AVAHO

Gender equality remains elusive for women in academic oncology, a survey of nearly 700 U.S. female oncologists suggests.

More than half of respondents in academic medicine said they believe their gender adversely affects their likelihood for promotion, and 1 in 5 said they were considering leaving academia in the next 5 years.

Given the percentage of female oncologists planning to exit academia, “gender inequality is at high risk of continuing if the culture is not addressed,” write the authors in their study, published online Dec. 30 in JAMA Network Open.

Although women currently outnumber men in U.S. medical schools – a shift that first occurred in 2019 – female representation in academic oncology dwindles at more senior levels. Women represent 45% of hematology and oncology residents, only about 36% of academic faculty, and an even smaller percentage of leadership positions in academic medicine. Women, for instance, occupy about 31% of the chair positions in medical oncology, 17.4% in radiation oncology, and 11% in surgical oncology.

A team of researchers led by Emily C. Merfeld, MD, of the University of Wisconsin Hospitals and Clinics, Madison, set out to understand the factors influencing female oncologists’ decisions to pursue academic versus nonacademic career paths.

Dr. Merfeld and colleagues analyzed survey responses from 667 female oncologists between August 1 and Oct. 31, 2020 – 422 (63.2%) in academic medicine and 245 (36.8%) in nonacademic practice.

Overall, 1 in 4 oncologists said their spouse or partner and family “extremely or moderately” affected their decision to pursue academic practice.

Almost 43% of academic oncologists perceived time spent with loved ones as the biggest sacrifice related to pursuing a career in academic medicine. Approximately the same percentage (41.6%) of nonacademic oncologists perceived the pressure to achieve academic promotion as the most significant sacrifice associated with academic oncology, whereas only 22.4% perceived less time with loved ones as the biggest sacrifice.

“Although work-life balance was a concern for academic oncologists and may be a factor in female oncologists leaving academia, survey data suggested that women in nonacademic practice faced similar challenges,” the authors write.

More specifically, women in academic oncology reported working 2 more hours on the weekends compared to women not in academic medicine; however, both groups worked a similar number of hours during the week.

On the hiring front, almost 24% of academic oncologists said their gender had a “negative or somewhat negative” impact on their ability to get a job, compared with 21% of nonacademic oncologists. Conversely, nearly 28% of academic oncologists said their gender had a “positive or somewhat positive” influence on whether they were hired compared with 41.2% of nonacademic oncologists.

Respondents, however, perceived that gender strongly influenced promotion opportunities. More than half of the respondents – 54.6% of academic oncologists and 50.6% of nonacademic oncologists – believed they were less likely to be promoted than their male colleagues.

This perception aligns with findings from prior studies, which “found women were less likely than men to be promoted to associate professor, full professor, or department chair positions,” the authors write.

Overall, most respondents in each group – 71.3% in academic medicine and 68.6% in nonacademic practice – said they would choose the same career path again. But almost 22% of those in academia said they were “likely or very likely” to leave academic oncology in the next 5 years. Of these women, 28.2% said they would switch to industry employment and 25% would move to community practice.

“Contrary to popular assumptions,” the researchers note, “a spouse or partner and/or family were not a major factor in female oncologists favoring nonacademic careers, because this factor was similarly important to both academic and nonacademic oncologists.”

However, they note, “the increased financial compensation in nonacademic oncology may play a large role in some women’s career decisions.”
 

Making headway on gender equality?

In 2013, oncologist Katherine Reeder-Hayes, MD, MBA, now an associate at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, published a study on gender equality in oncology in which she concluded that despite “an increasingly significant presence in the oncology physician workforce” women remained “under-represented in leadership positions and at the senior levels of academic medicine.”

Since then, Dr. Reeder-Hayes says that she has seen progress but recognizes the need for more.

“To some extent, I think that representation is improving over time due to factors outside the workplace – women are entering medical school in large numbers and may have more supportive partners and more social support for pursuing a professional career in general, [compared with] a decade or two ago,” Dr. Reeder-Hayes told this news organization.

On a personal level, she noted, “I do see many midcareer women assuming key leadership roles in my own institution.” However, she added, “I think the translation of those good candidates into increased representation in leadership probably varies widely across different institutions.”

In a 2019 editorial, researchers highlighted this variation while calling attention to the “notable progress” made by the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR). Specifically, the editorialists reported that women represent 40% of AACR members, 45% of the AACR Board of Directors, and half of the last 10 association presidents.

Editorial coauthor Elizabeth Jaffee, MD, deputy director of the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, and former AACR president, told this news organization that she attributes this progress to “concrete measures to ensure equality throughout the organization,” which include gender balance on nominating and program committees as well as research meetings and providing opportunities for mentoring, leadership training, and networking.

Despite this positive change, the COVID-19 pandemic threatens to widen the gender imbalance. In a recent article, Julie Silver, MD, an expert in gender equity in medicine, told this news organization that she anticipates trouble ahead.

“There are many indications that women are leaving medicine in disproportionately high numbers,” said Dr. Silver, associate chair and director of cancer rehabilitation in the department of physical medicine and rehabilitation at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “A lack of fair pay and promotion opportunities that were present before COVID-19 are now combined with a host of pandemic-related challenges.”

In addition to salary and promotion disparities, the U.S. continues to suffer from “a chronic shortage of available, affordable, and high-quality childcare and a lack of federal-level policy initiatives or employer initiatives to broaden paid family leave and develop childcare infrastructure and workforce,” Dr. Reeder-Hayes said. Providing extended leave for new parents and on-site childcare could go a long way to improving this problem, she said.

However, Dr. Reeder-Hayes noted that perhaps the “leaky pipeline” problem in oncology highlights the fact that women “are making good decisions that reflect balanced life priorities, [and that] if we don’t structure job responsibilities, childcare, and pacing of promotion and tenure in ways that allow people to nurture other parts of their lives, employees will feel they’re being asked to sacrifice key things.”

In other words, she said, “it’s the workplace that needs to change if we’re going to convince [women], and many men with similar values, to stay.”

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

Gender equality remains elusive for women in academic oncology, a survey of nearly 700 U.S. female oncologists suggests.

More than half of respondents in academic medicine said they believe their gender adversely affects their likelihood for promotion, and 1 in 5 said they were considering leaving academia in the next 5 years.

Given the percentage of female oncologists planning to exit academia, “gender inequality is at high risk of continuing if the culture is not addressed,” write the authors in their study, published online Dec. 30 in JAMA Network Open.

Although women currently outnumber men in U.S. medical schools – a shift that first occurred in 2019 – female representation in academic oncology dwindles at more senior levels. Women represent 45% of hematology and oncology residents, only about 36% of academic faculty, and an even smaller percentage of leadership positions in academic medicine. Women, for instance, occupy about 31% of the chair positions in medical oncology, 17.4% in radiation oncology, and 11% in surgical oncology.

A team of researchers led by Emily C. Merfeld, MD, of the University of Wisconsin Hospitals and Clinics, Madison, set out to understand the factors influencing female oncologists’ decisions to pursue academic versus nonacademic career paths.

Dr. Merfeld and colleagues analyzed survey responses from 667 female oncologists between August 1 and Oct. 31, 2020 – 422 (63.2%) in academic medicine and 245 (36.8%) in nonacademic practice.

Overall, 1 in 4 oncologists said their spouse or partner and family “extremely or moderately” affected their decision to pursue academic practice.

Almost 43% of academic oncologists perceived time spent with loved ones as the biggest sacrifice related to pursuing a career in academic medicine. Approximately the same percentage (41.6%) of nonacademic oncologists perceived the pressure to achieve academic promotion as the most significant sacrifice associated with academic oncology, whereas only 22.4% perceived less time with loved ones as the biggest sacrifice.

“Although work-life balance was a concern for academic oncologists and may be a factor in female oncologists leaving academia, survey data suggested that women in nonacademic practice faced similar challenges,” the authors write.

