Safety Set analysis comprised 354 patients who dosed at least once. The Primary Safety Set involved 185 patients who administered an average of two or more doses per 28-day period during the 24-week treatment period. A total of 4,515 self-recognized migraines were treated during the 24-week period; 6,332 doses of INP04 were analyzed.

Nearly 37% (130/354) of patients reported treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs); 6.8% (24/354) discontinued treatment because of the TEAEs over the 24 weeks. The most common TEAE was nasal congestion (15%, 53/354), followed by nausea (6.8%, 24/354).

Within an hour of INP104 administration, 47.6% of patients reported pain relief. After 2 hours of INP104 administration, 38% reported pain freedom and 66.3% reported pain relief. Headache recurrence was observed in 7.1% and 14.3% of patients at 24 and 48 hours, respectively.

In a questionnaire, 84% of patients agreed or strongly agreed that INP04 was easy to use. Most reported that INP104 slowed the recurrence of their migraines and was more rapidly and consistently effective than their previous best usual care treatment.

Intranasal delivery of DHE was developed in response to the challenges of traditional IV administration.

“While intravenous (IV) dihydroergotamine (DHE) mesylate has a long, established history as an effective migraine therapy, its use as an acute treatment can be limited by the high rate of nausea and vomiting reported by patients, which often requires pretreatment with antiemetics,” Dr. Smith and colleagues wrote. “Furthermore, IV DHE mesylate needs to be administered in emergency room settings or by headache specialists, limiting convenience.”
 

A novel delivery system

“There’s already a nasal spray on the market right now which doesn’t seem to work that well in a large number of people. This device [INP04] was designed to get the same substances to a part of the nose that’s higher and farther back, where there may be better absorption,” said Alan Rapoport, MD, clinical professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. Dr. Rapoport was not involved with the study.

The proprietary Precision Olfactory Delivery (POD) is meant to improve on current nasal delivery methods such as sprays, droppers, and pumps, which may deliver “less than 5% of the active drug to the upper nasal space,” according to a press release from Impel NeuroPharma.

Nasal delivery also may have advantages over oral medications. People with migraines may be more likely to have gastroparesis – delayed stomach emptying – which may affect their ability to absorb oral medications and delay symptom relief. However, patients may hesitate to agree to a medication that involves nasal delivery, Dr. Rapoport said.

“I will say it’s a little more difficult getting your patients to take a nasal spray,” Dr. Rapoport said. “Patients are used to taking tablets for their headaches,” he said. “But if the doctor spends a little more time with the patient and says, ‘Look, this could work faster for your migraine as a nasal spray. Why don’t you try it a couple of times and see if you like it or not?’ patients are usually willing to give it a try.”

The study’s limitations include the lack of a control group given that it was an open-label trial. It was carried out at 38 sites in one geographical area, which may affect the generalizability of the results. The study did not assess patients with new-onset migraine or chronic migraine.

The Food and Drug Administration approved Trudhesa on Sept. 2, 2021.

The study was funded by Impel NeuroPharma. Dr. Smith has received funding from a number of pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Rapoport disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Intranasal dihydroergotamine mesylate (DHE) may provide safe and effective migraine relief, a new study suggests.

A phase 3, open-label trial of INP104, or Trudhesa – Impel NeuroPharma’s proprietary Precision Olfactory Delivery of DHE – found that most patients experienced symptom relief within 2 hours and reported that the medication was easy to use and preferable to their current therapy.
 

Another treatment option?

Of about 18 million diagnosed migraine patients in the United States, 4 million receive prescription treatment. Nearly 80% of migraine therapies involve triptans, but 30%-40% of patients don’t find adequate relief with triptans. Moreover, the majority of patients who do respond to triptans report that they’d like to try a different therapy.

“INP104 has the potential to deliver rapid symptom relief, without injection, that is well tolerated and suitable for outpatient us,” lead author Timothy Smith, MD, of StudyMetrix Research, St. Louis, and colleagues wrote in the paper.

The results were published online Aug. 7 in Headache.

A total of 360 patients aged 18-65 years with a diagnosis of migraine with or without aura with at least two attacks per month over the course of the previous 6 months were enrolled in the 24-week safety study, which had a 28-week extension period. Participants used their “best usual care” to treat their migraines during the initial 28-day screening period. Afterward, they were given 1.45-mg doses of INP04 to self-administer into the upper nasal space to treat self-recognized attacks. No more than two doses per 24 hours and three doses per 7 days were allowed. The Full Safety Set analysis comprised 354 patients who dosed at least once. The Primary Safety Set involved 185 patients who administered an average of two or more doses per 28-day period during the 24-week treatment period. A total of 4,515 self-recognized migraines were treated during the 24-week period; 6,332 doses of INP04 were analyzed.

Nearly 37% (130/354) of patients reported treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs); 6.8% (24/354) discontinued treatment because of the TEAEs over the 24 weeks. The most common TEAE was nasal congestion (15%, 53/354), followed by nausea (6.8%, 24/354).

Within an hour of INP104 administration, 47.6% of patients reported pain relief. After 2 hours of INP104 administration, 38% reported pain freedom and 66.3% reported pain relief. Headache recurrence was observed in 7.1% and 14.3% of patients at 24 and 48 hours, respectively.

In a questionnaire, 84% of patients agreed or strongly agreed that INP04 was easy to use. Most reported that INP104 slowed the recurrence of their migraines and was more rapidly and consistently effective than their previous best usual care treatment.

Intranasal delivery of DHE was developed in response to the challenges of traditional IV administration.

“While intravenous (IV) dihydroergotamine (DHE) mesylate has a long, established history as an effective migraine therapy, its use as an acute treatment can be limited by the high rate of nausea and vomiting reported by patients, which often requires pretreatment with antiemetics,” Dr. Smith and colleagues wrote. “Furthermore, IV DHE mesylate needs to be administered in emergency room settings or by headache specialists, limiting convenience.”
 

A novel delivery system

“There’s already a nasal spray on the market right now which doesn’t seem to work that well in a large number of people. This device [INP04] was designed to get the same substances to a part of the nose that’s higher and farther back, where there may be better absorption,” said Alan Rapoport, MD, clinical professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. Dr. Rapoport was not involved with the study.

The proprietary Precision Olfactory Delivery (POD) is meant to improve on current nasal delivery methods such as sprays, droppers, and pumps, which may deliver “less than 5% of the active drug to the upper nasal space,” according to a press release from Impel NeuroPharma.

Nasal delivery also may have advantages over oral medications. People with migraines may be more likely to have gastroparesis – delayed stomach emptying – which may affect their ability to absorb oral medications and delay symptom relief. However, patients may hesitate to agree to a medication that involves nasal delivery, Dr. Rapoport said.

“I will say it’s a little more difficult getting your patients to take a nasal spray,” Dr. Rapoport said. “Patients are used to taking tablets for their headaches,” he said. “But if the doctor spends a little more time with the patient and says, ‘Look, this could work faster for your migraine as a nasal spray. Why don’t you try it a couple of times and see if you like it or not?’ patients are usually willing to give it a try.”

The study’s limitations include the lack of a control group given that it was an open-label trial. It was carried out at 38 sites in one geographical area, which may affect the generalizability of the results. The study did not assess patients with new-onset migraine or chronic migraine.

The Food and Drug Administration approved Trudhesa on Sept. 2, 2021.

The study was funded by Impel NeuroPharma. Dr. Smith has received funding from a number of pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Rapoport disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

There is currently no evidence that newer antiseizure medications increase the risk for suicide among patients with epilepsy, new research shows. “There appears to be no justification for the FDA to label every new antiseizure medication with a warning that it may increase risk of suicidality,” said study investigator Michael R. Sperling, MD, professor of neurology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia.

“How many patients are afraid of their medication and do not take it because of the warning – and are consequently at risk because of that? We do not know, but have anecdotal experience that this is certainly an issue,” Dr. Sperling, who is director of the Jefferson Comprehensive Epilepsy Center, added.

The study was published online August 2 in JAMA Neurology.
 

Blanket warning

In 2008, the FDA issued an alert stating that antiseizure medications increase suicidality. The alert was based on pooled data from placebo-controlled clinical trials that included 11 antiseizure medications – carbamazepine, felbamate, gabapentin, lamotrigine, levetiracetam, oxcarbazepine, pregabalin, tiagabine, topiramate, valproate, and zonisamide.

The meta-analytic review showed that, compared with placebo, antiseizure medications nearly doubled suicide risk among patients treated for epilepsy, psychiatric disorders, and other diseases. As a result of the FDA study, all antiseizure medications that have been approved since 2008 carry a warning for suicidality.

However, subsequent analyses did not show the same results, Dr. Sperling and colleagues noted.

“Pivotal” antiseizure medication epilepsy trials since 2008 have evaluated suicidality prospectively. Since 2011, trials have included the validated Columbia Suicidality Severity Rating Scale, they noted.
 

Meta analysis showed no increased risk

Dr. Sperling and colleagues conducted a meta-analysis of 17 randomized placebo-controlled epilepsy trials of five antiseizure medications approved since 2008. These antiseizure medications were eslicarbazepine, perampanel, brivaracetam, cannabidiol, and cenobamate. The trials involved 5,996 patients, including 4,000 who were treated with antiseizure medications and 1,996 who were treated with placebo.

Confining the analysis to epilepsy trials avoids potential confounders, such as possible differences in suicidality risks between different diseases, the researchers noted.

They found no evidence of increased risk for suicidal ideation (overall risk ratio, antiseizure medications vs. placebo: 0.75; 95% confidence interval: 0.35-1.60) or suicide attempt (risk ratio, 0.75; 95% CI: 0.30-1.87) overall or for any individual antiseizure medication.

Suicidal ideation occurred in 12 of 4,000 patients treated with antiseizure medications (0.30%), versus 7 of 1,996 patients treated with placebo (0.35%) (P = .74). Three patients who were treated with antiseizure medications attempted suicide; no patients who were treated with placebo attempted suicide (P = .22). There were no completed suicides.

“There is no current evidence that the five antiseizure medications evaluated in this study increase suicidality in epilepsy and merit a suicidality class warning,” the investigators wrote. When prescribed for epilepsy, “evidence does not support the FDA’s labeling practice of a blanket assumption of increased suicidality,” said Dr. Sperling.

“Our findings indicate the nonspecific suicide warning for all epilepsy drugs is simply not justifiable,” he said. “The results are not surprising. Different drugs affect cells in different ways. So there’s no reason to expect that every drug would increase suicide risk for every patient,” Dr. Sperling said in a statement.

“It’s important to recognize that epilepsy has many causes – perinatal injury, stroke, tumor, head trauma, developmental malformations, genetic causes, and others – and these underlying etiologies may well contribute to the presence of depression and suicidality in this population,” he said in an interview. “Psychodynamic influences also may occur as a consequence of having seizures. This is a complicated area, and drugs are simply one piece of the puzzle,” he added.

Dr. Sperling said the FDA has accomplished “one useful thing with its warning – it highlighted that physicians and other health care providers must pay attention to their patients’ psychological state, ask questions, and treat accordingly.”

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Sperling has received grants from Eisai, Medtronic, Neurelis, SK Life Science, Sunovion, Takeda, Xenon, Cerevel Therapeutics, UCB Pharma, and Engage Pharma; personal fees from Neurelis, Medscape, Neurology Live, International Medical Press, UCB Pharma, Eisai, Oxford University Press, and Projects in Knowledge. He has also consulted for Medtronic outside the submitted work; payments went to Thomas Jefferson University. A complete list of authors’ disclosures is available with the original article.

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

There is currently no evidence that newer antiseizure medications increase the risk for suicide among patients with epilepsy, new research shows. “There appears to be no justification for the FDA to label every new antiseizure medication with a warning that it may increase risk of suicidality,” said study investigator Michael R. Sperling, MD, professor of neurology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia.

“How many patients are afraid of their medication and do not take it because of the warning – and are consequently at risk because of that? We do not know, but have anecdotal experience that this is certainly an issue,” Dr. Sperling, who is director of the Jefferson Comprehensive Epilepsy Center, added.

The study was published online August 2 in JAMA Neurology.
 

Blanket warning

In 2008, the FDA issued an alert stating that antiseizure medications increase suicidality. The alert was based on pooled data from placebo-controlled clinical trials that included 11 antiseizure medications – carbamazepine, felbamate, gabapentin, lamotrigine, levetiracetam, oxcarbazepine, pregabalin, tiagabine, topiramate, valproate, and zonisamide.

The meta-analytic review showed that, compared with placebo, antiseizure medications nearly doubled suicide risk among patients treated for epilepsy, psychiatric disorders, and other diseases. As a result of the FDA study, all antiseizure medications that have been approved since 2008 carry a warning for suicidality.

However, subsequent analyses did not show the same results, Dr. Sperling and colleagues noted.

“Pivotal” antiseizure medication epilepsy trials since 2008 have evaluated suicidality prospectively. Since 2011, trials have included the validated Columbia Suicidality Severity Rating Scale, they noted.
 

Meta analysis showed no increased risk

Dr. Sperling and colleagues conducted a meta-analysis of 17 randomized placebo-controlled epilepsy trials of five antiseizure medications approved since 2008. These antiseizure medications were eslicarbazepine, perampanel, brivaracetam, cannabidiol, and cenobamate. The trials involved 5,996 patients, including 4,000 who were treated with antiseizure medications and 1,996 who were treated with placebo.

Confining the analysis to epilepsy trials avoids potential confounders, such as possible differences in suicidality risks between different diseases, the researchers noted.

They found no evidence of increased risk for suicidal ideation (overall risk ratio, antiseizure medications vs. placebo: 0.75; 95% confidence interval: 0.35-1.60) or suicide attempt (risk ratio, 0.75; 95% CI: 0.30-1.87) overall or for any individual antiseizure medication.

Suicidal ideation occurred in 12 of 4,000 patients treated with antiseizure medications (0.30%), versus 7 of 1,996 patients treated with placebo (0.35%) (P = .74). Three patients who were treated with antiseizure medications attempted suicide; no patients who were treated with placebo attempted suicide (P = .22). There were no completed suicides.

“There is no current evidence that the five antiseizure medications evaluated in this study increase suicidality in epilepsy and merit a suicidality class warning,” the investigators wrote. When prescribed for epilepsy, “evidence does not support the FDA’s labeling practice of a blanket assumption of increased suicidality,” said Dr. Sperling.

“Our findings indicate the nonspecific suicide warning for all epilepsy drugs is simply not justifiable,” he said. “The results are not surprising. Different drugs affect cells in different ways. So there’s no reason to expect that every drug would increase suicide risk for every patient,” Dr. Sperling said in a statement.