More specifically, women in academic oncology reported working 2 more hours on the weekends compared to women not in academic medicine; however, both groups worked a similar number of hours during the week.

On the hiring front, almost 24% of academic oncologists said their gender had a “negative or somewhat negative” impact on their ability to get a job, compared with 21% of nonacademic oncologists. Conversely, nearly 28% of academic oncologists said their gender had a “positive or somewhat positive” influence on whether they were hired compared with 41.2% of nonacademic oncologists.

Respondents, however, perceived that gender strongly influenced promotion opportunities. More than half of the respondents – 54.6% of academic oncologists and 50.6% of nonacademic oncologists – believed they were less likely to be promoted than their male colleagues.

This perception aligns with findings from prior studies, which “found women were less likely than men to be promoted to associate professor, full professor, or department chair positions,” the authors write.

Overall, most respondents in each group – 71.3% in academic medicine and 68.6% in nonacademic practice – said they would choose the same career path again. But almost 22% of those in academia said they were “likely or very likely” to leave academic oncology in the next 5 years. Of these women, 28.2% said they would switch to industry employment and 25% would move to community practice.

“Contrary to popular assumptions,” the researchers note, “a spouse or partner and/or family were not a major factor in female oncologists favoring nonacademic careers, because this factor was similarly important to both academic and nonacademic oncologists.”

However, they note, “the increased financial compensation in nonacademic oncology may play a large role in some women’s career decisions.”
 

Making headway on gender equality?

In 2013, oncologist Katherine Reeder-Hayes, MD, MBA, now an associate at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, published a study on gender equality in oncology in which she concluded that despite “an increasingly significant presence in the oncology physician workforce” women remained “under-represented in leadership positions and at the senior levels of academic medicine.”

Since then, Dr. Reeder-Hayes says that she has seen progress but recognizes the need for more.

“To some extent, I think that representation is improving over time due to factors outside the workplace – women are entering medical school in large numbers and may have more supportive partners and more social support for pursuing a professional career in general, [compared with] a decade or two ago,” Dr. Reeder-Hayes told this news organization.

On a personal level, she noted, “I do see many midcareer women assuming key leadership roles in my own institution.” However, she added, “I think the translation of those good candidates into increased representation in leadership probably varies widely across different institutions.”

In a 2019 editorial, researchers highlighted this variation while calling attention to the “notable progress” made by the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR). Specifically, the editorialists reported that women represent 40% of AACR members, 45% of the AACR Board of Directors, and half of the last 10 association presidents.

Editorial coauthor Elizabeth Jaffee, MD, deputy director of the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, and former AACR president, told this news organization that she attributes this progress to “concrete measures to ensure equality throughout the organization,” which include gender balance on nominating and program committees as well as research meetings and providing opportunities for mentoring, leadership training, and networking.

Despite this positive change, the COVID-19 pandemic threatens to widen the gender imbalance. In a recent article, Julie Silver, MD, an expert in gender equity in medicine, told this news organization that she anticipates trouble ahead.

“There are many indications that women are leaving medicine in disproportionately high numbers,” said Dr. Silver, associate chair and director of cancer rehabilitation in the department of physical medicine and rehabilitation at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “A lack of fair pay and promotion opportunities that were present before COVID-19 are now combined with a host of pandemic-related challenges.”

In addition to salary and promotion disparities, the U.S. continues to suffer from “a chronic shortage of available, affordable, and high-quality childcare and a lack of federal-level policy initiatives or employer initiatives to broaden paid family leave and develop childcare infrastructure and workforce,” Dr. Reeder-Hayes said. Providing extended leave for new parents and on-site childcare could go a long way to improving this problem, she said.

However, Dr. Reeder-Hayes noted that perhaps the “leaky pipeline” problem in oncology highlights the fact that women “are making good decisions that reflect balanced life priorities, [and that] if we don’t structure job responsibilities, childcare, and pacing of promotion and tenure in ways that allow people to nurture other parts of their lives, employees will feel they’re being asked to sacrifice key things.”

In other words, she said, “it’s the workplace that needs to change if we’re going to convince [women], and many men with similar values, to stay.”

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

Gender equality remains elusive for women in academic oncology, a survey of nearly 700 U.S. female oncologists suggests.

More than half of respondents in academic medicine said they believe their gender adversely affects their likelihood for promotion, and 1 in 5 said they were considering leaving academia in the next 5 years.

Given the percentage of female oncologists planning to exit academia, “gender inequality is at high risk of continuing if the culture is not addressed,” write the authors in their study, published online Dec. 30 in JAMA Network Open.

Although women currently outnumber men in U.S. medical schools – a shift that first occurred in 2019 – female representation in academic oncology dwindles at more senior levels. Women represent 45% of hematology and oncology residents, only about 36% of academic faculty, and an even smaller percentage of leadership positions in academic medicine. Women, for instance, occupy about 31% of the chair positions in medical oncology, 17.4% in radiation oncology, and 11% in surgical oncology.

A team of researchers led by Emily C. Merfeld, MD, of the University of Wisconsin Hospitals and Clinics, Madison, set out to understand the factors influencing female oncologists’ decisions to pursue academic versus nonacademic career paths.

Dr. Merfeld and colleagues analyzed survey responses from 667 female oncologists between August 1 and Oct. 31, 2020 – 422 (63.2%) in academic medicine and 245 (36.8%) in nonacademic practice.

Overall, 1 in 4 oncologists said their spouse or partner and family “extremely or moderately” affected their decision to pursue academic practice.

Almost 43% of academic oncologists perceived time spent with loved ones as the biggest sacrifice related to pursuing a career in academic medicine. Approximately the same percentage (41.6%) of nonacademic oncologists perceived the pressure to achieve academic promotion as the most significant sacrifice associated with academic oncology, whereas only 22.4% perceived less time with loved ones as the biggest sacrifice.

“Although work-life balance was a concern for academic oncologists and may be a factor in female oncologists leaving academia, survey data suggested that women in nonacademic practice faced similar challenges,” the authors write.

More specifically, women in academic oncology reported working 2 more hours on the weekends compared to women not in academic medicine; however, both groups worked a similar number of hours during the week.

On the hiring front, almost 24% of academic oncologists said their gender had a “negative or somewhat negative” impact on their ability to get a job, compared with 21% of nonacademic oncologists. Conversely, nearly 28% of academic oncologists said their gender had a “positive or somewhat positive” influence on whether they were hired compared with 41.2% of nonacademic oncologists.

Respondents, however, perceived that gender strongly influenced promotion opportunities. More than half of the respondents – 54.6% of academic oncologists and 50.6% of nonacademic oncologists – believed they were less likely to be promoted than their male colleagues.

This perception aligns with findings from prior studies, which “found women were less likely than men to be promoted to associate professor, full professor, or department chair positions,” the authors write.

Overall, most respondents in each group – 71.3% in academic medicine and 68.6% in nonacademic practice – said they would choose the same career path again. But almost 22% of those in academia said they were “likely or very likely” to leave academic oncology in the next 5 years. Of these women, 28.2% said they would switch to industry employment and 25% would move to community practice.

“Contrary to popular assumptions,” the researchers note, “a spouse or partner and/or family were not a major factor in female oncologists favoring nonacademic careers, because this factor was similarly important to both academic and nonacademic oncologists.”

However, they note, “the increased financial compensation in nonacademic oncology may play a large role in some women’s career decisions.”
 

Making headway on gender equality?

In 2013, oncologist Katherine Reeder-Hayes, MD, MBA, now an associate at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, published a study on gender equality in oncology in which she concluded that despite “an increasingly significant presence in the oncology physician workforce” women remained “under-represented in leadership positions and at the senior levels of academic medicine.”

Since then, Dr. Reeder-Hayes says that she has seen progress but recognizes the need for more.

“To some extent, I think that representation is improving over time due to factors outside the workplace – women are entering medical school in large numbers and may have more supportive partners and more social support for pursuing a professional career in general, [compared with] a decade or two ago,” Dr. Reeder-Hayes told this news organization.

On a personal level, she noted, “I do see many midcareer women assuming key leadership roles in my own institution.” However, she added, “I think the translation of those good candidates into increased representation in leadership probably varies widely across different institutions.”

In a 2019 editorial, researchers highlighted this variation while calling attention to the “notable progress” made by the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR). Specifically, the editorialists reported that women represent 40% of AACR members, 45% of the AACR Board of Directors, and half of the last 10 association presidents.

Editorial coauthor Elizabeth Jaffee, MD, deputy director of the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, and former AACR president, told this news organization that she attributes this progress to “concrete measures to ensure equality throughout the organization,” which include gender balance on nominating and program committees as well as research meetings and providing opportunities for mentoring, leadership training, and networking.

Despite this positive change, the COVID-19 pandemic threatens to widen the gender imbalance. In a recent article, Julie Silver, MD, an expert in gender equity in medicine, told this news organization that she anticipates trouble ahead.

“There are many indications that women are leaving medicine in disproportionately high numbers,” said Dr. Silver, associate chair and director of cancer rehabilitation in the department of physical medicine and rehabilitation at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “A lack of fair pay and promotion opportunities that were present before COVID-19 are now combined with a host of pandemic-related challenges.”

In addition to salary and promotion disparities, the U.S. continues to suffer from “a chronic shortage of available, affordable, and high-quality childcare and a lack of federal-level policy initiatives or employer initiatives to broaden paid family leave and develop childcare infrastructure and workforce,” Dr. Reeder-Hayes said. Providing extended leave for new parents and on-site childcare could go a long way to improving this problem, she said.

However, Dr. Reeder-Hayes noted that perhaps the “leaky pipeline” problem in oncology highlights the fact that women “are making good decisions that reflect balanced life priorities, [and that] if we don’t structure job responsibilities, childcare, and pacing of promotion and tenure in ways that allow people to nurture other parts of their lives, employees will feel they’re being asked to sacrifice key things.”

In other words, she said, “it’s the workplace that needs to change if we’re going to convince [women], and many men with similar values, to stay.”

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

A new French study raises the possibility that immunotherapy can help some people with stomach cancer avoid surgery.

GERCOR NEONIPIGA was a phase 2 study with no comparator group and only 32 patients, but even so, after a 6-cycle course of nivolumab and ipilimumab, there was no sign of tumor in 17 of the 29 patients (59%) who had surgery specimens evaluable by pathology.

Indeed, two patients refused surgery after their preop endoscopic biopsies came back clear with no tumor cells. Surgery was called off in a third patient who developed metastases beforehand.

After a median of 12 months follow-up, there’s was no recurrence or progression in 30 patients (94%). The remaining two included the metastatic patient and one who died 3 days after surgery from cardiovascular complications.

If the findings pan out with additional research, the approach could be a boon for people who respond. “Avoiding surgery is a dream for these patients,” said lead investigator Thierry Andre, MD, a medical oncology professor at Sorbonne University, Paris, when he presented the findings at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.

The trial “raises the question whether surgery can be delayed or avoided in some patients with localized” disease. Given the findings, “it seems possible not for all but probably for half, maybe more.” As in the two subjects who opted out of surgery, preop endoscopic biopsies could be used to identify complete responders with active surveillance afterwards, he said.

The study included 16 patients with gastric cancer and 16 with esophagogastric adenocarcinoma. They were mismatch repair deficient, which Dr. Andre said predicts response to immunotherapy.

At baseline, 22 had stage T3 disease and four had stage T2 disease, and stage was not evaluable by echo-endoscopy in 6. Nodal status was unknown, but the patients had no metastases at baseline.

They underwent six nivolumab 240-mg infusions and two ipilimumab 1–mg/kg infusions over 12 weeks, followed by R0 resections a median of 5 weeks after the last nivolumab injection.

Surgical specimens from 17 patients (59%) showed a complete pathological response to neoadjuvant immunotherapy (Becker tumor regression grade (TRG) 1a, ypT0N0). TRG was 1b – less than 10% residual tumor in tumor bed in four patients. TRG was 2 in two patients with 10%-50% of residual tumor remaining, and six had a TRG of 3 with more than half of the tumor remaining after immunotherapy.

Based on tumor response, 25 patients had nine additional nivolumab infusions after surgery with 480 mg infused monthly.

Dr. Andre explained that people want to avoid surgery because of the substantial morbidity that was shown in the study, plus 54% of patients had complications, including anastomotic leaks, pancreatitis, pneumonia, and other problems.

There were no new safety signals with neoadjuvant therapy; 25% of patients had grade 3 or 4 events.

The study was conducted in 10 centers in France. About three-quarters of the subjects were men and the median age was 65 years.

Bristol Meyers Squibb supplied the nivolumab and ipilimumab and partially funded the work. Many of the investigators had ties to the company, including Dr. Andre, who is a consultant for BMS and reported payments from the company.

A new French study raises the possibility that immunotherapy can help some people with stomach cancer avoid surgery.

GERCOR NEONIPIGA was a phase 2 study with no comparator group and only 32 patients, but even so, after a 6-cycle course of nivolumab and ipilimumab, there was no sign of tumor in 17 of the 29 patients (59%) who had surgery specimens evaluable by pathology.

Indeed, two patients refused surgery after their preop endoscopic biopsies came back clear with no tumor cells. Surgery was called off in a third patient who developed metastases beforehand.

After a median of 12 months follow-up, there’s was no recurrence or progression in 30 patients (94%). The remaining two included the metastatic patient and one who died 3 days after surgery from cardiovascular complications.

If the findings pan out with additional research, the approach could be a boon for people who respond. “Avoiding surgery is a dream for these patients,” said lead investigator Thierry Andre, MD, a medical oncology professor at Sorbonne University, Paris, when he presented the findings at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.

The trial “raises the question whether surgery can be delayed or avoided in some patients with localized” disease. Given the findings, “it seems possible not for all but probably for half, maybe more.” As in the two subjects who opted out of surgery, preop endoscopic biopsies could be used to identify complete responders with active surveillance afterwards, he said.

The study included 16 patients with gastric cancer and 16 with esophagogastric adenocarcinoma. They were mismatch repair deficient, which Dr. Andre said predicts response to immunotherapy.

At baseline, 22 had stage T3 disease and four had stage T2 disease, and stage was not evaluable by echo-endoscopy in 6. Nodal status was unknown, but the patients had no metastases at baseline.

They underwent six nivolumab 240-mg infusions and two ipilimumab 1–mg/kg infusions over 12 weeks, followed by R0 resections a median of 5 weeks after the last nivolumab injection.

Surgical specimens from 17 patients (59%) showed a complete pathological response to neoadjuvant immunotherapy (Becker tumor regression grade (TRG) 1a, ypT0N0). TRG was 1b – less than 10% residual tumor in tumor bed in four patients. TRG was 2 in two patients with 10%-50% of residual tumor remaining, and six had a TRG of 3 with more than half of the tumor remaining after immunotherapy.

Based on tumor response, 25 patients had nine additional nivolumab infusions after surgery with 480 mg infused monthly.

Dr. Andre explained that people want to avoid surgery because of the substantial morbidity that was shown in the study, plus 54% of patients had complications, including anastomotic leaks, pancreatitis, pneumonia, and other problems.

There were no new safety signals with neoadjuvant therapy; 25% of patients had grade 3 or 4 events.

The study was conducted in 10 centers in France. About three-quarters of the subjects were men and the median age was 65 years.