“It’s important to recognize that epilepsy has many causes – perinatal injury, stroke, tumor, head trauma, developmental malformations, genetic causes, and others – and these underlying etiologies may well contribute to the presence of depression and suicidality in this population,” he said in an interview. “Psychodynamic influences also may occur as a consequence of having seizures. This is a complicated area, and drugs are simply one piece of the puzzle,” he added.

Dr. Sperling said the FDA has accomplished “one useful thing with its warning – it highlighted that physicians and other health care providers must pay attention to their patients’ psychological state, ask questions, and treat accordingly.”

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Sperling has received grants from Eisai, Medtronic, Neurelis, SK Life Science, Sunovion, Takeda, Xenon, Cerevel Therapeutics, UCB Pharma, and Engage Pharma; personal fees from Neurelis, Medscape, Neurology Live, International Medical Press, UCB Pharma, Eisai, Oxford University Press, and Projects in Knowledge. He has also consulted for Medtronic outside the submitted work; payments went to Thomas Jefferson University. A complete list of authors’ disclosures is available with the original article.

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

There is currently no evidence that newer antiseizure medications increase the risk for suicide among patients with epilepsy, new research shows. “There appears to be no justification for the FDA to label every new antiseizure medication with a warning that it may increase risk of suicidality,” said study investigator Michael R. Sperling, MD, professor of neurology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia.

“How many patients are afraid of their medication and do not take it because of the warning – and are consequently at risk because of that? We do not know, but have anecdotal experience that this is certainly an issue,” Dr. Sperling, who is director of the Jefferson Comprehensive Epilepsy Center, added.

The study was published online August 2 in JAMA Neurology.
 

Blanket warning

In 2008, the FDA issued an alert stating that antiseizure medications increase suicidality. The alert was based on pooled data from placebo-controlled clinical trials that included 11 antiseizure medications – carbamazepine, felbamate, gabapentin, lamotrigine, levetiracetam, oxcarbazepine, pregabalin, tiagabine, topiramate, valproate, and zonisamide.

The meta-analytic review showed that, compared with placebo, antiseizure medications nearly doubled suicide risk among patients treated for epilepsy, psychiatric disorders, and other diseases. As a result of the FDA study, all antiseizure medications that have been approved since 2008 carry a warning for suicidality.

However, subsequent analyses did not show the same results, Dr. Sperling and colleagues noted.

“Pivotal” antiseizure medication epilepsy trials since 2008 have evaluated suicidality prospectively. Since 2011, trials have included the validated Columbia Suicidality Severity Rating Scale, they noted.
 

Meta analysis showed no increased risk

Dr. Sperling and colleagues conducted a meta-analysis of 17 randomized placebo-controlled epilepsy trials of five antiseizure medications approved since 2008. These antiseizure medications were eslicarbazepine, perampanel, brivaracetam, cannabidiol, and cenobamate. The trials involved 5,996 patients, including 4,000 who were treated with antiseizure medications and 1,996 who were treated with placebo.

Confining the analysis to epilepsy trials avoids potential confounders, such as possible differences in suicidality risks between different diseases, the researchers noted.

They found no evidence of increased risk for suicidal ideation (overall risk ratio, antiseizure medications vs. placebo: 0.75; 95% confidence interval: 0.35-1.60) or suicide attempt (risk ratio, 0.75; 95% CI: 0.30-1.87) overall or for any individual antiseizure medication.

Suicidal ideation occurred in 12 of 4,000 patients treated with antiseizure medications (0.30%), versus 7 of 1,996 patients treated with placebo (0.35%) (P = .74). Three patients who were treated with antiseizure medications attempted suicide; no patients who were treated with placebo attempted suicide (P = .22). There were no completed suicides.

“There is no current evidence that the five antiseizure medications evaluated in this study increase suicidality in epilepsy and merit a suicidality class warning,” the investigators wrote. When prescribed for epilepsy, “evidence does not support the FDA’s labeling practice of a blanket assumption of increased suicidality,” said Dr. Sperling.

“Our findings indicate the nonspecific suicide warning for all epilepsy drugs is simply not justifiable,” he said. “The results are not surprising. Different drugs affect cells in different ways. So there’s no reason to expect that every drug would increase suicide risk for every patient,” Dr. Sperling said in a statement.

“It’s important to recognize that epilepsy has many causes – perinatal injury, stroke, tumor, head trauma, developmental malformations, genetic causes, and others – and these underlying etiologies may well contribute to the presence of depression and suicidality in this population,” he said in an interview. “Psychodynamic influences also may occur as a consequence of having seizures. This is a complicated area, and drugs are simply one piece of the puzzle,” he added.

Dr. Sperling said the FDA has accomplished “one useful thing with its warning – it highlighted that physicians and other health care providers must pay attention to their patients’ psychological state, ask questions, and treat accordingly.”

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Sperling has received grants from Eisai, Medtronic, Neurelis, SK Life Science, Sunovion, Takeda, Xenon, Cerevel Therapeutics, UCB Pharma, and Engage Pharma; personal fees from Neurelis, Medscape, Neurology Live, International Medical Press, UCB Pharma, Eisai, Oxford University Press, and Projects in Knowledge. He has also consulted for Medtronic outside the submitted work; payments went to Thomas Jefferson University. A complete list of authors’ disclosures is available with the original article.

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

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, has officially signed off on a recommendation by an independent panel of 11 experts to allow people with weakened immune function to get a third dose of certain COVID-19 vaccines.

The decision follows a unanimous vote by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which in turn came hours after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration updated its Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines.

About 7 million adults in the United States have moderately to severely impaired immune function because of a medical condition they live with or a medication they take to manage a health condition.

People who fall into this category are at higher risk of being hospitalized or dying if they get COVID-19. They are also more likely to transmit the infection. About 40% of vaccinated patients who are hospitalized with breakthrough cases are immunocompromised.

Recent studies have shown that between one-third and one-half of immunocompromised people who didn’t develop antibodies after two doses of a vaccine do get some level of protection after a third dose.

Even then, however, the protection immunocompromised people get from vaccines is not as robust as someone who has healthy immune function, and some panel members were concerned that a third dose might come with a false sense of security.

“My only concern with adding a third dose for the immunocompromised is the impression that our immunocompromised population [will] then be safe,” said ACIP member Helen Talbot, MD, MPH, an associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn.

“I think the reality is they’ll be safer but still at incredibly high risk for severe disease and death,” she said.

In updating its EUA, the FDA stressed that, even after a third dose, people who are immunocompromised will still need to wear a mask indoors, socially distance, and avoid large crowds. In addition, family members and other close contacts should be fully vaccinated to protect these vulnerable individuals.
 

Johnson & Johnson not in the mix

The boosters will be available to children as young as 12 years of age who’ve had a Pfizer vaccine or those ages 18 and older who’ve gotten the Moderna vaccine.

For now, people who’ve had the one-dose Johnson & Johnson vaccine have not been cleared to get a second dose of any vaccine.

FDA experts acknowledged the gap but said that people who had received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine represented a small slice of vaccinated Americans, and said they couldn’t act before the FDA had updated its authorization for that vaccine, which the agency is actively exploring.

“We had to do what we’re doing based on the data we have in hand,” said Peter Marks, MD, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the FDA, the division of the agency that regulates vaccines.

“We think at least there is a solution here for the very large majority of immunocompromised individuals, and we believe we will probably have a solution for the remainder in the not-too-distant future,” Dr. Marks said.

In its updated EUA, the FDA said that the third shots were intended for people who had undergone solid organ transplants or have an “equivalent level of immunocompromise.”
 

The details

Clinical experts on the CDC panel spent a good deal of time trying to suss out exactly what conditions might fall under the FDA’s umbrella for a third dose.

In a presentation to the committee, Neela Goswami, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of infectious diseases at Emory University School of Medicine and of epidemiology at the Emory Rollins School of Public Health, Atlanta, stressed that the shots are intended for patients who are moderately or severely immunocompromised, in close consultation with their doctors, but that people who should qualify would include those:

• Receiving treatment for solid tumors or blood cancers
• Taking immunosuppressing medications after a solid organ transplant
• Within 2 years of receiving CAR-T therapy or a stem cell transplant
• Who have primary immunodeficiencies – rare genetic disorders that prevent the immune system from working properly
• With advanced or untreated 
• Taking high-dose corticosteroids (more than 20 milligrams of  or its equivalent daily), alkylating agents, antimetabolites, chemotherapy, TNF blockers, or other immunomodulating or immunosuppressing biologics
• With certain chronic medical conditions, such as  or asplenia – living without a spleen
• Receiving dialysis

In discussion, CDC experts clarified that these third doses were not intended for people whose immune function had waned with age, such as elderly residents of long-term care facilities or people with chronic diseases like diabetes.

The idea is to try to get a third dose of the vaccine they’ve already had – Moderna or Pfizer – but if that’s not feasible, it’s fine for the third dose to be different from what someone has had before. The third dose should be given at least 28 days after a second dose, and, ideally, before the initiation of immunosuppressive therapy.

Participants in the meeting said that the CDC would post updated materials on its website to help guide physicians on exactly who should receive third doses.

Ultimately, however, the extra doses will be given on an honor system; no prescriptions or other kinds of clinical documentation will be required for people to get a third dose of these shots.

Tests to measure neutralizing antibodies are also not recommended before the shots are given because of differences in the types of tests used to measure these antibodies and the difficulty in interpreting them. It’s unclear right now what level of neutralizing antibodies is needed for protection.
 

‘Peace of mind’

In public testimony, Heather Braaten, a 44-year-old being treated for ovarian cancer, said she was grateful to have gotten two shots of the Pfizer vaccine last winter, in between rounds of chemotherapy, but she knew she was probably not well protected. She said she’d become obsessive over the past few months reading medical studies and trying to understand her risk.

“I have felt distraught over the situation. My prognosis is poor. I most likely have about two to three years left to live, so everything counts,” Ms. Braaten said.

She said her life ambitions were humble. She wants to visit with friends and family and not have to worry that she’ll be a breakthrough case. She wants to go grocery shopping again and “not panic and leave the store after five minutes.” She’d love to feel free to travel, she said.

“While I understand I still need to be cautious, I am hopeful for the peace of mind and greater freedom a third shot can provide,” Ms. Braaten said.
 

More boosters on the way?

In the second half of the meeting, the CDC also signaled that it was considering the use of boosters for people whose immunity might have waned in the months since they had completed their vaccine series, particularly seniors. About 75% of people hospitalized with vaccine breakthrough cases are over age 65, according to CDC data.

Those considerations are becoming more urgent as the Delta variant continues to pummel less vaccinated states and counties.

In its presentation to the ACIP, Heather Scobie, PhD, MPH, a member of the CDC’s COVID Response Team, highlighted data from Canada, Israel, Qatar, and the United Kingdom showing that, while the Pfizer vaccine was still highly effective at preventing hospitalizations and death, it’s far less likely when faced with Delta to prevent an infection that causes symptoms.

In Israel, Pfizer’s vaccine prevented symptoms an average of 41% of the time. In Qatar, which is also using the Moderna vaccine, Pfizer’s prevented symptomatic infections with Delta about 54% of the time compared with 85% with Moderna’s.

Dr. Scobie noted that Pfizer’s waning efficacy may have something to do with the fact that it uses a lower dosage than Moderna’s. Pfizer’s recommended dosing interval is also shorter – 3 weeks compared with 4 weeks for Moderna’s. Stretching the time between shots has been shown to boost vaccine effectiveness, she said.

New data from the Mayo clinic, published ahead of peer review, also suggest that Pfizer’s protection may be fading more quickly than Moderna’s. 

In February, both shots were nearly 100% effective at preventing the SARS-CoV-2 infection, but by July, against Delta, Pfizer’s efficacy had dropped to somewhere between 13% and 62%, while Moderna’s was still effective at preventing infection between 58% and 87% of the time.

In July, Pfizer’s was between 24% and 94% effective at preventing hospitalization with a COVID-19 infection and Moderna’s was between 33% and 96% effective at preventing hospitalization.

While that may sound like cause for concern, Dr. Scobie noted that, as of August 2, severe COVD-19 outcomes after vaccination are still very rare. Among 164 million fully vaccinated people in the United States there have been about 7,000 hospitalizations and 1,500 deaths; nearly three out of four of these have been in people over the age of 65.

The ACIP will next meet on August 24 to focus solely on the COVID-19 vaccines.

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

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, has officially signed off on a recommendation by an independent panel of 11 experts to allow people with weakened immune function to get a third dose of certain COVID-19 vaccines.

The decision follows a unanimous vote by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which in turn came hours after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration updated its Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines.

About 7 million adults in the United States have moderately to severely impaired immune function because of a medical condition they live with or a medication they take to manage a health condition.

People who fall into this category are at higher risk of being hospitalized or dying if they get COVID-19. They are also more likely to transmit the infection. About 40% of vaccinated patients who are hospitalized with breakthrough cases are immunocompromised.

Recent studies have shown that between one-third and one-half of immunocompromised people who didn’t develop antibodies after two doses of a vaccine do get some level of protection after a third dose.

Even then, however, the protection immunocompromised people get from vaccines is not as robust as someone who has healthy immune function, and some panel members were concerned that a third dose might come with a false sense of security.

“My only concern with adding a third dose for the immunocompromised is the impression that our immunocompromised population [will] then be safe,” said ACIP member Helen Talbot, MD, MPH, an associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn.

“I think the reality is they’ll be safer but still at incredibly high risk for severe disease and death,” she said.

In updating its EUA, the FDA stressed that, even after a third dose, people who are immunocompromised will still need to wear a mask indoors, socially distance, and avoid large crowds. In addition, family members and other close contacts should be fully vaccinated to protect these vulnerable individuals.
 

Johnson & Johnson not in the mix

The boosters will be available to children as young as 12 years of age who’ve had a Pfizer vaccine or those ages 18 and older who’ve gotten the Moderna vaccine.

For now, people who’ve had the one-dose Johnson & Johnson vaccine have not been cleared to get a second dose of any vaccine.

FDA experts acknowledged the gap but said that people who had received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine represented a small slice of vaccinated Americans, and said they couldn’t act before the FDA had updated its authorization for that vaccine, which the agency is actively exploring.

“We had to do what we’re doing based on the data we have in hand,” said Peter Marks, MD, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the FDA, the division of the agency that regulates vaccines.

“We think at least there is a solution here for the very large majority of immunocompromised individuals, and we believe we will probably have a solution for the remainder in the not-too-distant future,” Dr. Marks said.

In its updated EUA, the FDA said that the third shots were intended for people who had undergone solid organ transplants or have an “equivalent level of immunocompromise.”
 

The details

Clinical experts on the CDC panel spent a good deal of time trying to suss out exactly what conditions might fall under the FDA’s umbrella for a third dose.

In a presentation to the committee, Neela Goswami, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of infectious diseases at Emory University School of Medicine and of epidemiology at the Emory Rollins School of Public Health, Atlanta, stressed that the shots are intended for patients who are moderately or severely immunocompromised, in close consultation with their doctors, but that people who should qualify would include those:

• Receiving treatment for solid tumors or blood cancers
• Taking immunosuppressing medications after a solid organ transplant
• Within 2 years of receiving CAR-T therapy or a stem cell transplant
• Who have primary immunodeficiencies – rare genetic disorders that prevent the immune system from working properly
• With advanced or untreated 
• Taking high-dose corticosteroids (more than 20 milligrams of  or its equivalent daily), alkylating agents, antimetabolites, chemotherapy, TNF blockers, or other immunomodulating or immunosuppressing biologics
• With certain chronic medical conditions, such as  or asplenia – living without a spleen
• Receiving dialysis

In discussion, CDC experts clarified that these third doses were not intended for people whose immune function had waned with age, such as elderly residents of long-term care facilities or people with chronic diseases like diabetes.

The idea is to try to get a third dose of the vaccine they’ve already had – Moderna or Pfizer – but if that’s not feasible, it’s fine for the third dose to be different from what someone has had before. The third dose should be given at least 28 days after a second dose, and, ideally, before the initiation of immunosuppressive therapy.

Participants in the meeting said that the CDC would post updated materials on its website to help guide physicians on exactly who should receive third doses.

Ultimately, however, the extra doses will be given on an honor system; no prescriptions or other kinds of clinical documentation will be required for people to get a third dose of these shots.

Tests to measure neutralizing antibodies are also not recommended before the shots are given because of differences in the types of tests used to measure these antibodies and the difficulty in interpreting them. It’s unclear right now what level of neutralizing antibodies is needed for protection.
 

‘Peace of mind’

In public testimony, Heather Braaten, a 44-year-old being treated for ovarian cancer, said she was grateful to have gotten two shots of the Pfizer vaccine last winter, in between rounds of chemotherapy, but she knew she was probably not well protected. She said she’d become obsessive over the past few months reading medical studies and trying to understand her risk.

“I have felt distraught over the situation. My prognosis is poor. I most likely have about two to three years left to live, so everything counts,” Ms. Braaten said.

She said her life ambitions were humble. She wants to visit with friends and family and not have to worry that she’ll be a breakthrough case. She wants to go grocery shopping again and “not panic and leave the store after five minutes.” She’d love to feel free to travel, she said.

“While I understand I still need to be cautious, I am hopeful for the peace of mind and greater freedom a third shot can provide,” Ms. Braaten said.
 

More boosters on the way?

In the second half of the meeting, the CDC also signaled that it was considering the use of boosters for people whose immunity might have waned in the months since they had completed their vaccine series, particularly seniors. About 75% of people hospitalized with vaccine breakthrough cases are over age 65, according to CDC data.

Those considerations are becoming more urgent as the Delta variant continues to pummel less vaccinated states and counties.

In its presentation to the ACIP, Heather Scobie, PhD, MPH, a member of the CDC’s COVID Response Team, highlighted data from Canada, Israel, Qatar, and the United Kingdom showing that, while the Pfizer vaccine was still highly effective at preventing hospitalizations and death, it’s far less likely when faced with Delta to prevent an infection that causes symptoms.

In Israel, Pfizer’s vaccine prevented symptoms an average of 41% of the time. In Qatar, which is also using the Moderna vaccine, Pfizer’s prevented symptomatic infections with Delta about 54% of the time compared with 85% with Moderna’s.

Dr. Scobie noted that Pfizer’s waning efficacy may have something to do with the fact that it uses a lower dosage than Moderna’s. Pfizer’s recommended dosing interval is also shorter – 3 weeks compared with 4 weeks for Moderna’s. Stretching the time between shots has been shown to boost vaccine effectiveness, she said.

New data from the Mayo clinic, published ahead of peer review, also suggest that Pfizer’s protection may be fading more quickly than Moderna’s. 

In February, both shots were nearly 100% effective at preventing the SARS-CoV-2 infection, but by July, against Delta, Pfizer’s efficacy had dropped to somewhere between 13% and 62%, while Moderna’s was still effective at preventing infection between 58% and 87% of the time.

In July, Pfizer’s was between 24% and 94% effective at preventing hospitalization with a COVID-19 infection and Moderna’s was between 33% and 96% effective at preventing hospitalization.

While that may sound like cause for concern, Dr. Scobie noted that, as of August 2, severe COVD-19 outcomes after vaccination are still very rare. Among 164 million fully vaccinated people in the United States there have been about 7,000 hospitalizations and 1,500 deaths; nearly three out of four of these have been in people over the age of 65.

The ACIP will next meet on August 24 to focus solely on the COVID-19 vaccines.

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

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, has officially signed off on a recommendation by an independent panel of 11 experts to allow people with weakened immune function to get a third dose of certain COVID-19 vaccines.

The decision follows a unanimous vote by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which in turn came hours after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration updated its Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines.

About 7 million adults in the United States have moderately to severely impaired immune function because of a medical condition they live with or a medication they take to manage a health condition.

People who fall into this category are at higher risk of being hospitalized or dying if they get COVID-19. They are also more likely to transmit the infection. About 40% of vaccinated patients who are hospitalized with breakthrough cases are immunocompromised.

Recent studies have shown that between one-third and one-half of immunocompromised people who didn’t develop antibodies after two doses of a vaccine do get some level of protection after a third dose.

Even then, however, the protection immunocompromised people get from vaccines is not as robust as someone who has healthy immune function, and some panel members were concerned that a third dose might come with a false sense of security.

“My only concern with adding a third dose for the immunocompromised is the impression that our immunocompromised population [will] then be safe,” said ACIP member Helen Talbot, MD, MPH, an associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn.

“I think the reality is they’ll be safer but still at incredibly high risk for severe disease and death,” she said.

In updating its EUA, the FDA stressed that, even after a third dose, people who are immunocompromised will still need to wear a mask indoors, socially distance, and avoid large crowds. In addition, family members and other close contacts should be fully vaccinated to protect these vulnerable individuals.
 

Johnson & Johnson not in the mix

The boosters will be available to children as young as 12 years of age who’ve had a Pfizer vaccine or those ages 18 and older who’ve gotten the Moderna vaccine.

For now, people who’ve had the one-dose Johnson & Johnson vaccine have not been cleared to get a second dose of any vaccine.

FDA experts acknowledged the gap but said that people who had received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine represented a small slice of vaccinated Americans, and said they couldn’t act before the FDA had updated its authorization for that vaccine, which the agency is actively exploring.

“We had to do what we’re doing based on the data we have in hand,” said Peter Marks, MD, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the FDA, the division of the agency that regulates vaccines.

“We think at least there is a solution here for the very large majority of immunocompromised individuals, and we believe we will probably have a solution for the remainder in the not-too-distant future,” Dr. Marks said.

In its updated EUA, the FDA said that the third shots were intended for people who had undergone solid organ transplants or have an “equivalent level of immunocompromise.”
 

The details

Clinical experts on the CDC panel spent a good deal of time trying to suss out exactly what conditions might fall under the FDA’s umbrella for a third dose.

In a presentation to the committee, Neela Goswami, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of infectious diseases at Emory University School of Medicine and of epidemiology at the Emory Rollins School of Public Health, Atlanta, stressed that the shots are intended for patients who are moderately or severely immunocompromised, in close consultation with their doctors, but that people who should qualify would include those:

• Receiving treatment for solid tumors or blood cancers
• Taking immunosuppressing medications after a solid organ transplant
• Within 2 years of receiving CAR-T therapy or a stem cell transplant
• Who have primary immunodeficiencies – rare genetic disorders that prevent the immune system from working properly
• With advanced or untreated 
• Taking high-dose corticosteroids (more than 20 milligrams of  or its equivalent daily), alkylating agents, antimetabolites, chemotherapy, TNF blockers, or other immunomodulating or immunosuppressing biologics
• With certain chronic medical conditions, such as  or asplenia – living without a spleen
• Receiving dialysis

In discussion, CDC experts clarified that these third doses were not intended for people whose immune function had waned with age, such as elderly residents of long-term care facilities or people with chronic diseases like diabetes.

The idea is to try to get a third dose of the vaccine they’ve already had – Moderna or Pfizer – but if that’s not feasible, it’s fine for the third dose to be different from what someone has had before. The third dose should be given at least 28 days after a second dose, and, ideally, before the initiation of immunosuppressive therapy.

Participants in the meeting said that the CDC would post updated materials on its website to help guide physicians on exactly who should receive third doses.

Ultimately, however, the extra doses will be given on an honor system; no prescriptions or other kinds of clinical documentation will be required for people to get a third dose of these shots.

Tests to measure neutralizing antibodies are also not recommended before the shots are given because of differences in the types of tests used to measure these antibodies and the difficulty in interpreting them. It’s unclear right now what level of neutralizing antibodies is needed for protection.
 

‘Peace of mind’

In public testimony, Heather Braaten, a 44-year-old being treated for ovarian cancer, said she was grateful to have gotten two shots of the Pfizer vaccine last winter, in between rounds of chemotherapy, but she knew she was probably not well protected. She said she’d become obsessive over the past few months reading medical studies and trying to understand her risk.

“I have felt distraught over the situation. My prognosis is poor. I most likely have about two to three years left to live, so everything counts,” Ms. Braaten said.

She said her life ambitions were humble. She wants to visit with friends and family and not have to worry that she’ll be a breakthrough case. She wants to go grocery shopping again and “not panic and leave the store after five minutes.” She’d love to feel free to travel, she said.

“While I understand I still need to be cautious, I am hopeful for the peace of mind and greater freedom a third shot can provide,” Ms. Braaten said.
 

More boosters on the way?

In the second half of the meeting, the CDC also signaled that it was considering the use of boosters for people whose immunity might have waned in the months since they had completed their vaccine series, particularly seniors. About 75% of people hospitalized with vaccine breakthrough cases are over age 65, according to CDC data.

Those considerations are becoming more urgent as the Delta variant continues to pummel less vaccinated states and counties.

In its presentation to the ACIP, Heather Scobie, PhD, MPH, a member of the CDC’s COVID Response Team, highlighted data from Canada, Israel, Qatar, and the United Kingdom showing that, while the Pfizer vaccine was still highly effective at preventing hospitalizations and death, it’s far less likely when faced with Delta to prevent an infection that causes symptoms.

In Israel, Pfizer’s vaccine prevented symptoms an average of 41% of the time. In Qatar, which is also using the Moderna vaccine, Pfizer’s prevented symptomatic infections with Delta about 54% of the time compared with 85% with Moderna’s.

Dr. Scobie noted that Pfizer’s waning efficacy may have something to do with the fact that it uses a lower dosage than Moderna’s. Pfizer’s recommended dosing interval is also shorter – 3 weeks compared with 4 weeks for Moderna’s. Stretching the time between shots has been shown to boost vaccine effectiveness, she said.

New data from the Mayo clinic, published ahead of peer review, also suggest that Pfizer’s protection may be fading more quickly than Moderna’s. 

In February, both shots were nearly 100% effective at preventing the SARS-CoV-2 infection, but by July, against Delta, Pfizer’s efficacy had dropped to somewhere between 13% and 62%, while Moderna’s was still effective at preventing infection between 58% and 87% of the time.

In July, Pfizer’s was between 24% and 94% effective at preventing hospitalization with a COVID-19 infection and Moderna’s was between 33% and 96% effective at preventing hospitalization.

While that may sound like cause for concern, Dr. Scobie noted that, as of August 2, severe COVD-19 outcomes after vaccination are still very rare. Among 164 million fully vaccinated people in the United States there have been about 7,000 hospitalizations and 1,500 deaths; nearly three out of four of these have been in people over the age of 65.

The ACIP will next meet on August 24 to focus solely on the COVID-19 vaccines.

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

Before the onslaught of COVID-19, researchers at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle had another infectious disease worry: an “unprecedented” outbreak of measles.

“In 2019, we saw the most measles cases in any year since the 1990s,” said Sara Marquis, MPH, a clinical research coordinator at the center. The worry, she says, was that various oncology treatments, such as bone marrow transplantations and assorted biologics, “may leave cancer patients severely immunosuppressed” and thus vulnerable to infectious diseases.

Measles-related illness is typically not severe but can lead to pneumonia, deafness, and death, even in immunocompetent people, Ms. Marquis added.

So in 2019, a team at Fred Hutchinson initiated a study to get a sense of immunity to measles among patients with cancer.

They now report that of a group of 900-plus patients, 25% lacked protective antibodies for measles. That’s “significantly more” than the general population, in which about 8% of people lack these antibodies, Ms. Marquis said.

The study, published online in JAMA Network Open, also found that 38% lacked protection against the less-worrisome infectious disease of mumps, which is more than the 13% found in the general population.

“The scary thing about measles is that it is one of the most contagious diseases known,” Ms. Marquis told this news organization, adding that it is about twice as contagious as the COVID-19 Delta variant.

And it’s not just in the state of Washington. “We’re seeing it more and more in the community,” as various outbreaks continue to happen, she said.

“Deficits in protective antibodies underscore patients’ increased risk during outbreaks and emphasize the need for community-based efforts to increase herd immunity to protect this population,” the study authors conclude.

In short, administration of the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine, introduced in 1963, must continue universally, they said

“We’ve had so many incredible advances in cancer treatment in recent years. … it would be devastating to see something like measles, which is a vaccine-preventable disease, come through and negate those efforts,” said study coauthor Elizabeth Krantz, MS, a biostatistician at Fred Hutchinson.

The health care teams and family caregivers of patients with cancer should also make sure they are vaccinated, said Ms. Marquis. However, some patients may not be able to get a measles booster vaccine because it is a live vaccine or because they cannot generate enough antibodies for it to be protective, she explained.
 

Three subgroups more likely to have deficits

The new study, which is one of the first to measure measles and mumps seroprevalence among patients with cancer in the modern era of cancer treatment, also identified three subgroups that more commonly had immunity deficits:  those aged 30-59 years; those with hematologic malignant neoplasms, and those who had received a hematopoietic cell transplant.

In the study, residual clinical plasma samples were obtained from 959 consecutive patients with cancer at Seattle Cancer Care Alliance and Fred Hutchinson in August 2019. These samples were tested for measles and mumps IgG by using a commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. In all, 60% of patients had a solid tumor and 40% had a blood cancer.

As noted above, the seroprevalence of measles antibodies was 0.75 and the seroprevalence of mumps antibodies was 0.62.

A study author explained why the study included mumps, a less threatening infection.