Bristol Meyers Squibb supplied the nivolumab and ipilimumab and partially funded the work. Many of the investigators had ties to the company, including Dr. Andre, who is a consultant for BMS and reported payments from the company.

A new French study raises the possibility that immunotherapy can help some people with stomach cancer avoid surgery.

GERCOR NEONIPIGA was a phase 2 study with no comparator group and only 32 patients, but even so, after a 6-cycle course of nivolumab and ipilimumab, there was no sign of tumor in 17 of the 29 patients (59%) who had surgery specimens evaluable by pathology.

Indeed, two patients refused surgery after their preop endoscopic biopsies came back clear with no tumor cells. Surgery was called off in a third patient who developed metastases beforehand.

After a median of 12 months follow-up, there’s was no recurrence or progression in 30 patients (94%). The remaining two included the metastatic patient and one who died 3 days after surgery from cardiovascular complications.

If the findings pan out with additional research, the approach could be a boon for people who respond. “Avoiding surgery is a dream for these patients,” said lead investigator Thierry Andre, MD, a medical oncology professor at Sorbonne University, Paris, when he presented the findings at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.

The trial “raises the question whether surgery can be delayed or avoided in some patients with localized” disease. Given the findings, “it seems possible not for all but probably for half, maybe more.” As in the two subjects who opted out of surgery, preop endoscopic biopsies could be used to identify complete responders with active surveillance afterwards, he said.

The study included 16 patients with gastric cancer and 16 with esophagogastric adenocarcinoma. They were mismatch repair deficient, which Dr. Andre said predicts response to immunotherapy.

At baseline, 22 had stage T3 disease and four had stage T2 disease, and stage was not evaluable by echo-endoscopy in 6. Nodal status was unknown, but the patients had no metastases at baseline.

They underwent six nivolumab 240-mg infusions and two ipilimumab 1–mg/kg infusions over 12 weeks, followed by R0 resections a median of 5 weeks after the last nivolumab injection.

Surgical specimens from 17 patients (59%) showed a complete pathological response to neoadjuvant immunotherapy (Becker tumor regression grade (TRG) 1a, ypT0N0). TRG was 1b – less than 10% residual tumor in tumor bed in four patients. TRG was 2 in two patients with 10%-50% of residual tumor remaining, and six had a TRG of 3 with more than half of the tumor remaining after immunotherapy.

Based on tumor response, 25 patients had nine additional nivolumab infusions after surgery with 480 mg infused monthly.

Dr. Andre explained that people want to avoid surgery because of the substantial morbidity that was shown in the study, plus 54% of patients had complications, including anastomotic leaks, pancreatitis, pneumonia, and other problems.

There were no new safety signals with neoadjuvant therapy; 25% of patients had grade 3 or 4 events.

The study was conducted in 10 centers in France. About three-quarters of the subjects were men and the median age was 65 years.

Bristol Meyers Squibb supplied the nivolumab and ipilimumab and partially funded the work. Many of the investigators had ties to the company, including Dr. Andre, who is a consultant for BMS and reported payments from the company.

Patients with breast cancer treated with chemotherapy who also took a probiotics supplement had significantly fewer symptoms of chemotherapy-related cognitive impairment (CRCI) often referred to as “chemo brain,” compared with a control group taking placebo capsules, reports the first study of its kind.

“Our finding[s] provide a simple, inexpensive, and effective prevention strategy for chemotherapy-related side effects, including cognitive impairment,” senior author Jianbin Tong, MD, PhD, of the department of anesthesiology, Third Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China, said in an interview.

The research “is the first study showing that probiotics supplementation during chemotherapy can prevent chemotherapy-related brain impairment,” he noted.

The double-blind, randomized study was published in the European Journal of Cancer. It involved 159 patients in China with stage I-III breast cancer who required adjuvant chemotherapy between 2018 and 2019. These patients were randomized to receive a regimen of three capsules twice per day containing either probiotics (n = 80) or placebo (n = 79) during their chemotherapy.

The probiotic capsule (Bifico, Sine Pharmaceuticals) contained Bifidobacterium longum, Lactobacillus acidophilus, and Enterococcus faecalis (210 mg of each).

The reductions in symptoms seen with the supplementation “exceed our expectations,” Dr. Tong said in an interview.

He speculated that this may have longer-term effects, with the prevention of initial cognitive impairment potentially “changing the neurodegenerative trajectory of patients after chemotherapy.”

“Patients don’t need to take probiotics continuously, but it’s better to take probiotics intermittently,” he said.

Approached for comment, Melanie Sekeres, PhD, Canada Research Chair and assistant professor at the University of Ottawa, said the improvements, such as those seen in delayed recall, are especially of interest.

“This is particularly notable because one of the brain regions that is critically involved in long-term memory processing, the hippocampus, is known to be highly sensitive to chemotherapy-induced neurotoxicity,” she said in an interview.

“The finding that probiotic treatment given alongside chemotherapy is sufficient to, in part, protect against memory disturbances in these patients suggests that there may be some neuroprotection conferred by the probiotic treatment,” she said.

A key question is whether similar results would be seen with other chemotherapy regimens, Dr. Sekeres added. “To better understand the effectiveness of these probiotics in preventing CRCI, they should be tested using other classes of chemotherapies before any broad conclusions can be made.”
 

Measuring the effect on ‘chemo brain’

“Chemo brain” is commonly reported after chemotherapy, and some 35% of patients report having long-term effects. Key symptoms include deficits in memory, attention, and executive and processing speed skills.

In their study, Dr. Tong and colleagues assessed patients on their cognitive status with a number of validated neuropsychological battery tests 1 day prior to initiating chemotherapy and 21 days after the last cycle of chemotherapy. Tests included the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test–Revised for verbal memory, the Brief Visuospatial Memory Test–Revised for visuospatial memory, and various others.

The team reports that, after adjustment for confounding factors, the total incidence of CRCI was significantly lower in the probiotics group versus the placebo group 21 days post chemotherapy (35% vs. 81%; relative risk, 0.43).

Rates of mild cognitive impairment were also lower in the probiotics group (29% vs 52%; RR, 0.55), as were rates of moderate cognitive impairment (6% vs. 29%; RR, 0.22).

The improvements with probiotics were observed across most other neuropsychological domains, including instantaneous verbal memory and delayed visuospatial memory (for both, P = .003) and visuospatial interference and verbal fluency (for both, P < .001).

The greater improvements in the probiotics group were seen regardless of use of other medications or the type of chemotherapy regimen received, which could have included epirubicin or docetaxel and/or cyclophosphamide.

CRCI was more common in patients who were older and had lower education or a higher body mass index; however, the improvements in the probiotics group were observed regardless of those factors, the authors commented.

In addition to the reduction in cognitive impairment that was seen, the treatment with probiotics was also associated with lower blood glucose (mean, 4.96 vs. 5.30; P = .02) and lower LDL cholesterol (2.61 vs. 2.89; P = .03) versus placebo, while there were no significant differences between the groups prior to chemotherapy.

There were no reports of severe emesis or constipation (grade 3 or higher) in either group; however, the probiotics group did have a significantly lower incidence of both, the authors note.
 

How does it work?

The potential benefits with probiotics are theorized to result from stabilizing the colonic and bacterial disruptions that are caused by chemotherapy, potentially offsetting the neuroinflammation that is linked to the cancer treatment, the authors speculated.

A subanalysis of 78 stool samples from 20 patients in the study showed no differences in alpha diversity or beta diversity before or after chemotherapy; however, there were significant reductions in the abundance of Streptococcus and Tyzzerella (P = .023 and P = .033, respectively) in the probiotics group after chemotherapy.

Further analysis showed that probiotics supplement modulated the levels of nine plasma metabolites in patients with breast cancer, with the results suggesting that metabolites (including p-mentha-1,8-dien-7-ol) “may be modulators in preventing CRCI by probiotics,” the authors noted.
 

Benefits reported beyond breast cancer

A subsequent trial conducted by Dr. Tong and colleagues following the CRCI study further showed similar protective benefits with probiotics in the prevention of chemotherapy-related hand-foot syndrome and oral mucositis.

And in a recent study, the research team found evidence of probiotic supplements protecting against cognitive impairment in the elderly following surgery.

The study received support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Subproject of the National Key Research and Development Program Project of China, science and technology innovation platform and talent plan of Hunan province and Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province.

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

Patients with breast cancer treated with chemotherapy who also took a probiotics supplement had significantly fewer symptoms of chemotherapy-related cognitive impairment (CRCI) often referred to as “chemo brain,” compared with a control group taking placebo capsules, reports the first study of its kind.

“Our finding[s] provide a simple, inexpensive, and effective prevention strategy for chemotherapy-related side effects, including cognitive impairment,” senior author Jianbin Tong, MD, PhD, of the department of anesthesiology, Third Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China, said in an interview.

The research “is the first study showing that probiotics supplementation during chemotherapy can prevent chemotherapy-related brain impairment,” he noted.

The double-blind, randomized study was published in the European Journal of Cancer. It involved 159 patients in China with stage I-III breast cancer who required adjuvant chemotherapy between 2018 and 2019. These patients were randomized to receive a regimen of three capsules twice per day containing either probiotics (n = 80) or placebo (n = 79) during their chemotherapy.

The probiotic capsule (Bifico, Sine Pharmaceuticals) contained Bifidobacterium longum, Lactobacillus acidophilus, and Enterococcus faecalis (210 mg of each).

The reductions in symptoms seen with the supplementation “exceed our expectations,” Dr. Tong said in an interview.

He speculated that this may have longer-term effects, with the prevention of initial cognitive impairment potentially “changing the neurodegenerative trajectory of patients after chemotherapy.”

“Patients don’t need to take probiotics continuously, but it’s better to take probiotics intermittently,” he said.

Approached for comment, Melanie Sekeres, PhD, Canada Research Chair and assistant professor at the University of Ottawa, said the improvements, such as those seen in delayed recall, are especially of interest.

“This is particularly notable because one of the brain regions that is critically involved in long-term memory processing, the hippocampus, is known to be highly sensitive to chemotherapy-induced neurotoxicity,” she said in an interview.

“The finding that probiotic treatment given alongside chemotherapy is sufficient to, in part, protect against memory disturbances in these patients suggests that there may be some neuroprotection conferred by the probiotic treatment,” she said.

A key question is whether similar results would be seen with other chemotherapy regimens, Dr. Sekeres added. “To better understand the effectiveness of these probiotics in preventing CRCI, they should be tested using other classes of chemotherapies before any broad conclusions can be made.”
 

Measuring the effect on ‘chemo brain’

“Chemo brain” is commonly reported after chemotherapy, and some 35% of patients report having long-term effects. Key symptoms include deficits in memory, attention, and executive and processing speed skills.

In their study, Dr. Tong and colleagues assessed patients on their cognitive status with a number of validated neuropsychological battery tests 1 day prior to initiating chemotherapy and 21 days after the last cycle of chemotherapy. Tests included the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test–Revised for verbal memory, the Brief Visuospatial Memory Test–Revised for visuospatial memory, and various others.

The team reports that, after adjustment for confounding factors, the total incidence of CRCI was significantly lower in the probiotics group versus the placebo group 21 days post chemotherapy (35% vs. 81%; relative risk, 0.43).

Rates of mild cognitive impairment were also lower in the probiotics group (29% vs 52%; RR, 0.55), as were rates of moderate cognitive impairment (6% vs. 29%; RR, 0.22).

The improvements with probiotics were observed across most other neuropsychological domains, including instantaneous verbal memory and delayed visuospatial memory (for both, P = .003) and visuospatial interference and verbal fluency (for both, P < .001).

The greater improvements in the probiotics group were seen regardless of use of other medications or the type of chemotherapy regimen received, which could have included epirubicin or docetaxel and/or cyclophosphamide.

CRCI was more common in patients who were older and had lower education or a higher body mass index; however, the improvements in the probiotics group were observed regardless of those factors, the authors commented.

In addition to the reduction in cognitive impairment that was seen, the treatment with probiotics was also associated with lower blood glucose (mean, 4.96 vs. 5.30; P = .02) and lower LDL cholesterol (2.61 vs. 2.89; P = .03) versus placebo, while there were no significant differences between the groups prior to chemotherapy.

There were no reports of severe emesis or constipation (grade 3 or higher) in either group; however, the probiotics group did have a significantly lower incidence of both, the authors note.
 

How does it work?

The potential benefits with probiotics are theorized to result from stabilizing the colonic and bacterial disruptions that are caused by chemotherapy, potentially offsetting the neuroinflammation that is linked to the cancer treatment, the authors speculated.

A subanalysis of 78 stool samples from 20 patients in the study showed no differences in alpha diversity or beta diversity before or after chemotherapy; however, there were significant reductions in the abundance of Streptococcus and Tyzzerella (P = .023 and P = .033, respectively) in the probiotics group after chemotherapy.

Further analysis showed that probiotics supplement modulated the levels of nine plasma metabolites in patients with breast cancer, with the results suggesting that metabolites (including p-mentha-1,8-dien-7-ol) “may be modulators in preventing CRCI by probiotics,” the authors noted.
 

Benefits reported beyond breast cancer

A subsequent trial conducted by Dr. Tong and colleagues following the CRCI study further showed similar protective benefits with probiotics in the prevention of chemotherapy-related hand-foot syndrome and oral mucositis.

And in a recent study, the research team found evidence of probiotic supplements protecting against cognitive impairment in the elderly following surgery.

The study received support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Subproject of the National Key Research and Development Program Project of China, science and technology innovation platform and talent plan of Hunan province and Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province.

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

Patients with breast cancer treated with chemotherapy who also took a probiotics supplement had significantly fewer symptoms of chemotherapy-related cognitive impairment (CRCI) often referred to as “chemo brain,” compared with a control group taking placebo capsules, reports the first study of its kind.

“Our finding[s] provide a simple, inexpensive, and effective prevention strategy for chemotherapy-related side effects, including cognitive impairment,” senior author Jianbin Tong, MD, PhD, of the department of anesthesiology, Third Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China, said in an interview.

The research “is the first study showing that probiotics supplementation during chemotherapy can prevent chemotherapy-related brain impairment,” he noted.

The double-blind, randomized study was published in the European Journal of Cancer. It involved 159 patients in China with stage I-III breast cancer who required adjuvant chemotherapy between 2018 and 2019. These patients were randomized to receive a regimen of three capsules twice per day containing either probiotics (n = 80) or placebo (n = 79) during their chemotherapy.

The probiotic capsule (Bifico, Sine Pharmaceuticals) contained Bifidobacterium longum, Lactobacillus acidophilus, and Enterococcus faecalis (210 mg of each).

The reductions in symptoms seen with the supplementation “exceed our expectations,” Dr. Tong said in an interview.

He speculated that this may have longer-term effects, with the prevention of initial cognitive impairment potentially “changing the neurodegenerative trajectory of patients after chemotherapy.”

“Patients don’t need to take probiotics continuously, but it’s better to take probiotics intermittently,” he said.

Approached for comment, Melanie Sekeres, PhD, Canada Research Chair and assistant professor at the University of Ottawa, said the improvements, such as those seen in delayed recall, are especially of interest.

“This is particularly notable because one of the brain regions that is critically involved in long-term memory processing, the hippocampus, is known to be highly sensitive to chemotherapy-induced neurotoxicity,” she said in an interview.

“The finding that probiotic treatment given alongside chemotherapy is sufficient to, in part, protect against memory disturbances in these patients suggests that there may be some neuroprotection conferred by the probiotic treatment,” she said.