“We assessed mumps in this study out of interest to compare response in the MMR vaccine component – particularly as we could assess a potent vaccine (measles) versus one that has a weaker immunologic response (mumps). We remain worried about outbreaks of mumps as MMR vaccination rates drop across the U.S.,” wrote Steven Pergam, MD, MPH, infectious disease specialist at Fred Hutchinson, in an email.

Vaccination vigilance is one of the study’s messages. “We all need to do our part to make sure we are up to date with our vaccinations so we can make sure we protect those who are vulnerable,” said Ms. Krantz.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute and Seattle Cancer Care Alliance. Multiple study authors have ties to pharmaceutical companies.

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

Before the onslaught of COVID-19, researchers at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle had another infectious disease worry: an “unprecedented” outbreak of measles.

“In 2019, we saw the most measles cases in any year since the 1990s,” said Sara Marquis, MPH, a clinical research coordinator at the center. The worry, she says, was that various oncology treatments, such as bone marrow transplantations and assorted biologics, “may leave cancer patients severely immunosuppressed” and thus vulnerable to infectious diseases.

Measles-related illness is typically not severe but can lead to pneumonia, deafness, and death, even in immunocompetent people, Ms. Marquis added.

So in 2019, a team at Fred Hutchinson initiated a study to get a sense of immunity to measles among patients with cancer.

They now report that of a group of 900-plus patients, 25% lacked protective antibodies for measles. That’s “significantly more” than the general population, in which about 8% of people lack these antibodies, Ms. Marquis said.

The study, published online in JAMA Network Open, also found that 38% lacked protection against the less-worrisome infectious disease of mumps, which is more than the 13% found in the general population.

“The scary thing about measles is that it is one of the most contagious diseases known,” Ms. Marquis told this news organization, adding that it is about twice as contagious as the COVID-19 Delta variant.

And it’s not just in the state of Washington. “We’re seeing it more and more in the community,” as various outbreaks continue to happen, she said.

“Deficits in protective antibodies underscore patients’ increased risk during outbreaks and emphasize the need for community-based efforts to increase herd immunity to protect this population,” the study authors conclude.

In short, administration of the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine, introduced in 1963, must continue universally, they said

“We’ve had so many incredible advances in cancer treatment in recent years. … it would be devastating to see something like measles, which is a vaccine-preventable disease, come through and negate those efforts,” said study coauthor Elizabeth Krantz, MS, a biostatistician at Fred Hutchinson.

The health care teams and family caregivers of patients with cancer should also make sure they are vaccinated, said Ms. Marquis. However, some patients may not be able to get a measles booster vaccine because it is a live vaccine or because they cannot generate enough antibodies for it to be protective, she explained.
 

Three subgroups more likely to have deficits

The new study, which is one of the first to measure measles and mumps seroprevalence among patients with cancer in the modern era of cancer treatment, also identified three subgroups that more commonly had immunity deficits:  those aged 30-59 years; those with hematologic malignant neoplasms, and those who had received a hematopoietic cell transplant.

In the study, residual clinical plasma samples were obtained from 959 consecutive patients with cancer at Seattle Cancer Care Alliance and Fred Hutchinson in August 2019. These samples were tested for measles and mumps IgG by using a commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. In all, 60% of patients had a solid tumor and 40% had a blood cancer.

As noted above, the seroprevalence of measles antibodies was 0.75 and the seroprevalence of mumps antibodies was 0.62.

A study author explained why the study included mumps, a less threatening infection.

“We assessed mumps in this study out of interest to compare response in the MMR vaccine component – particularly as we could assess a potent vaccine (measles) versus one that has a weaker immunologic response (mumps). We remain worried about outbreaks of mumps as MMR vaccination rates drop across the U.S.,” wrote Steven Pergam, MD, MPH, infectious disease specialist at Fred Hutchinson, in an email.

Vaccination vigilance is one of the study’s messages. “We all need to do our part to make sure we are up to date with our vaccinations so we can make sure we protect those who are vulnerable,” said Ms. Krantz.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute and Seattle Cancer Care Alliance. Multiple study authors have ties to pharmaceutical companies.

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

Before the onslaught of COVID-19, researchers at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle had another infectious disease worry: an “unprecedented” outbreak of measles.

“In 2019, we saw the most measles cases in any year since the 1990s,” said Sara Marquis, MPH, a clinical research coordinator at the center. The worry, she says, was that various oncology treatments, such as bone marrow transplantations and assorted biologics, “may leave cancer patients severely immunosuppressed” and thus vulnerable to infectious diseases.

Measles-related illness is typically not severe but can lead to pneumonia, deafness, and death, even in immunocompetent people, Ms. Marquis added.

So in 2019, a team at Fred Hutchinson initiated a study to get a sense of immunity to measles among patients with cancer.

They now report that of a group of 900-plus patients, 25% lacked protective antibodies for measles. That’s “significantly more” than the general population, in which about 8% of people lack these antibodies, Ms. Marquis said.

The study, published online in JAMA Network Open, also found that 38% lacked protection against the less-worrisome infectious disease of mumps, which is more than the 13% found in the general population.

“The scary thing about measles is that it is one of the most contagious diseases known,” Ms. Marquis told this news organization, adding that it is about twice as contagious as the COVID-19 Delta variant.

And it’s not just in the state of Washington. “We’re seeing it more and more in the community,” as various outbreaks continue to happen, she said.

“Deficits in protective antibodies underscore patients’ increased risk during outbreaks and emphasize the need for community-based efforts to increase herd immunity to protect this population,” the study authors conclude.

In short, administration of the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine, introduced in 1963, must continue universally, they said

“We’ve had so many incredible advances in cancer treatment in recent years. … it would be devastating to see something like measles, which is a vaccine-preventable disease, come through and negate those efforts,” said study coauthor Elizabeth Krantz, MS, a biostatistician at Fred Hutchinson.

The health care teams and family caregivers of patients with cancer should also make sure they are vaccinated, said Ms. Marquis. However, some patients may not be able to get a measles booster vaccine because it is a live vaccine or because they cannot generate enough antibodies for it to be protective, she explained.
 

Three subgroups more likely to have deficits

The new study, which is one of the first to measure measles and mumps seroprevalence among patients with cancer in the modern era of cancer treatment, also identified three subgroups that more commonly had immunity deficits:  those aged 30-59 years; those with hematologic malignant neoplasms, and those who had received a hematopoietic cell transplant.

In the study, residual clinical plasma samples were obtained from 959 consecutive patients with cancer at Seattle Cancer Care Alliance and Fred Hutchinson in August 2019. These samples were tested for measles and mumps IgG by using a commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. In all, 60% of patients had a solid tumor and 40% had a blood cancer.

As noted above, the seroprevalence of measles antibodies was 0.75 and the seroprevalence of mumps antibodies was 0.62.

A study author explained why the study included mumps, a less threatening infection.

“We assessed mumps in this study out of interest to compare response in the MMR vaccine component – particularly as we could assess a potent vaccine (measles) versus one that has a weaker immunologic response (mumps). We remain worried about outbreaks of mumps as MMR vaccination rates drop across the U.S.,” wrote Steven Pergam, MD, MPH, infectious disease specialist at Fred Hutchinson, in an email.

Vaccination vigilance is one of the study’s messages. “We all need to do our part to make sure we are up to date with our vaccinations so we can make sure we protect those who are vulnerable,” said Ms. Krantz.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute and Seattle Cancer Care Alliance. Multiple study authors have ties to pharmaceutical companies.

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

In a large study of community-based stroke survivors in Canada, researchers found those meeting guideline-recommended levels of physical activity had a significantly lower risk for death from any cause, with a greater than 50% reduction in risk.

Lead study author Raed A. Joundi, MD, DPhil, of the University of Calgary (Alta.), said he expected results to show exercise was beneficial, but was surprised by the magnitude of the association between physical activity and lower mortality risk.

The impact of physical activity also differed significantly by age; those younger than 75 had a 79% reduction in mortality risk, compared with 32% in those age 75 and older.

“This is even after adjusting for factors such heart disease, respiratory conditions, smoking, and other functional limitations,” said Dr. Joundi.

The study was published online Aug. 11 in the journal Neurology.

For this analysis, the researchers used data on a cohort of people across Canada (excluding the province of Quebec) over 3-9 years. The 895 patients with prior stroke averaged 72 years of age, while the 97,805 in the control group had an average age of 63.

Weekly physical activity averages were evaluated using the self-reporting Canadian Community Health Survey, which was linked with administrative databases to evaluate the association of physical activity with long-term risk for mortality among stroke survivors, compared with controls.

Physical activity was measured in metabolic equivalents (METs); meeting minimum physical activity guidelines was defined as 10 MET-hours/week.

During the study period, more stroke patients than controls died (24.7% vs. 5.7%). However, those who met the physical activity guideline recommendations of 10 MET-hours/week had a lower mortality, both in the stroke survivor group (14.6% vs. 33.2%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.46; 95% confidence interval, 0.29-0.73) and among control participants (3.6% vs. 7.9%; aHR 0.69; 95% CI, 0.62-0.76).  

The largest absolute and relative reduction in mortality was among stroke respondents younger than 75 (10.5% vs. 29%; aHR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.10-0.43), the researchers note.

There was a significant interaction with age for the stroke patients but not the control group.

“The greatest reduction in mortality was seen between 0 and 10 METs per week … so the main point is that something is better than nothing,” said Dr. Joundi.
 

Exercise guidelines for the future

Although current guidelines recommend physical activity in stroke survivors, investigators noted that these are largely based on studies in the general population. Therefore, the aim of this research was to get a better understanding of the role of physical activity in the health of stroke survivors in the community, which could ultimately be used to design improved public health campaigns and physical activity interventions.

Given that this is a large study of stroke survivors in the community, Dr. Joundi hopes the results will influence future activity guidelines for those who have suffered a stroke.

“We found a log-linear relationship between physical activity and mortality such that 10 MET-hours/week was associated with large reductions in mortality with most benefit achieved by 20 MET-hours/week,” the authors concluded. “These thresholds could be considered for use in future guidelines for stroke.”

Clinical trials are underway to provide evidence for the implementation of exercise programs after stroke, they add, and offering physical activity programs to stroke survivors in the community “is an increasing priority in the U.S., Canada, and Europe.”

“People are at higher risk of death early on after a stroke but also months and years later, so if we can identify a relatively low-cost and easy intervention like physical activity to improve health and reduce the risk of death for stroke survivors it would be important,” Dr. Joundi said.
 

Key barriers

Paul George, MD, PhD, a stroke and vascular neurologist at Stanford (Calif.) University, said findings such as these further strengthen the argument that physical exercise is important after stroke.

“Because the study looked specifically at stroke patients, it can provide further guidance on physical activity recommendations that we provide to our patients following stroke,” said Dr. George, who was not associated with the study. 

Going forward, he said, more research is needed to identify specifically what is preventing stroke patients from exercising more. What is required, he said, is “future research to determine the key barriers to physical activity following stroke and methods to reduce these will also be important to increasing physical activity in stroke survivors.”

Dr. Joundi said determining how to tailor exercise recommendations to meet the wide range of capabilities of stroke survivors will be another key factor.

“Stroke survivors may have some disabilities, so we need to be able to engage them at an [exercise] level that’s possible for them,” he said.

The study did not include stroke survivors living in long-term care homes.

The study had no targeted funding. Coauthor Eric E. Smith, MD, MPH, reports royalties from UpToDate, and consulting fees from Alnylam, Biogen, and Javelin. Dr. Joundi and the other coauthors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In a large study of community-based stroke survivors in Canada, researchers found those meeting guideline-recommended levels of physical activity had a significantly lower risk for death from any cause, with a greater than 50% reduction in risk.

Lead study author Raed A. Joundi, MD, DPhil, of the University of Calgary (Alta.), said he expected results to show exercise was beneficial, but was surprised by the magnitude of the association between physical activity and lower mortality risk.

The impact of physical activity also differed significantly by age; those younger than 75 had a 79% reduction in mortality risk, compared with 32% in those age 75 and older.

“This is even after adjusting for factors such heart disease, respiratory conditions, smoking, and other functional limitations,” said Dr. Joundi.

The study was published online Aug. 11 in the journal Neurology.

For this analysis, the researchers used data on a cohort of people across Canada (excluding the province of Quebec) over 3-9 years. The 895 patients with prior stroke averaged 72 years of age, while the 97,805 in the control group had an average age of 63.

Weekly physical activity averages were evaluated using the self-reporting Canadian Community Health Survey, which was linked with administrative databases to evaluate the association of physical activity with long-term risk for mortality among stroke survivors, compared with controls.

Physical activity was measured in metabolic equivalents (METs); meeting minimum physical activity guidelines was defined as 10 MET-hours/week.

During the study period, more stroke patients than controls died (24.7% vs. 5.7%). However, those who met the physical activity guideline recommendations of 10 MET-hours/week had a lower mortality, both in the stroke survivor group (14.6% vs. 33.2%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.46; 95% confidence interval, 0.29-0.73) and among control participants (3.6% vs. 7.9%; aHR 0.69; 95% CI, 0.62-0.76).  

The largest absolute and relative reduction in mortality was among stroke respondents younger than 75 (10.5% vs. 29%; aHR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.10-0.43), the researchers note.

There was a significant interaction with age for the stroke patients but not the control group.

“The greatest reduction in mortality was seen between 0 and 10 METs per week … so the main point is that something is better than nothing,” said Dr. Joundi.
 

Exercise guidelines for the future

Although current guidelines recommend physical activity in stroke survivors, investigators noted that these are largely based on studies in the general population. Therefore, the aim of this research was to get a better understanding of the role of physical activity in the health of stroke survivors in the community, which could ultimately be used to design improved public health campaigns and physical activity interventions.

Given that this is a large study of stroke survivors in the community, Dr. Joundi hopes the results will influence future activity guidelines for those who have suffered a stroke.

“We found a log-linear relationship between physical activity and mortality such that 10 MET-hours/week was associated with large reductions in mortality with most benefit achieved by 20 MET-hours/week,” the authors concluded. “These thresholds could be considered for use in future guidelines for stroke.”

Clinical trials are underway to provide evidence for the implementation of exercise programs after stroke, they add, and offering physical activity programs to stroke survivors in the community “is an increasing priority in the U.S., Canada, and Europe.”

“People are at higher risk of death early on after a stroke but also months and years later, so if we can identify a relatively low-cost and easy intervention like physical activity to improve health and reduce the risk of death for stroke survivors it would be important,” Dr. Joundi said.
 

Key barriers

Paul George, MD, PhD, a stroke and vascular neurologist at Stanford (Calif.) University, said findings such as these further strengthen the argument that physical exercise is important after stroke.

“Because the study looked specifically at stroke patients, it can provide further guidance on physical activity recommendations that we provide to our patients following stroke,” said Dr. George, who was not associated with the study. 