A key question is whether similar results would be seen with other chemotherapy regimens, Dr. Sekeres added. “To better understand the effectiveness of these probiotics in preventing CRCI, they should be tested using other classes of chemotherapies before any broad conclusions can be made.”
 

Measuring the effect on ‘chemo brain’

“Chemo brain” is commonly reported after chemotherapy, and some 35% of patients report having long-term effects. Key symptoms include deficits in memory, attention, and executive and processing speed skills.

In their study, Dr. Tong and colleagues assessed patients on their cognitive status with a number of validated neuropsychological battery tests 1 day prior to initiating chemotherapy and 21 days after the last cycle of chemotherapy. Tests included the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test–Revised for verbal memory, the Brief Visuospatial Memory Test–Revised for visuospatial memory, and various others.

The team reports that, after adjustment for confounding factors, the total incidence of CRCI was significantly lower in the probiotics group versus the placebo group 21 days post chemotherapy (35% vs. 81%; relative risk, 0.43).

Rates of mild cognitive impairment were also lower in the probiotics group (29% vs 52%; RR, 0.55), as were rates of moderate cognitive impairment (6% vs. 29%; RR, 0.22).

The improvements with probiotics were observed across most other neuropsychological domains, including instantaneous verbal memory and delayed visuospatial memory (for both, P = .003) and visuospatial interference and verbal fluency (for both, P < .001).

The greater improvements in the probiotics group were seen regardless of use of other medications or the type of chemotherapy regimen received, which could have included epirubicin or docetaxel and/or cyclophosphamide.

CRCI was more common in patients who were older and had lower education or a higher body mass index; however, the improvements in the probiotics group were observed regardless of those factors, the authors commented.

In addition to the reduction in cognitive impairment that was seen, the treatment with probiotics was also associated with lower blood glucose (mean, 4.96 vs. 5.30; P = .02) and lower LDL cholesterol (2.61 vs. 2.89; P = .03) versus placebo, while there were no significant differences between the groups prior to chemotherapy.

There were no reports of severe emesis or constipation (grade 3 or higher) in either group; however, the probiotics group did have a significantly lower incidence of both, the authors note.
 

How does it work?

The potential benefits with probiotics are theorized to result from stabilizing the colonic and bacterial disruptions that are caused by chemotherapy, potentially offsetting the neuroinflammation that is linked to the cancer treatment, the authors speculated.

A subanalysis of 78 stool samples from 20 patients in the study showed no differences in alpha diversity or beta diversity before or after chemotherapy; however, there were significant reductions in the abundance of Streptococcus and Tyzzerella (P = .023 and P = .033, respectively) in the probiotics group after chemotherapy.

Further analysis showed that probiotics supplement modulated the levels of nine plasma metabolites in patients with breast cancer, with the results suggesting that metabolites (including p-mentha-1,8-dien-7-ol) “may be modulators in preventing CRCI by probiotics,” the authors noted.
 

Benefits reported beyond breast cancer

A subsequent trial conducted by Dr. Tong and colleagues following the CRCI study further showed similar protective benefits with probiotics in the prevention of chemotherapy-related hand-foot syndrome and oral mucositis.

And in a recent study, the research team found evidence of probiotic supplements protecting against cognitive impairment in the elderly following surgery.

The study received support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Subproject of the National Key Research and Development Program Project of China, science and technology innovation platform and talent plan of Hunan province and Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province.

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

Two expert analyses appearing in the same issue of the Journal of Thoracic Oncology arrive at opposite conclusions regarding the value for metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) of combining first-generation endothelial growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) with either chemotherapy or vascular EGF (VEGF) monoclonal antibodies. One affirms single-agent EGFR TKI treatment, such as with osimertinib, as the current standard of care for first-line advanced metastatic EGFR-positive mNSCLC, and the other affirms clear benefits for first-generation EGFR TKIs combined with either chemotherapy or VEGF monoclonal antibodies.

In the analysis supporting combination therapy for mNSCLC, Sara Moore, MD, and Paul Wheatley-Price MD, wrote that while targeted therapy with EGFR TKIs is highly effective initially, resistance inevitably develops.

Recent data, they stated, have demonstrated that combination strategies can delay development of resistance and improve outcomes for mNSCLC populations. Combining first-generation EGFR TKIs with either chemotherapy or VEGF monoclonal antibodies has led to consistent improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in some cases. In the NEJ009 trial, the combination of chemotherapy (carboplatin and pemetrexed, with pemetrexed maintenance) plus gefitinib versus gefitinib alone improved response rate (84% vs. 67%, P < 0.001), PFS (median, 20.9 months vs. 11.2 months; P < .001), and OS (median, 50.9 months vs. 38.8 months; P = .021). An increase in adverse events in the chemotherapy arm led to a decrease in quality of life.

Another clinical trial (by Noronha and colleagues) conducted in India of the same combination found benefit for combination therapy in response rate (75% vs. 63%), PFS (median, 16 months vs. 8 months), and OS (not reached vs. 17 months). Grade 3 or higher adverse event rates were higher with the combination (51% vs. 25%) with quality of life was not yet reported.

While both trials have been criticized owing to a lack of standard T790M resistance testing and low use of osimertinib in subsequent lines of therapy, Dr. Moore and Dr. Wheatley-Price pointed out: “Even with the use of first-line osimertinib monotherapy, patients may still be exposed to chemotherapy with later lines of treatment. Therefore, combination therapy does not expose patients to new toxicity, it simply changes when they will be exposed to that toxicity during their treatment course.”

The importance of using combination therapy in the first-line setting, they stated, is underscored by the consistent drop-off in patients who receive second-line combination therapy. In the phase 3 FLAURA trial of first-line osimertinib monotherapy, of the patients who discontinued osimertinib, the most common reason for not receiving subsequent therapy was death (60% went on to receive further systemic therapy). This highlights the need to use the most effective treatments up front, Dr. Moore and Dr. Wheatley-Price wrote.

The four large trials of VEGF-targeted therapy with either monoclonal antibodies or TKIs added to first-generation EGFR TKIs have consistently shown improved PFS. Increased toxicities led to discontinuation of VEGF-targeted therapy in 20%-30%.

In the RELAY trial, however, despite more toxicities, quality of life was not diminished. In general, the authors concluded that long-term detriments to quality of life have not been demonstrated. Ongoing studies of osimertinib in combination with VEGF inhibition include a phase 1/2 trial with bevacizumab in previously untreated patients showing an 80% response rate (median PFS, 18.4 months) with no unexpected toxicity.

Chemotherapy-based treatment for mNSCLC with third-generation EGFR TKIs, in appropriately selected patients, the authors concluded, “can offer an additional standard-of-care option as first-line treatment of EGFR-mutant lung cancer.”

Since the introduction of EGFR TKIs, Sophie Stock-Martineau, MD and Frances A. Shepherd, MD noted in their analysis, researchers have aimed to improve their efficacy through combining them with other agents. The authors review research on the addition of chemo- or immunotherapy and agents targeting major resistance mechanisms such as MET. Their review of the same NEJ009 trial focuses, however, on the 65.3% (EGFR TKI plus chemotherapy) versus 31.0% (gefitinib alone) grade 3 adverse event rate, and the 51% versus 25% grade 3 adverse event rate in a similar trial by Noronha and colleagues. The review by Dr. Stock-Martineau and Dr. Shepherd further found that, while adding antiangiogenic agents to an EGFR TKI “mildly” prolongs PFS, survival benefits have not been demonstrated. The added costs, not just in toxicity, were a “far from negligible” $120,000 above the cost of bevacizumab alone for 16 treatments. Data from trials of immune checkpoint inhibitors added to EGFR TKIs reveal heightened toxicities and limited efficacy. Trials of EGFR monoclonal antibodies with an EGFR TKI showed no PFS or OS benefit and were terminated early. Similarly, evidence to date shows no benefit beyond that shown for EGFR TKI monotherapy with the addition of a MET inhibitor.

“Adding virtually all agents to EGFR TKIs has been associated with more toxicity to patients and a significant financial burden to the health care system,” Dr. Stock-Martineau and Dr. Shepherd concluded, further observing that combinations, given their heightened toxicity profiles, could potentially also worsen quality of life.

No conflicts of interest were reported by the authors of either study.

Two expert analyses appearing in the same issue of the Journal of Thoracic Oncology arrive at opposite conclusions regarding the value for metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) of combining first-generation endothelial growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) with either chemotherapy or vascular EGF (VEGF) monoclonal antibodies. One affirms single-agent EGFR TKI treatment, such as with osimertinib, as the current standard of care for first-line advanced metastatic EGFR-positive mNSCLC, and the other affirms clear benefits for first-generation EGFR TKIs combined with either chemotherapy or VEGF monoclonal antibodies.

In the analysis supporting combination therapy for mNSCLC, Sara Moore, MD, and Paul Wheatley-Price MD, wrote that while targeted therapy with EGFR TKIs is highly effective initially, resistance inevitably develops.

Recent data, they stated, have demonstrated that combination strategies can delay development of resistance and improve outcomes for mNSCLC populations. Combining first-generation EGFR TKIs with either chemotherapy or VEGF monoclonal antibodies has led to consistent improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in some cases. In the NEJ009 trial, the combination of chemotherapy (carboplatin and pemetrexed, with pemetrexed maintenance) plus gefitinib versus gefitinib alone improved response rate (84% vs. 67%, P < 0.001), PFS (median, 20.9 months vs. 11.2 months; P < .001), and OS (median, 50.9 months vs. 38.8 months; P = .021). An increase in adverse events in the chemotherapy arm led to a decrease in quality of life.

Another clinical trial (by Noronha and colleagues) conducted in India of the same combination found benefit for combination therapy in response rate (75% vs. 63%), PFS (median, 16 months vs. 8 months), and OS (not reached vs. 17 months). Grade 3 or higher adverse event rates were higher with the combination (51% vs. 25%) with quality of life was not yet reported.

While both trials have been criticized owing to a lack of standard T790M resistance testing and low use of osimertinib in subsequent lines of therapy, Dr. Moore and Dr. Wheatley-Price pointed out: “Even with the use of first-line osimertinib monotherapy, patients may still be exposed to chemotherapy with later lines of treatment. Therefore, combination therapy does not expose patients to new toxicity, it simply changes when they will be exposed to that toxicity during their treatment course.”

The importance of using combination therapy in the first-line setting, they stated, is underscored by the consistent drop-off in patients who receive second-line combination therapy. In the phase 3 FLAURA trial of first-line osimertinib monotherapy, of the patients who discontinued osimertinib, the most common reason for not receiving subsequent therapy was death (60% went on to receive further systemic therapy). This highlights the need to use the most effective treatments up front, Dr. Moore and Dr. Wheatley-Price wrote.

The four large trials of VEGF-targeted therapy with either monoclonal antibodies or TKIs added to first-generation EGFR TKIs have consistently shown improved PFS. Increased toxicities led to discontinuation of VEGF-targeted therapy in 20%-30%.

In the RELAY trial, however, despite more toxicities, quality of life was not diminished. In general, the authors concluded that long-term detriments to quality of life have not been demonstrated. Ongoing studies of osimertinib in combination with VEGF inhibition include a phase 1/2 trial with bevacizumab in previously untreated patients showing an 80% response rate (median PFS, 18.4 months) with no unexpected toxicity.

Chemotherapy-based treatment for mNSCLC with third-generation EGFR TKIs, in appropriately selected patients, the authors concluded, “can offer an additional standard-of-care option as first-line treatment of EGFR-mutant lung cancer.”

Since the introduction of EGFR TKIs, Sophie Stock-Martineau, MD and Frances A. Shepherd, MD noted in their analysis, researchers have aimed to improve their efficacy through combining them with other agents. The authors review research on the addition of chemo- or immunotherapy and agents targeting major resistance mechanisms such as MET. Their review of the same NEJ009 trial focuses, however, on the 65.3% (EGFR TKI plus chemotherapy) versus 31.0% (gefitinib alone) grade 3 adverse event rate, and the 51% versus 25% grade 3 adverse event rate in a similar trial by Noronha and colleagues. The review by Dr. Stock-Martineau and Dr. Shepherd further found that, while adding antiangiogenic agents to an EGFR TKI “mildly” prolongs PFS, survival benefits have not been demonstrated. The added costs, not just in toxicity, were a “far from negligible” $120,000 above the cost of bevacizumab alone for 16 treatments. Data from trials of immune checkpoint inhibitors added to EGFR TKIs reveal heightened toxicities and limited efficacy. Trials of EGFR monoclonal antibodies with an EGFR TKI showed no PFS or OS benefit and were terminated early. Similarly, evidence to date shows no benefit beyond that shown for EGFR TKI monotherapy with the addition of a MET inhibitor.

“Adding virtually all agents to EGFR TKIs has been associated with more toxicity to patients and a significant financial burden to the health care system,” Dr. Stock-Martineau and Dr. Shepherd concluded, further observing that combinations, given their heightened toxicity profiles, could potentially also worsen quality of life.

No conflicts of interest were reported by the authors of either study.

Two expert analyses appearing in the same issue of the Journal of Thoracic Oncology arrive at opposite conclusions regarding the value for metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) of combining first-generation endothelial growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) with either chemotherapy or vascular EGF (VEGF) monoclonal antibodies. One affirms single-agent EGFR TKI treatment, such as with osimertinib, as the current standard of care for first-line advanced metastatic EGFR-positive mNSCLC, and the other affirms clear benefits for first-generation EGFR TKIs combined with either chemotherapy or VEGF monoclonal antibodies.

In the analysis supporting combination therapy for mNSCLC, Sara Moore, MD, and Paul Wheatley-Price MD, wrote that while targeted therapy with EGFR TKIs is highly effective initially, resistance inevitably develops.

Recent data, they stated, have demonstrated that combination strategies can delay development of resistance and improve outcomes for mNSCLC populations. Combining first-generation EGFR TKIs with either chemotherapy or VEGF monoclonal antibodies has led to consistent improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in some cases. In the NEJ009 trial, the combination of chemotherapy (carboplatin and pemetrexed, with pemetrexed maintenance) plus gefitinib versus gefitinib alone improved response rate (84% vs. 67%, P < 0.001), PFS (median, 20.9 months vs. 11.2 months; P < .001), and OS (median, 50.9 months vs. 38.8 months; P = .021). An increase in adverse events in the chemotherapy arm led to a decrease in quality of life.

Another clinical trial (by Noronha and colleagues) conducted in India of the same combination found benefit for combination therapy in response rate (75% vs. 63%), PFS (median, 16 months vs. 8 months), and OS (not reached vs. 17 months). Grade 3 or higher adverse event rates were higher with the combination (51% vs. 25%) with quality of life was not yet reported.

While both trials have been criticized owing to a lack of standard T790M resistance testing and low use of osimertinib in subsequent lines of therapy, Dr. Moore and Dr. Wheatley-Price pointed out: “Even with the use of first-line osimertinib monotherapy, patients may still be exposed to chemotherapy with later lines of treatment. Therefore, combination therapy does not expose patients to new toxicity, it simply changes when they will be exposed to that toxicity during their treatment course.”

The importance of using combination therapy in the first-line setting, they stated, is underscored by the consistent drop-off in patients who receive second-line combination therapy. In the phase 3 FLAURA trial of first-line osimertinib monotherapy, of the patients who discontinued osimertinib, the most common reason for not receiving subsequent therapy was death (60% went on to receive further systemic therapy). This highlights the need to use the most effective treatments up front, Dr. Moore and Dr. Wheatley-Price wrote.