Going forward, he said, more research is needed to identify specifically what is preventing stroke patients from exercising more. What is required, he said, is “future research to determine the key barriers to physical activity following stroke and methods to reduce these will also be important to increasing physical activity in stroke survivors.”

Dr. Joundi said determining how to tailor exercise recommendations to meet the wide range of capabilities of stroke survivors will be another key factor.

“Stroke survivors may have some disabilities, so we need to be able to engage them at an [exercise] level that’s possible for them,” he said.

The study did not include stroke survivors living in long-term care homes.

The study had no targeted funding. Coauthor Eric E. Smith, MD, MPH, reports royalties from UpToDate, and consulting fees from Alnylam, Biogen, and Javelin. Dr. Joundi and the other coauthors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In a large study of community-based stroke survivors in Canada, researchers found those meeting guideline-recommended levels of physical activity had a significantly lower risk for death from any cause, with a greater than 50% reduction in risk.

Lead study author Raed A. Joundi, MD, DPhil, of the University of Calgary (Alta.), said he expected results to show exercise was beneficial, but was surprised by the magnitude of the association between physical activity and lower mortality risk.

The impact of physical activity also differed significantly by age; those younger than 75 had a 79% reduction in mortality risk, compared with 32% in those age 75 and older.

“This is even after adjusting for factors such heart disease, respiratory conditions, smoking, and other functional limitations,” said Dr. Joundi.

The study was published online Aug. 11 in the journal Neurology.

For this analysis, the researchers used data on a cohort of people across Canada (excluding the province of Quebec) over 3-9 years. The 895 patients with prior stroke averaged 72 years of age, while the 97,805 in the control group had an average age of 63.

Weekly physical activity averages were evaluated using the self-reporting Canadian Community Health Survey, which was linked with administrative databases to evaluate the association of physical activity with long-term risk for mortality among stroke survivors, compared with controls.

Physical activity was measured in metabolic equivalents (METs); meeting minimum physical activity guidelines was defined as 10 MET-hours/week.

During the study period, more stroke patients than controls died (24.7% vs. 5.7%). However, those who met the physical activity guideline recommendations of 10 MET-hours/week had a lower mortality, both in the stroke survivor group (14.6% vs. 33.2%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.46; 95% confidence interval, 0.29-0.73) and among control participants (3.6% vs. 7.9%; aHR 0.69; 95% CI, 0.62-0.76).  

The largest absolute and relative reduction in mortality was among stroke respondents younger than 75 (10.5% vs. 29%; aHR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.10-0.43), the researchers note.

There was a significant interaction with age for the stroke patients but not the control group.

“The greatest reduction in mortality was seen between 0 and 10 METs per week … so the main point is that something is better than nothing,” said Dr. Joundi.
 

Exercise guidelines for the future

Although current guidelines recommend physical activity in stroke survivors, investigators noted that these are largely based on studies in the general population. Therefore, the aim of this research was to get a better understanding of the role of physical activity in the health of stroke survivors in the community, which could ultimately be used to design improved public health campaigns and physical activity interventions.

Given that this is a large study of stroke survivors in the community, Dr. Joundi hopes the results will influence future activity guidelines for those who have suffered a stroke.

“We found a log-linear relationship between physical activity and mortality such that 10 MET-hours/week was associated with large reductions in mortality with most benefit achieved by 20 MET-hours/week,” the authors concluded. “These thresholds could be considered for use in future guidelines for stroke.”

Clinical trials are underway to provide evidence for the implementation of exercise programs after stroke, they add, and offering physical activity programs to stroke survivors in the community “is an increasing priority in the U.S., Canada, and Europe.”

“People are at higher risk of death early on after a stroke but also months and years later, so if we can identify a relatively low-cost and easy intervention like physical activity to improve health and reduce the risk of death for stroke survivors it would be important,” Dr. Joundi said.
 

Key barriers

Paul George, MD, PhD, a stroke and vascular neurologist at Stanford (Calif.) University, said findings such as these further strengthen the argument that physical exercise is important after stroke.

“Because the study looked specifically at stroke patients, it can provide further guidance on physical activity recommendations that we provide to our patients following stroke,” said Dr. George, who was not associated with the study. 

Going forward, he said, more research is needed to identify specifically what is preventing stroke patients from exercising more. What is required, he said, is “future research to determine the key barriers to physical activity following stroke and methods to reduce these will also be important to increasing physical activity in stroke survivors.”

Dr. Joundi said determining how to tailor exercise recommendations to meet the wide range of capabilities of stroke survivors will be another key factor.

“Stroke survivors may have some disabilities, so we need to be able to engage them at an [exercise] level that’s possible for them,” he said.

The study did not include stroke survivors living in long-term care homes.

The study had no targeted funding. Coauthor Eric E. Smith, MD, MPH, reports royalties from UpToDate, and consulting fees from Alnylam, Biogen, and Javelin. Dr. Joundi and the other coauthors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Among patients from a single dermatology practice who were diagnosed with two or more melanomas over an 8-year period, 45% lived more than 20 miles away from the practice, and almost 60% were 70 years of age and older, results from single-center study showed.

“Dermatologists have known that many people are underdiagnosed for melanoma, but now our research supports that the problem is especially concentrated among older patients living in remote areas,” corresponding author Rose Parisi, MBA, said in an interview. “With this information, dermatologists should consider identifying and reaching out to their patients in this at-risk subpopulation, increasing the frequency of full-body skin exams, and collaborating with primary care physicians to educate them about melanoma’s dangers.”

In a study published online Aug. 3 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, Ms. Parisi of Albany Medical College, New York, and colleagues drew from the electronic medical records of a single-specialty private dermatology practice that serves urban, suburban, and rural patient populations to identify 346 melanoma pathology reports from patients cared for between 2012 and 2020. They limited their investigation to those diagnosed with biopsy-confirmed melanoma and analyzed the number of melanomas, Breslow depth, follow-up full-body skin exams, family history of melanoma, gender, insurance, and age (categorized as younger than 70 years and 70 years or older). To determine patient travel distance, they calculated the miles between the ZIP codes of the patient’s residence and the dermatology practice.

Regression analysis revealed that the travel distance of patients and their age were significantly associated with the number of melanomas diagnosed. Specifically, among patients diagnosed with two or more melanomas, 45.0% lived more than 20 miles away and 21.3% lived less than 15 miles away; 59.6% were age 70 and older, while 40.4% were younger than age 70 (P less than .01).

No statistically significant association was observed between travel distance and Breslow depth or follow-up full-body skin exams within 1 year following diagnosis.

In other findings, among patients who lived more than 20 miles from the practice, those aged 70 and older were diagnosed with 0.56 more melanomas than patients between the ages of 58 and 70 (P = .00003), and 0.31 more melanomas than patients who lived 15-20 miles away (P = .014). No statistically significant differences in the number of melanomas diagnosed were observed between patients in either age group who lived fewer than 15 miles from the office.

“We were surprised that the combination of age and patient distance to diagnosing dermatology provider was such a powerful predictor of the number of diagnosed melanomas,” Ms. Parisi said. “It’s probably due to less mobility among older patients living in more remote areas, and it puts them at higher risk of multiple melanomas. This was something we haven’t seen in the dermatology literature.”

She and her coauthors acknowledged that the limited sampling of patients from a single practice “may not generalize across all urban and rural settings, and results must be considered preliminary,” they wrote. However, “our findings reveal an important vulnerability among older patients in nonurban areas, and efforts to improve access to melanoma diagnosis should be concentrated on this geodemographic segment.”

Nikolai Klebanov, MD, of the department of dermatology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who was asked to comment on the study, described what was addressed in the study as a “timely and an important topic.”

In an interview, he said, “there is less access to dermatologists and other medical specialists outside of large metropolitan and suburban areas,” and there are other health disparities affecting people living in rural or more underserved areas, which, he added, “also became exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.”

For future studies on this topic, Dr. Klebanov said that he would be interested to see diagnoses measured per person-year rather than the total number of melanomas diagnosed. “More elderly patients may also be those who have ‘stuck with the practice’ for longer, and had a longer follow-up that gives more time to catch more melanomas,” he said.

“Adjusting for median income using ZIP codes could also help adjust for socioeconomic status, which would help with external validity of the study. Income relationships to geography are not the same in all cities; some have wealthy suburbs within 20 miles, while some have more underserved and rural areas at that distance.”

Neither the researchers nor Dr. Klebanov reported having financial disclosures.

[email protected]

Among patients from a single dermatology practice who were diagnosed with two or more melanomas over an 8-year period, 45% lived more than 20 miles away from the practice, and almost 60% were 70 years of age and older, results from single-center study showed.

“Dermatologists have known that many people are underdiagnosed for melanoma, but now our research supports that the problem is especially concentrated among older patients living in remote areas,” corresponding author Rose Parisi, MBA, said in an interview. “With this information, dermatologists should consider identifying and reaching out to their patients in this at-risk subpopulation, increasing the frequency of full-body skin exams, and collaborating with primary care physicians to educate them about melanoma’s dangers.”

In a study published online Aug. 3 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, Ms. Parisi of Albany Medical College, New York, and colleagues drew from the electronic medical records of a single-specialty private dermatology practice that serves urban, suburban, and rural patient populations to identify 346 melanoma pathology reports from patients cared for between 2012 and 2020. They limited their investigation to those diagnosed with biopsy-confirmed melanoma and analyzed the number of melanomas, Breslow depth, follow-up full-body skin exams, family history of melanoma, gender, insurance, and age (categorized as younger than 70 years and 70 years or older). To determine patient travel distance, they calculated the miles between the ZIP codes of the patient’s residence and the dermatology practice.

Regression analysis revealed that the travel distance of patients and their age were significantly associated with the number of melanomas diagnosed. Specifically, among patients diagnosed with two or more melanomas, 45.0% lived more than 20 miles away and 21.3% lived less than 15 miles away; 59.6% were age 70 and older, while 40.4% were younger than age 70 (P less than .01).

No statistically significant association was observed between travel distance and Breslow depth or follow-up full-body skin exams within 1 year following diagnosis.

In other findings, among patients who lived more than 20 miles from the practice, those aged 70 and older were diagnosed with 0.56 more melanomas than patients between the ages of 58 and 70 (P = .00003), and 0.31 more melanomas than patients who lived 15-20 miles away (P = .014). No statistically significant differences in the number of melanomas diagnosed were observed between patients in either age group who lived fewer than 15 miles from the office.

“We were surprised that the combination of age and patient distance to diagnosing dermatology provider was such a powerful predictor of the number of diagnosed melanomas,” Ms. Parisi said. “It’s probably due to less mobility among older patients living in more remote areas, and it puts them at higher risk of multiple melanomas. This was something we haven’t seen in the dermatology literature.”

She and her coauthors acknowledged that the limited sampling of patients from a single practice “may not generalize across all urban and rural settings, and results must be considered preliminary,” they wrote. However, “our findings reveal an important vulnerability among older patients in nonurban areas, and efforts to improve access to melanoma diagnosis should be concentrated on this geodemographic segment.”

Nikolai Klebanov, MD, of the department of dermatology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who was asked to comment on the study, described what was addressed in the study as a “timely and an important topic.”

In an interview, he said, “there is less access to dermatologists and other medical specialists outside of large metropolitan and suburban areas,” and there are other health disparities affecting people living in rural or more underserved areas, which, he added, “also became exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.”

For future studies on this topic, Dr. Klebanov said that he would be interested to see diagnoses measured per person-year rather than the total number of melanomas diagnosed. “More elderly patients may also be those who have ‘stuck with the practice’ for longer, and had a longer follow-up that gives more time to catch more melanomas,” he said.

“Adjusting for median income using ZIP codes could also help adjust for socioeconomic status, which would help with external validity of the study. Income relationships to geography are not the same in all cities; some have wealthy suburbs within 20 miles, while some have more underserved and rural areas at that distance.”

Neither the researchers nor Dr. Klebanov reported having financial disclosures.

[email protected]

Among patients from a single dermatology practice who were diagnosed with two or more melanomas over an 8-year period, 45% lived more than 20 miles away from the practice, and almost 60% were 70 years of age and older, results from single-center study showed.

“Dermatologists have known that many people are underdiagnosed for melanoma, but now our research supports that the problem is especially concentrated among older patients living in remote areas,” corresponding author Rose Parisi, MBA, said in an interview. “With this information, dermatologists should consider identifying and reaching out to their patients in this at-risk subpopulation, increasing the frequency of full-body skin exams, and collaborating with primary care physicians to educate them about melanoma’s dangers.”

In a study published online Aug. 3 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, Ms. Parisi of Albany Medical College, New York, and colleagues drew from the electronic medical records of a single-specialty private dermatology practice that serves urban, suburban, and rural patient populations to identify 346 melanoma pathology reports from patients cared for between 2012 and 2020. They limited their investigation to those diagnosed with biopsy-confirmed melanoma and analyzed the number of melanomas, Breslow depth, follow-up full-body skin exams, family history of melanoma, gender, insurance, and age (categorized as younger than 70 years and 70 years or older). To determine patient travel distance, they calculated the miles between the ZIP codes of the patient’s residence and the dermatology practice.

Regression analysis revealed that the travel distance of patients and their age were significantly associated with the number of melanomas diagnosed. Specifically, among patients diagnosed with two or more melanomas, 45.0% lived more than 20 miles away and 21.3% lived less than 15 miles away; 59.6% were age 70 and older, while 40.4% were younger than age 70 (P less than .01).

No statistically significant association was observed between travel distance and Breslow depth or follow-up full-body skin exams within 1 year following diagnosis.

In other findings, among patients who lived more than 20 miles from the practice, those aged 70 and older were diagnosed with 0.56 more melanomas than patients between the ages of 58 and 70 (P = .00003), and 0.31 more melanomas than patients who lived 15-20 miles away (P = .014). No statistically significant differences in the number of melanomas diagnosed were observed between patients in either age group who lived fewer than 15 miles from the office.

“We were surprised that the combination of age and patient distance to diagnosing dermatology provider was such a powerful predictor of the number of diagnosed melanomas,” Ms. Parisi said. “It’s probably due to less mobility among older patients living in more remote areas, and it puts them at higher risk of multiple melanomas. This was something we haven’t seen in the dermatology literature.”

She and her coauthors acknowledged that the limited sampling of patients from a single practice “may not generalize across all urban and rural settings, and results must be considered preliminary,” they wrote. However, “our findings reveal an important vulnerability among older patients in nonurban areas, and efforts to improve access to melanoma diagnosis should be concentrated on this geodemographic segment.”

Nikolai Klebanov, MD, of the department of dermatology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who was asked to comment on the study, described what was addressed in the study as a “timely and an important topic.”

In an interview, he said, “there is less access to dermatologists and other medical specialists outside of large metropolitan and suburban areas,” and there are other health disparities affecting people living in rural or more underserved areas, which, he added, “also became exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.”

For future studies on this topic, Dr. Klebanov said that he would be interested to see diagnoses measured per person-year rather than the total number of melanomas diagnosed. “More elderly patients may also be those who have ‘stuck with the practice’ for longer, and had a longer follow-up that gives more time to catch more melanomas,” he said.

“Adjusting for median income using ZIP codes could also help adjust for socioeconomic status, which would help with external validity of the study. Income relationships to geography are not the same in all cities; some have wealthy suburbs within 20 miles, while some have more underserved and rural areas at that distance.”

Neither the researchers nor Dr. Klebanov reported having financial disclosures.

[email protected]

Eating at least half a serving per day of foods rich in flavonoids – like strawberries, oranges, peppers, and apples – may help lower the risk of age-related cognitive decline, new research shows.

Among the different types of flavonoids, flavones (found in some spices and yellow or orange fruits and vegetables) and anthocyanins (found in blueberries, blackberries, and cherries) seem to have most protective effect, the researchers report.

“There is mounting evidence suggesting flavonoids are powerhouses when it comes to preventing your thinking skills from declining as you get older,” study investigator Walter Willett, MD, DrPH, Harvard University, Boston, said in a statement.

“Our results are exciting because they show that making simple changes to your diet could help prevent cognitive decline,” said Dr. Willett.

The study was published online July 28 in the journal Neurology.
 

Antioxidant punch

Flavonoids, naturally occurring phytochemicals found in plants, are strong antioxidants. Considering the likely role of oxidative stress in age-related cognitive decline, flavonoids have been proposed as a potentially important preventive.  

For the study, Dr. Willett and colleagues prospectively examined associations between long-term dietary flavonoids (flavonols, flavones, flavanones, flavan-3-ols, anthocyanins, polymeric flavonoids, and proanthocyanidins) and subjective cognitive decline in 49,493 women from the Nurses’ Health Study (1984-2006) and 27,842 men from the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (1986-2002).

Those in the highest quintile of flavonoid consumption consumed about 600 mg daily on average while those in the lowest quintile got only about 150 mg daily.

After adjusting for age, total energy intake, major nondietary factors, and specific dietary factors, a higher intake of total flavonoids was associated with lower likelihood of self-reported subjective cognitive decline during follow up.

Individuals in the highest quintile of daily consumption had about a 20% lower risk of subjective cognitive decline relative to peers in the lowest quintile (pooled multivariable-adjusted odds ratio: 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.76-0.89).

The strongest protective associations were found for flavones (OR, 0.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.68), flavanones (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.58-0.68), and anthocyanins (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.72-0.84) (P trend < .0001 for all groups).

“The people in our study who did the best over time ate an average of at least half a serving per day of foods like orange juice, oranges, peppers, celery, grapefruits, grapefruit juice, apples, and pears,” Dr. Willett said.

“While it is possible other phytochemicals are at work here, a colorful diet rich in flavonoids – and specifically flavones and anthocyanins – seems to be a good bet for promoting long-term brain health,” he added.

A limitation of the study is that participants reported on their diets and may not recall perfectly what they ate or how much.
 

Healthy diet best bet for brain health

Reached for comment, Christopher Weber, PhD, director of global science initiatives for the Alzheimer’s Association, said this study “adds to our understanding of which elements of a healthy diet may be important in reducing dementia risk; flavonols may be one of those elements.”

“However, at this point, people should not put too much stock in specific nutrients – including subsets of flavonols – for reducing dementia risk until more research is done. Rather, they should focus on eating an overall healthy diet,” he said.

“It would be wonderful if a particular food or supplement could delay or prevent Alzheimer’s disease, but we do not have scientific evidence to support such claims. Randomized controlled clinical trials are necessary to evaluate whether any food or supplement has a scientifically proven beneficial effect,” Dr. Weber added.

For now, the Alzheimer’s Association “encourages everyone to eat a healthy and balanced diet as a way to help reduce the risk of cognitive decline,” Dr. Weber said.

“With more than 6 million Americans living with Alzheimer’s disease and other dementia today, there is a pressing need to test the effectiveness of a healthy lifestyle regimen to reduce risk of cognitive decline in a large and diverse population,” he added.

The Alzheimer’s Association has launched a 2-year clinical trial, called the U.S. Study to Protect Brain Health Through Lifestyle Intervention to Reduce Risk (U.S. POINTER), to do just that.

“While we research that definitive lifestyle ‘recipe,’ there are things we can do today that may decrease our risk of cognitive decline as we age. Eating a heart-healthy diet, exercising regularly, and staying cognitively engaged are just a few,” Dr. Weber added.

Also weighing in, Taylor Wallace, PhD, adjunct professor, department of nutrition and food studies, George Mason University, Fairfax, Va., said the study results are not surprising.

“Scientific data on the ability of flavonoids to prevent age-related chronic diseases, including cognitive decline, has accumulated immensely over the last decade. This epidemiological study reinforces findings from smaller shorter-duration clinical trials and mechanistic studies,” said Dr. Wallace, who was not involved in the study.

“Flavonoids show great potential in reducing inflammation and oxidative stress in the body. They are also vasodilators that help improve blood flow, which is important for the cardiovascular and cerebrovascular systems,” he noted.

“Typically, foods rich in flavonoids are also nutrient-dense in vitamins, minerals, and dietary fiber (eg, fruits and vegetables). Anthocyanins in blueberries have long been known to prevent cognitive decline with age,” Dr. Wallace said.

Dr. Wallace was part of a 14-member panel of nutrition scientists who recently reviewed available evidence around fruit and vegetable intake and health.

“Our findings are consistent with this study in regard to cognitive decline and other disease states. Cruciferous vegetables, dark-green leafy vegetables, citrus fruits, and dark-colored berries seem to have superior effects on health promotion and disease prevention in general,” said Dr. Wallace.

This work was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Weber has no relevant disclosures. Dr. Wallace is principal and chief executive officer of the Think Healthy Group; editor of the Journal of Dietary Supplements; and deputy editor-in-chief of the Journal of the American College of Nutrition.

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

Eating at least half a serving per day of foods rich in flavonoids – like strawberries, oranges, peppers, and apples – may help lower the risk of age-related cognitive decline, new research shows.

Among the different types of flavonoids, flavones (found in some spices and yellow or orange fruits and vegetables) and anthocyanins (found in blueberries, blackberries, and cherries) seem to have most protective effect, the researchers report.

“There is mounting evidence suggesting flavonoids are powerhouses when it comes to preventing your thinking skills from declining as you get older,” study investigator Walter Willett, MD, DrPH, Harvard University, Boston, said in a statement.

“Our results are exciting because they show that making simple changes to your diet could help prevent cognitive decline,” said Dr. Willett.

The study was published online July 28 in the journal Neurology.
 

Antioxidant punch

Flavonoids, naturally occurring phytochemicals found in plants, are strong antioxidants. Considering the likely role of oxidative stress in age-related cognitive decline, flavonoids have been proposed as a potentially important preventive.  

For the study, Dr. Willett and colleagues prospectively examined associations between long-term dietary flavonoids (flavonols, flavones, flavanones, flavan-3-ols, anthocyanins, polymeric flavonoids, and proanthocyanidins) and subjective cognitive decline in 49,493 women from the Nurses’ Health Study (1984-2006) and 27,842 men from the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (1986-2002).

Those in the highest quintile of flavonoid consumption consumed about 600 mg daily on average while those in the lowest quintile got only about 150 mg daily.

After adjusting for age, total energy intake, major nondietary factors, and specific dietary factors, a higher intake of total flavonoids was associated with lower likelihood of self-reported subjective cognitive decline during follow up.

Individuals in the highest quintile of daily consumption had about a 20% lower risk of subjective cognitive decline relative to peers in the lowest quintile (pooled multivariable-adjusted odds ratio: 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.76-0.89).

The strongest protective associations were found for flavones (OR, 0.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.68), flavanones (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.58-0.68), and anthocyanins (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.72-0.84) (P trend < .0001 for all groups).

“The people in our study who did the best over time ate an average of at least half a serving per day of foods like orange juice, oranges, peppers, celery, grapefruits, grapefruit juice, apples, and pears,” Dr. Willett said.

“While it is possible other phytochemicals are at work here, a colorful diet rich in flavonoids – and specifically flavones and anthocyanins – seems to be a good bet for promoting long-term brain health,” he added.

A limitation of the study is that participants reported on their diets and may not recall perfectly what they ate or how much.
 

Healthy diet best bet for brain health

Reached for comment, Christopher Weber, PhD, director of global science initiatives for the Alzheimer’s Association, said this study “adds to our understanding of which elements of a healthy diet may be important in reducing dementia risk; flavonols may be one of those elements.”

“However, at this point, people should not put too much stock in specific nutrients – including subsets of flavonols – for reducing dementia risk until more research is done. Rather, they should focus on eating an overall healthy diet,” he said.

“It would be wonderful if a particular food or supplement could delay or prevent Alzheimer’s disease, but we do not have scientific evidence to support such claims. Randomized controlled clinical trials are necessary to evaluate whether any food or supplement has a scientifically proven beneficial effect,” Dr. Weber added.

For now, the Alzheimer’s Association “encourages everyone to eat a healthy and balanced diet as a way to help reduce the risk of cognitive decline,” Dr. Weber said.

“With more than 6 million Americans living with Alzheimer’s disease and other dementia today, there is a pressing need to test the effectiveness of a healthy lifestyle regimen to reduce risk of cognitive decline in a large and diverse population,” he added.

The Alzheimer’s Association has launched a 2-year clinical trial, called the U.S. Study to Protect Brain Health Through Lifestyle Intervention to Reduce Risk (U.S. POINTER), to do just that.

“While we research that definitive lifestyle ‘recipe,’ there are things we can do today that may decrease our risk of cognitive decline as we age. Eating a heart-healthy diet, exercising regularly, and staying cognitively engaged are just a few,” Dr. Weber added.

Also weighing in, Taylor Wallace, PhD, adjunct professor, department of nutrition and food studies, George Mason University, Fairfax, Va., said the study results are not surprising.

“Scientific data on the ability of flavonoids to prevent age-related chronic diseases, including cognitive decline, has accumulated immensely over the last decade. This epidemiological study reinforces findings from smaller shorter-duration clinical trials and mechanistic studies,” said Dr. Wallace, who was not involved in the study.

“Flavonoids show great potential in reducing inflammation and oxidative stress in the body. They are also vasodilators that help improve blood flow, which is important for the cardiovascular and cerebrovascular systems,” he noted.

“Typically, foods rich in flavonoids are also nutrient-dense in vitamins, minerals, and dietary fiber (eg, fruits and vegetables). Anthocyanins in blueberries have long been known to prevent cognitive decline with age,” Dr. Wallace said.

Dr. Wallace was part of a 14-member panel of nutrition scientists who recently reviewed available evidence around fruit and vegetable intake and health.

“Our findings are consistent with this study in regard to cognitive decline and other disease states. Cruciferous vegetables, dark-green leafy vegetables, citrus fruits, and dark-colored berries seem to have superior effects on health promotion and disease prevention in general,” said Dr. Wallace.

This work was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Weber has no relevant disclosures. Dr. Wallace is principal and chief executive officer of the Think Healthy Group; editor of the Journal of Dietary Supplements; and deputy editor-in-chief of the Journal of the American College of Nutrition.

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

Eating at least half a serving per day of foods rich in flavonoids – like strawberries, oranges, peppers, and apples – may help lower the risk of age-related cognitive decline, new research shows.

Among the different types of flavonoids, flavones (found in some spices and yellow or orange fruits and vegetables) and anthocyanins (found in blueberries, blackberries, and cherries) seem to have most protective effect, the researchers report.

“There is mounting evidence suggesting flavonoids are powerhouses when it comes to preventing your thinking skills from declining as you get older,” study investigator Walter Willett, MD, DrPH, Harvard University, Boston, said in a statement.

“Our results are exciting because they show that making simple changes to your diet could help prevent cognitive decline,” said Dr. Willett.

The study was published online July 28 in the journal Neurology.
 

Antioxidant punch

Flavonoids, naturally occurring phytochemicals found in plants, are strong antioxidants. Considering the likely role of oxidative stress in age-related cognitive decline, flavonoids have been proposed as a potentially important preventive.  

For the study, Dr. Willett and colleagues prospectively examined associations between long-term dietary flavonoids (flavonols, flavones, flavanones, flavan-3-ols, anthocyanins, polymeric flavonoids, and proanthocyanidins) and subjective cognitive decline in 49,493 women from the Nurses’ Health Study (1984-2006) and 27,842 men from the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (1986-2002).

Those in the highest quintile of flavonoid consumption consumed about 600 mg daily on average while those in the lowest quintile got only about 150 mg daily.

After adjusting for age, total energy intake, major nondietary factors, and specific dietary factors, a higher intake of total flavonoids was associated with lower likelihood of self-reported subjective cognitive decline during follow up.

Individuals in the highest quintile of daily consumption had about a 20% lower risk of subjective cognitive decline relative to peers in the lowest quintile (pooled multivariable-adjusted odds ratio: 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.76-0.89).

The strongest protective associations were found for flavones (OR, 0.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.68), flavanones (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.58-0.68), and anthocyanins (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.72-0.84) (P trend < .0001 for all groups).

“The people in our study who did the best over time ate an average of at least half a serving per day of foods like orange juice, oranges, peppers, celery, grapefruits, grapefruit juice, apples, and pears,” Dr. Willett said.

“While it is possible other phytochemicals are at work here, a colorful diet rich in flavonoids – and specifically flavones and anthocyanins – seems to be a good bet for promoting long-term brain health,” he added.

A limitation of the study is that participants reported on their diets and may not recall perfectly what they ate or how much.
 

Healthy diet best bet for brain health

Reached for comment, Christopher Weber, PhD, director of global science initiatives for the Alzheimer’s Association, said this study “adds to our understanding of which elements of a healthy diet may be important in reducing dementia risk; flavonols may be one of those elements.”

“However, at this point, people should not put too much stock in specific nutrients – including subsets of flavonols – for reducing dementia risk until more research is done. Rather, they should focus on eating an overall healthy diet,” he said.

“It would be wonderful if a particular food or supplement could delay or prevent Alzheimer’s disease, but we do not have scientific evidence to support such claims. Randomized controlled clinical trials are necessary to evaluate whether any food or supplement has a scientifically proven beneficial effect,” Dr. Weber added.

For now, the Alzheimer’s Association “encourages everyone to eat a healthy and balanced diet as a way to help reduce the risk of cognitive decline,” Dr. Weber said.

“With more than 6 million Americans living with Alzheimer’s disease and other dementia today, there is a pressing need to test the effectiveness of a healthy lifestyle regimen to reduce risk of cognitive decline in a large and diverse population,” he added.

The Alzheimer’s Association has launched a 2-year clinical trial, called the U.S. Study to Protect Brain Health Through Lifestyle Intervention to Reduce Risk (U.S. POINTER), to do just that.

“While we research that definitive lifestyle ‘recipe,’ there are things we can do today that may decrease our risk of cognitive decline as we age. Eating a heart-healthy diet, exercising regularly, and staying cognitively engaged are just a few,” Dr. Weber added.

Also weighing in, Taylor Wallace, PhD, adjunct professor, department of nutrition and food studies, George Mason University, Fairfax, Va., said the study results are not surprising.

“Scientific data on the ability of flavonoids to prevent age-related chronic diseases, including cognitive decline, has accumulated immensely over the last decade. This epidemiological study reinforces findings from smaller shorter-duration clinical trials and mechanistic studies,” said Dr. Wallace, who was not involved in the study.

“Flavonoids show great potential in reducing inflammation and oxidative stress in the body. They are also vasodilators that help improve blood flow, which is important for the cardiovascular and cerebrovascular systems,” he noted.

“Typically, foods rich in flavonoids are also nutrient-dense in vitamins, minerals, and dietary fiber (eg, fruits and vegetables). Anthocyanins in blueberries have long been known to prevent cognitive decline with age,” Dr. Wallace said.

Dr. Wallace was part of a 14-member panel of nutrition scientists who recently reviewed available evidence around fruit and vegetable intake and health.

“Our findings are consistent with this study in regard to cognitive decline and other disease states. Cruciferous vegetables, dark-green leafy vegetables, citrus fruits, and dark-colored berries seem to have superior effects on health promotion and disease prevention in general,” said Dr. Wallace.

This work was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Weber has no relevant disclosures. Dr. Wallace is principal and chief executive officer of the Think Healthy Group; editor of the Journal of Dietary Supplements; and deputy editor-in-chief of the Journal of the American College of Nutrition.

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

A new report is reassuring regarding the long-term cardiopulmonary safety of internal mammary lymph node irradiation after breast cancer surgery.

After a median follow-up of 15.7 years among almost 4,000 women, for half of patients who received postoperative internal mammary and medial supraclavicular (IM-MS) lymph node irradiation, the “absolute rates and differences” of heart and lung complications “were very low, with no increased non–breast cancer related mortality, even before introducing heart-sparing techniques,” say investigators.

The findings come from the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) trial. The investigators were led by Philip Poortmans, MD, PhD, a radiation oncologist at the University of Antwerp, Belgium.

The team had previously reported lower breast cancer mortality and breast cancer recurrence rates in the radiation group.

Women in the trial were treated from 1996 to 2004. “We expect that with contemporary volume-based radiation therapy outcomes will be even better, by improved coverage of target volumes, more homogeneous dose delivery, and decreased doses to non-target tissues,” the team says.

In the end, “our findings ... have important – reassuring – consequences for decision-making concerning elective lymph node treatment in breast cancer,” the researchers comment.

The study was published online on July 28 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
 

Resolving the debate

There’s been debate for decades on whether the long-term risk associated with nodal irradiation, particularly collateral heart and lung damage from internal mammary irradiation, outweighs the benefits of better disease control, noted Julia White, MD, a radiation oncologist at the Ohio State University Breast Center, Columbus, in an accompanying editorial.

Concerns stem originally from trials conducted from the 1950s to the 1970s. In those trials, higher doses of radiation were delivered to the internal mammary node with far less precision than today. Subsequent studies have not laid the worry to rest, and protocols vary across institutions, Dr. White explains. Some treat IM nodes in high-risk patients, but others only treat the axilla and the medial supraclavicular lymph nodes.

Dr. White says the new EORTC trial “moves us one step closer to resolving the debate about the value of internal mammary nodal (IMN) radiation.”

She notes that since 2014, advances in the field have led to an almost 50% reduction in cardiac radiation exposure during breast cancer treatment. Current guidelines recommend that internal mammary nodes “should generally be treated” as part of postmastectomy radiotherapy, but cardiopulmonary complications are still possible even with improved techniques, she writes.
 

Mostly grade 1 morbidity

Women in the study had stage I-III breast cancer with axillary node involvement and/or medially located primary tumors. The median age at study entry was 54 years. The patients were treated at 46 centers in 13 countries.

The group that received IM-MS irradiation after surgery received 50 Gy in 25 fractions over 5 weeks.

The cumulative 15-year incidence of lung fibrosis was 5.7% among treated women, versus 2.9% among control patients. The incidence of cardiac fibrosis was 1.9% with treatment, versus 1.1% without.

The incidence of any cardiac disease was 11.1% in the radiation arm, versus 9.4% in the control group.

Complications were mostly of grade 1. The only statistically significant difference in rates of events of grade 2 or higher was in the incidence of pulmonary morbidity, which was 0.8% with radiation versus 0.1% without. There were no differences in the incidence of second malignancies, contralateral breast cancer cases, or cardiovascular deaths with IMN irradiation.

The authors note that their results conflict with a 2013 study that found a relative increase in major coronary events of 7.4% per Gy mean heart dose. The women in that trial were treated in Sweden and Denmark between 1958 and 2001.

Dr. Poortmans and collegues note, however, that this 2013 study and others found a proportional and not an absolute increase in risk. With a baseline risk of 10%, for instance, a 7% increase per 1 Gy translates to a total risk of 10.07%.

Also, no increased risk has been reported in more recently published trials, and a meta-analysis found no increase in non–breast cancer related mortality with trials that began after 1988.

Still, “it seems logical to take the pre-existing cardiac comorbidity of patients into consideration,” the investigators conclude. For patients with higher baseline cardiopulmonary risk factors, lower mean heart doses should be used, and such patients should undergo longer-term follow-up, they write.

The study was funded by La Ligue Nationale Contre Le Cancer and the KWF Kanker Bestrijding from the Netherlands. The investigators and Dr. White have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new report is reassuring regarding the long-term cardiopulmonary safety of internal mammary lymph node irradiation after breast cancer surgery.

After a median follow-up of 15.7 years among almost 4,000 women, for half of patients who received postoperative internal mammary and medial supraclavicular (IM-MS) lymph node irradiation, the “absolute rates and differences” of heart and lung complications “were very low, with no increased non–breast cancer related mortality, even before introducing heart-sparing techniques,” say investigators.

The findings come from the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) trial. The investigators were led by Philip Poortmans, MD, PhD, a radiation oncologist at the University of Antwerp, Belgium.

The team had previously reported lower breast cancer mortality and breast cancer recurrence rates in the radiation group.

Women in the trial were treated from 1996 to 2004. “We expect that with contemporary volume-based radiation therapy outcomes will be even better, by improved coverage of target volumes, more homogeneous dose delivery, and decreased doses to non-target tissues,” the team says.

In the end, “our findings ... have important – reassuring – consequences for decision-making concerning elective lymph node treatment in breast cancer,” the researchers comment.

The study was published online on July 28 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
 

Resolving the debate

There’s been debate for decades on whether the long-term risk associated with nodal irradiation, particularly collateral heart and lung damage from internal mammary irradiation, outweighs the benefits of better disease control, noted Julia White, MD, a radiation oncologist at the Ohio State University Breast Center, Columbus, in an accompanying editorial.

Concerns stem originally from trials conducted from the 1950s to the 1970s. In those trials, higher doses of radiation were delivered to the internal mammary node with far less precision than today. Subsequent studies have not laid the worry to rest, and protocols vary across institutions, Dr. White explains. Some treat IM nodes in high-risk patients, but others only treat the axilla and the medial supraclavicular lymph nodes.

Dr. White says the new EORTC trial “moves us one step closer to resolving the debate about the value of internal mammary nodal (IMN) radiation.”

She notes that since 2014, advances in the field have led to an almost 50% reduction in cardiac radiation exposure during breast cancer treatment. Current guidelines recommend that internal mammary nodes “should generally be treated” as part of postmastectomy radiotherapy, but cardiopulmonary complications are still possible even with improved techniques, she writes.
 

Mostly grade 1 morbidity

Women in the study had stage I-III breast cancer with axillary node involvement and/or medially located primary tumors. The median age at study entry was 54 years. The patients were treated at 46 centers in 13 countries.

The group that received IM-MS irradiation after surgery received 50 Gy in 25 fractions over 5 weeks.

The cumulative 15-year incidence of lung fibrosis was 5.7% among treated women, versus 2.9% among control patients. The incidence of cardiac fibrosis was 1.9% with treatment, versus 1.1% without.

The incidence of any cardiac disease was 11.1% in the radiation arm, versus 9.4% in the control group.

Complications were mostly of grade 1. The only statistically significant difference in rates of events of grade 2 or higher was in the incidence of pulmonary morbidity, which was 0.8% with radiation versus 0.1% without. There were no differences in the incidence of second malignancies, contralateral breast cancer cases, or cardiovascular deaths with IMN irradiation.

The authors note that their results conflict with a 2013 study that found a relative increase in major coronary events of 7.4% per Gy mean heart dose. The women in that trial were treated in Sweden and Denmark between 1958 and 2001.

Dr. Poortmans and collegues note, however, that this 2013 study and others found a proportional and not an absolute increase in risk. With a baseline risk of 10%, for instance, a 7% increase per 1 Gy translates to a total risk of 10.07%.

Also, no increased risk has been reported in more recently published trials, and a meta-analysis found no increase in non–breast cancer related mortality with trials that began after 1988.

Still, “it seems logical to take the pre-existing cardiac comorbidity of patients into consideration,” the investigators conclude. For patients with higher baseline cardiopulmonary risk factors, lower mean heart doses should be used, and such patients should undergo longer-term follow-up, they write.

The study was funded by La Ligue Nationale Contre Le Cancer and the KWF Kanker Bestrijding from the Netherlands. The investigators and Dr. White have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new report is reassuring regarding the long-term cardiopulmonary safety of internal mammary lymph node irradiation after breast cancer surgery.

After a median follow-up of 15.7 years among almost 4,000 women, for half of patients who received postoperative internal mammary and medial supraclavicular (IM-MS) lymph node irradiation, the “absolute rates and differences” of heart and lung complications “were very low, with no increased non–breast cancer related mortality, even before introducing heart-sparing techniques,” say investigators.

The findings come from the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) trial. The investigators were led by Philip Poortmans, MD, PhD, a radiation oncologist at the University of Antwerp, Belgium.

The team had previously reported lower breast cancer mortality and breast cancer recurrence rates in the radiation group.

Women in the trial were treated from 1996 to 2004. “We expect that with contemporary volume-based radiation therapy outcomes will be even better, by improved coverage of target volumes, more homogeneous dose delivery, and decreased doses to non-target tissues,” the team says.

In the end, “our findings ... have important – reassuring – consequences for decision-making concerning elective lymph node treatment in breast cancer,” the researchers comment.

The study was published online on July 28 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
 

Resolving the debate

There’s been debate for decades on whether the long-term risk associated with nodal irradiation, particularly collateral heart and lung damage from internal mammary irradiation, outweighs the benefits of better disease control, noted Julia White, MD, a radiation oncologist at the Ohio State University Breast Center, Columbus, in an accompanying editorial.

Concerns stem originally from trials conducted from the 1950s to the 1970s. In those trials, higher doses of radiation were delivered to the internal mammary node with far less precision than today. Subsequent studies have not laid the worry to rest, and protocols vary across institutions, Dr. White explains. Some treat IM nodes in high-risk patients, but others only treat the axilla and the medial supraclavicular lymph nodes.

Dr. White says the new EORTC trial “moves us one step closer to resolving the debate about the value of internal mammary nodal (IMN) radiation.”

She notes that since 2014, advances in the field have led to an almost 50% reduction in cardiac radiation exposure during breast cancer treatment. Current guidelines recommend that internal mammary nodes “should generally be treated” as part of postmastectomy radiotherapy, but cardiopulmonary complications are still possible even with improved techniques, she writes.
 

Mostly grade 1 morbidity

Women in the study had stage I-III breast cancer with axillary node involvement and/or medially located primary tumors. The median age at study entry was 54 years. The patients were treated at 46 centers in 13 countries.

The group that received IM-MS irradiation after surgery received 50 Gy in 25 fractions over 5 weeks.

The cumulative 15-year incidence of lung fibrosis was 5.7% among treated women, versus 2.9% among control patients. The incidence of cardiac fibrosis was 1.9% with treatment, versus 1.1% without.

The incidence of any cardiac disease was 11.1% in the radiation arm, versus 9.4% in the control group.

Complications were mostly of grade 1. The only statistically significant difference in rates of events of grade 2 or higher was in the incidence of pulmonary morbidity, which was 0.8% with radiation versus 0.1% without. There were no differences in the incidence of second malignancies, contralateral breast cancer cases, or cardiovascular deaths with IMN irradiation.

The authors note that their results conflict with a 2013 study that found a relative increase in major coronary events of 7.4% per Gy mean heart dose. The women in that trial were treated in Sweden and Denmark between 1958 and 2001.

Dr. Poortmans and collegues note, however, that this 2013 study and others found a proportional and not an absolute increase in risk. With a baseline risk of 10%, for instance, a 7% increase per 1 Gy translates to a total risk of 10.07%.

Also, no increased risk has been reported in more recently published trials, and a meta-analysis found no increase in non–breast cancer related mortality with trials that began after 1988.

Still, “it seems logical to take the pre-existing cardiac comorbidity of patients into consideration,” the investigators conclude. For patients with higher baseline cardiopulmonary risk factors, lower mean heart doses should be used, and such patients should undergo longer-term follow-up, they write.

The study was funded by La Ligue Nationale Contre Le Cancer and the KWF Kanker Bestrijding from the Netherlands. The investigators and Dr. White have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

There will be “routine application” and “broader acceptance” of minimally invasive focal therapies for early-stage prostate cancer within the next 5 years in the United States, predict a trio of clinicians in a new essay published online July 28 in JAMA Surgery.

They maintain that focal therapy (FT) offers a “middle ground” between two extremes: Treating the whole gland with radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy and not treating immediately via active surveillance or watchful waiting.

Focal therapy typically treats the primary lesion within the prostate, while leaving the rest of the gland intact. Most often performed with cryoablation or high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU), it can also be carried out with a variety of technologies, including transurethral ultrasound ablation and focal laser ablation.

The shift to focal therapy will coincide with maturing, long-term data from studies with various technologies, predict the authors, led by Amir Lebastchi, MD, a urologist at the University of Southern California.

“Standard adoption of focal therapy is ultimately dependent on the availability of robust level I evidence, which in turn will drive medical societies and payees,” the authors also write.

But payees are already making changes, even without such data, they add.

For example, in January the American Medical Association announced a new code for high-intensity focal ultrasound (HIFU): This approach now has a Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code from the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

This news organization reached out to Matthew Cooperberg, MD, MPH, a urologist at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), for comments about the essay’s optimism; he has questioned focal therapy in the past because of a lack of strong supporting evidence.

“While ‘routine’ is a bit of a vague term, now that HIFU has a CPT code, I do expect its use will in fact increase in the next 5 years,” Dr. Cooperberg wrote in an email. “The question is whether its use will increase appropriately.”

The challenge with focal therapy – regardless of energy modality – remains patient selection and accurate ablation zone definition, he added.

Notably, UCSF has launched a new HIFU program – and Dr. Cooperberg has referred selected patients. “I’m both enthusiastic and cautious about the future, and we need to track our outcomes very closely across various practice settings,” he said.
 

While waiting for CHRONOS, select wisely

The goal of focal therapy is to treat only the area with the most aggressive tumor, known as the index tumor, while leaving the remaining gland and its surrounding structures alone, according to Derek Lomas, MD, PharmD, a urologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., in an explanatory article. “This approach is widely accepted in other types of cancer. For example, we commonly treat kidney cancers by removing or ablating only the tumor while leaving the rest of the kidney intact.”

However, some focal therapies also include approaches known as hemiablations, in which a full half of the prostate is destroyed, and approaches that leave very little of the gland behind.

Each of the modalities used for focal therapy has “unique indications, risks, and benefits and uses a different energy source for ablation,” Dr. Lebastchi and colleagues write in their essay.  

They assert that focal therapy can provide oncological efficacy similar to radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy “while considerably reducing or even eliminating functional morbidities, such as incontinence and erectile dysfunction.”

Overall, they say focal therapy offers an opportunity for improved care because there is “an increasing body of emerging evidence demonstrating a favorable adverse effect profile with oncological control similar to whole-gland treatment options.”
 

What is that evidence?

In the essay, Dr. Lebastchi and colleagues point to a number of single-arm studies with encouraging efficacy and safety results. They also highlight a phase 3, randomized trial that they were involved in: This compared focal therapy (partial gland ablation with vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy) with active surveillance in early-stage disease and uniformly showed better post-treatment biopsy (disease/no disease) and conversion-to-prostatectomy results with the focal therapy out to 4 years (J Urol. 2018;200:786-793).

However, that study did not have an active treatment comparator. For that gold standard, there is now anticipation for results from the CHRONOS trial in the United Kingdom, especially part A of the trial, which compares radical therapy to focal therapy (HIFU or cryotherapy), with 5-year progression-free survival as the primary outcome. That trial is slated for completion in 2027.

Until then, the lack of prospective randomized clinical trials and long-term follow-up “hinders acceptance [of focal therapy] in the urology community,” the essay authors comment.

Meanwhile, careful patient selection is very important, they say.

The latest relevant guidelines state that appropriate candidates are men with a solitary, well-defined index lesion; patients with bilateral multifocal lesions; or very advanced tumors that are not appropriate for the focal approach.

A multidisciplinary international expert panel recently convened to establish guidance for clinicians offering focal therapies and then published a consensus statement to advise practitioners and researchers.

UCSF’s Dr. Cooperberg sees plenty of room for improvement among focal therapy practitioners and investigators. “From an outcomes standpoint, follow-up protocols and definitions of success remain inconsistent. I believe we’re making progress in all these areas, but we’re not there yet,” he says.

To date, some patients have been managed poorly, Dr. Cooperberg added. “We certainly see many patients who have been inadequately counseled as to HIFU’s advantages and disadvantages, with sometimes disastrous results.”

Some of those unfortunate results may have arisen from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s initial approval of HIFU in 2015, which was for use in ablating prostate tissue in general and not cancer specifically. This approval generated confusion, one expert commented at the time: “The FDA doesn’t specify whether it’s for benign or malignant disease; it’s a bit vague, like saying you can drive this car, but we’re not going to tell you how to drive it,” said Manoj Monga, MD, from the Cleveland Clinic.

Dr. Lebastchi has disclosed no relevant financial relationships; co-author Inderbir Gill, MD, is an unpaid consultant for Steba Biotech, and co-author Andre Luis Abreu, MD, is a consultant for Koelis and was a proctor in training for Steba Biotech. Dr. Cooperberg is a consultant for Alessa Therapeutics.

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

There will be “routine application” and “broader acceptance” of minimally invasive focal therapies for early-stage prostate cancer within the next 5 years in the United States, predict a trio of clinicians in a new essay published online July 28 in JAMA Surgery.

They maintain that focal therapy (FT) offers a “middle ground” between two extremes: Treating the whole gland with radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy and not treating immediately via active surveillance or watchful waiting.

Focal therapy typically treats the primary lesion within the prostate, while leaving the rest of the gland intact. Most often performed with cryoablation or high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU), it can also be carried out with a variety of technologies, including transurethral ultrasound ablation and focal laser ablation.

The shift to focal therapy will coincide with maturing, long-term data from studies with various technologies, predict the authors, led by Amir Lebastchi, MD, a urologist at the University of Southern California.

“Standard adoption of focal therapy is ultimately dependent on the availability of robust level I evidence, which in turn will drive medical societies and payees,” the authors also write.

But payees are already making changes, even without such data, they add.

For example, in January the American Medical Association announced a new code for high-intensity focal ultrasound (HIFU): This approach now has a Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code from the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

This news organization reached out to Matthew Cooperberg, MD, MPH, a urologist at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), for comments about the essay’s optimism; he has questioned focal therapy in the past because of a lack of strong supporting evidence.

“While ‘routine’ is a bit of a vague term, now that HIFU has a CPT code, I do expect its use will in fact increase in the next 5 years,” Dr. Cooperberg wrote in an email. “The question is whether its use will increase appropriately.”

The challenge with focal therapy – regardless of energy modality – remains patient selection and accurate ablation zone definition, he added.

Notably, UCSF has launched a new HIFU program – and Dr. Cooperberg has referred selected patients. “I’m both enthusiastic and cautious about the future, and we need to track our outcomes very closely across various practice settings,” he said.
 

While waiting for CHRONOS, select wisely

The goal of focal therapy is to treat only the area with the most aggressive tumor, known as the index tumor, while leaving the remaining gland and its surrounding structures alone, according to Derek Lomas, MD, PharmD, a urologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., in an explanatory article. “This approach is widely accepted in other types of cancer. For example, we commonly treat kidney cancers by removing or ablating only the tumor while leaving the rest of the kidney intact.”

However, some focal therapies also include approaches known as hemiablations, in which a full half of the prostate is destroyed, and approaches that leave very little of the gland behind.

Each of the modalities used for focal therapy has “unique indications, risks, and benefits and uses a different energy source for ablation,” Dr. Lebastchi and colleagues write in their essay.  

They assert that focal therapy can provide oncological efficacy similar to radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy “while considerably reducing or even eliminating functional morbidities, such as incontinence and erectile dysfunction.”

Overall, they say focal therapy offers an opportunity for improved care because there is “an increasing body of emerging evidence demonstrating a favorable adverse effect profile with oncological control similar to whole-gland treatment options.”
 

What is that evidence?

In the essay, Dr. Lebastchi and colleagues point to a number of single-arm studies with encouraging efficacy and safety results. They also highlight a phase 3, randomized trial that they were involved in: This compared focal therapy (partial gland ablation with vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy) with active surveillance in early-stage disease and uniformly showed better post-treatment biopsy (disease/no disease) and conversion-to-prostatectomy results with the focal therapy out to 4 years (J Urol. 2018;200:786-793).

However, that study did not have an active treatment comparator. For that gold standard, there is now anticipation for results from the CHRONOS trial in the United Kingdom, especially part A of the trial, which compares radical therapy to focal therapy (HIFU or cryotherapy), with 5-year progression-free survival as the primary outcome. That trial is slated for completion in 2027.

Until then, the lack of prospective randomized clinical trials and long-term follow-up “hinders acceptance [of focal therapy] in the urology community,” the essay authors comment.

Meanwhile, careful patient selection is very important, they say.

The latest relevant guidelines state that appropriate candidates are men with a solitary, well-defined index lesion; patients with bilateral multifocal lesions; or very advanced tumors that are not appropriate for the focal approach.

A multidisciplinary international expert panel recently convened to establish guidance for clinicians offering focal therapies and then published a consensus statement to advise practitioners and researchers.

UCSF’s Dr. Cooperberg sees plenty of room for improvement among focal therapy practitioners and investigators. “From an outcomes standpoint, follow-up protocols and definitions of success remain inconsistent. I believe we’re making progress in all these areas, but we’re not there yet,” he says.

To date, some patients have been managed poorly, Dr. Cooperberg added. “We certainly see many patients who have been inadequately counseled as to HIFU’s advantages and disadvantages, with sometimes disastrous results.”

Some of those unfortunate results may have arisen from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s initial approval of HIFU in 2015, which was for use in ablating prostate tissue in general and not cancer specifically. This approval generated confusion, one expert commented at the time: “The FDA doesn’t specify whether it’s for benign or malignant disease; it’s a bit vague, like saying you can drive this car, but we’re not going to tell you how to drive it,” said Manoj Monga, MD, from the Cleveland Clinic.

Dr. Lebastchi has disclosed no relevant financial relationships; co-author Inderbir Gill, MD, is an unpaid consultant for Steba Biotech, and co-author Andre Luis Abreu, MD, is a consultant for Koelis and was a proctor in training for Steba Biotech. Dr. Cooperberg is a consultant for Alessa Therapeutics.

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

There will be “routine application” and “broader acceptance” of minimally invasive focal therapies for early-stage prostate cancer within the next 5 years in the United States, predict a trio of clinicians in a new essay published online July 28 in JAMA Surgery.

They maintain that focal therapy (FT) offers a “middle ground” between two extremes: Treating the whole gland with radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy and not treating immediately via active surveillance or watchful waiting.

Focal therapy typically treats the primary lesion within the prostate, while leaving the rest of the gland intact. Most often performed with cryoablation or high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU), it can also be carried out with a variety of technologies, including transurethral ultrasound ablation and focal laser ablation.

The shift to focal therapy will coincide with maturing, long-term data from studies with various technologies, predict the authors, led by Amir Lebastchi, MD, a urologist at the University of Southern California.

“Standard adoption of focal therapy is ultimately dependent on the availability of robust level I evidence, which in turn will drive medical societies and payees,” the authors also write.

But payees are already making changes, even without such data, they add.

For example, in January the American Medical Association announced a new code for high-intensity focal ultrasound (HIFU): This approach now has a Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code from the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

This news organization reached out to Matthew Cooperberg, MD, MPH, a urologist at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), for comments about the essay’s optimism; he has questioned focal therapy in the past because of a lack of strong supporting evidence.

“While ‘routine’ is a bit of a vague term, now that HIFU has a CPT code, I do expect its use will in fact increase in the next 5 years,” Dr. Cooperberg wrote in an email. “The question is whether its use will increase appropriately.”

The challenge with focal therapy – regardless of energy modality – remains patient selection and accurate ablation zone definition, he added.

Notably, UCSF has launched a new HIFU program – and Dr. Cooperberg has referred selected patients. “I’m both enthusiastic and cautious about the future, and we need to track our outcomes very closely across various practice settings,” he said.
 

While waiting for CHRONOS, select wisely

The goal of focal therapy is to treat only the area with the most aggressive tumor, known as the index tumor, while leaving the remaining gland and its surrounding structures alone, according to Derek Lomas, MD, PharmD, a urologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., in an explanatory article. “This approach is widely accepted in other types of cancer. For example, we commonly treat kidney cancers by removing or ablating only the tumor while leaving the rest of the kidney intact.”

However, some focal therapies also include approaches known as hemiablations, in which a full half of the prostate is destroyed, and approaches that leave very little of the gland behind.

Each of the modalities used for focal therapy has “unique indications, risks, and benefits and uses a different energy source for ablation,” Dr. Lebastchi and colleagues write in their essay.  

They assert that focal therapy can provide oncological efficacy similar to radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy “while considerably reducing or even eliminating functional morbidities, such as incontinence and erectile dysfunction.”

Overall, they say focal therapy offers an opportunity for improved care because there is “an increasing body of emerging evidence demonstrating a favorable adverse effect profile with oncological control similar to whole-gland treatment options.”
 

What is that evidence?

In the essay, Dr. Lebastchi and colleagues point to a number of single-arm studies with encouraging efficacy and safety results. They also highlight a phase 3, randomized trial that they were involved in: This compared focal therapy (partial gland ablation with vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy) with active surveillance in early-stage disease and uniformly showed better post-treatment biopsy (disease/no disease) and conversion-to-prostatectomy results with the focal therapy out to 4 years (J Urol. 2018;200:786-793).

However, that study did not have an active treatment comparator. For that gold standard, there is now anticipation for results from the CHRONOS trial in the United Kingdom, especially part A of the trial, which compares radical therapy to focal therapy (HIFU or cryotherapy), with 5-year progression-free survival as the primary outcome. That trial is slated for completion in 2027.

Until then, the lack of prospective randomized clinical trials and long-term follow-up “hinders acceptance [of focal therapy] in the urology community,” the essay authors comment.

Meanwhile, careful patient selection is very important, they say.

The latest relevant guidelines state that appropriate candidates are men with a solitary, well-defined index lesion; patients with bilateral multifocal lesions; or very advanced tumors that are not appropriate for the focal approach.

A multidisciplinary international expert panel recently convened to establish guidance for clinicians offering focal therapies and then published a consensus statement to advise practitioners and researchers.

UCSF’s Dr. Cooperberg sees plenty of room for improvement among focal therapy practitioners and investigators. “From an outcomes standpoint, follow-up protocols and definitions of success remain inconsistent. I believe we’re making progress in all these areas, but we’re not there yet,” he says.

To date, some patients have been managed poorly, Dr. Cooperberg added. “We certainly see many patients who have been inadequately counseled as to HIFU’s advantages and disadvantages, with sometimes disastrous results.”

Some of those unfortunate results may have arisen from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s initial approval of HIFU in 2015, which was for use in ablating prostate tissue in general and not cancer specifically. This approval generated confusion, one expert commented at the time: “The FDA doesn’t specify whether it’s for benign or malignant disease; it’s a bit vague, like saying you can drive this car, but we’re not going to tell you how to drive it,” said Manoj Monga, MD, from the Cleveland Clinic.

Dr. Lebastchi has disclosed no relevant financial relationships; co-author Inderbir Gill, MD, is an unpaid consultant for Steba Biotech, and co-author Andre Luis Abreu, MD, is a consultant for Koelis and was a proctor in training for Steba Biotech. Dr. Cooperberg is a consultant for Alessa Therapeutics.

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