The four large trials of VEGF-targeted therapy with either monoclonal antibodies or TKIs added to first-generation EGFR TKIs have consistently shown improved PFS. Increased toxicities led to discontinuation of VEGF-targeted therapy in 20%-30%.

In the RELAY trial, however, despite more toxicities, quality of life was not diminished. In general, the authors concluded that long-term detriments to quality of life have not been demonstrated. Ongoing studies of osimertinib in combination with VEGF inhibition include a phase 1/2 trial with bevacizumab in previously untreated patients showing an 80% response rate (median PFS, 18.4 months) with no unexpected toxicity.

Chemotherapy-based treatment for mNSCLC with third-generation EGFR TKIs, in appropriately selected patients, the authors concluded, “can offer an additional standard-of-care option as first-line treatment of EGFR-mutant lung cancer.”

Since the introduction of EGFR TKIs, Sophie Stock-Martineau, MD and Frances A. Shepherd, MD noted in their analysis, researchers have aimed to improve their efficacy through combining them with other agents. The authors review research on the addition of chemo- or immunotherapy and agents targeting major resistance mechanisms such as MET. Their review of the same NEJ009 trial focuses, however, on the 65.3% (EGFR TKI plus chemotherapy) versus 31.0% (gefitinib alone) grade 3 adverse event rate, and the 51% versus 25% grade 3 adverse event rate in a similar trial by Noronha and colleagues. The review by Dr. Stock-Martineau and Dr. Shepherd further found that, while adding antiangiogenic agents to an EGFR TKI “mildly” prolongs PFS, survival benefits have not been demonstrated. The added costs, not just in toxicity, were a “far from negligible” $120,000 above the cost of bevacizumab alone for 16 treatments. Data from trials of immune checkpoint inhibitors added to EGFR TKIs reveal heightened toxicities and limited efficacy. Trials of EGFR monoclonal antibodies with an EGFR TKI showed no PFS or OS benefit and were terminated early. Similarly, evidence to date shows no benefit beyond that shown for EGFR TKI monotherapy with the addition of a MET inhibitor.

“Adding virtually all agents to EGFR TKIs has been associated with more toxicity to patients and a significant financial burden to the health care system,” Dr. Stock-Martineau and Dr. Shepherd concluded, further observing that combinations, given their heightened toxicity profiles, could potentially also worsen quality of life.

No conflicts of interest were reported by the authors of either study.

Abraxane, a chemotherapy treatment for advanced pancreatic cancer, advanced non–small cell lung cancer and metastatic breast cancer, is on allocation through early March because of manufacturing delays, forcing physicians to find alternatives for a drug once lauded for being easier to tolerate.

Abraxane (Bristol-Myers Squibb) is a paclitaxel albumin-bound injectable. It is different from alternative chemotherapy treatments like Taxol (paclitaxel) because it doesn’t use the solvents that can make Taxol difficult to tolerate. It was described as a “next-generation taxane” because it didn’t rely on solvents. It was approved in 2005 for metastatic breast cancer, then in 2012 for advanced non–small cell lung cancer, in 2013 for late-stage pancreatic cancer and in 2019 for people with PD-L1–positive metastatic triple-negative breast cancer.

The shortage, which was announced on Oct. 5, 2021, by the Food and Drug Administration, has led to some difficult decisions for patients and physicians. How long the shortage will last isn’t clear.

“I printed out [an] allotment sheet 2 days ago, and all it says [for Abraxane] is allocated,” said Kathy Oubre, MS, CEO of Pontchartrain Cancer Center, Hammond, La. “Everyone is keeping what they’ve got for their own patients, so there really isn’t anything available.”

The Pontchartrain Cancer Center sent two patients to the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, for continued treatment with Abraxane, but that option is costly and time consuming for patients. The two patients had the means to travel, but Ms. Oubre said that many others cannot afford to travel for treatment. “Everyone has patients who are living paycheck to paycheck who certainly couldn’t afford to do that. There are going to be patients across the nation that are not going to be able to have care as a result of these things.”

The supply problems are causing difficult decisions for physicians, who may have to switch a patient from an unavailable drug to an alternative that isn’t as effective, Ms. Oubre said. “I can’t imagine the stress and the sadness that the physicians have to feel when they have to go explain that to a patient. That runs counter to everything they are as physicians.”

Other strategies include chemo holidays and rounding down doses in patients with metastatic cancer, according to Camille Hill, PharmD, vice president of oncology pharmacy services, West Cancer Center, Germantown, Tenn.

Shortages and allocations are growing at an alarming rate, Ms. Oubre said. In her 15 years of working in the industry, “I don’t recall it ever being this challenging.” During a Zoom interview, she held up a lengthy list of drugs on allocation or unavailable that her pharmacy group purchasing organization sent her the previous week. “I don’t ever recall getting this kind of list. Every 3 days, I’m getting this. If it were just that one product, I can live with that. We figure it out. But it’s bigger than that.”

Worker shortages are exacerbating the issue. Ms. Oubre received a letter from a drug company describing its employee issues, which included chemists, plant workers, and loading dock staff. On top of that, delivery companies are experiencing staff shortages, which can result in more delays and complicate matters further. “It’s just compounding. These things can get really difficult very quickly. I don’t want to say we’re in crisis, and we’re not rationing care. We’re not in those buckets yet. But I would say that if these things don’t get better, it’s the first time in my work career that we are having those conversations of: ‘How we are going to plan for that it does come to that?’ ” she said.

“In general, with the pandemic, we have seen all sorts of just disruptions to the supply chain. So, I think you just do your best, you find alternatives for those patients that you can, and you come up with strategies. I don’t know that for Abraxane, or any other product, that I’d be particularly confident that we may not see another shortage,” Dr. Hill said.

Abraxane, a chemotherapy treatment for advanced pancreatic cancer, advanced non–small cell lung cancer and metastatic breast cancer, is on allocation through early March because of manufacturing delays, forcing physicians to find alternatives for a drug once lauded for being easier to tolerate.

Abraxane (Bristol-Myers Squibb) is a paclitaxel albumin-bound injectable. It is different from alternative chemotherapy treatments like Taxol (paclitaxel) because it doesn’t use the solvents that can make Taxol difficult to tolerate. It was described as a “next-generation taxane” because it didn’t rely on solvents. It was approved in 2005 for metastatic breast cancer, then in 2012 for advanced non–small cell lung cancer, in 2013 for late-stage pancreatic cancer and in 2019 for people with PD-L1–positive metastatic triple-negative breast cancer.

The shortage, which was announced on Oct. 5, 2021, by the Food and Drug Administration, has led to some difficult decisions for patients and physicians. How long the shortage will last isn’t clear.

“I printed out [an] allotment sheet 2 days ago, and all it says [for Abraxane] is allocated,” said Kathy Oubre, MS, CEO of Pontchartrain Cancer Center, Hammond, La. “Everyone is keeping what they’ve got for their own patients, so there really isn’t anything available.”

The Pontchartrain Cancer Center sent two patients to the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, for continued treatment with Abraxane, but that option is costly and time consuming for patients. The two patients had the means to travel, but Ms. Oubre said that many others cannot afford to travel for treatment. “Everyone has patients who are living paycheck to paycheck who certainly couldn’t afford to do that. There are going to be patients across the nation that are not going to be able to have care as a result of these things.”

The supply problems are causing difficult decisions for physicians, who may have to switch a patient from an unavailable drug to an alternative that isn’t as effective, Ms. Oubre said. “I can’t imagine the stress and the sadness that the physicians have to feel when they have to go explain that to a patient. That runs counter to everything they are as physicians.”

Other strategies include chemo holidays and rounding down doses in patients with metastatic cancer, according to Camille Hill, PharmD, vice president of oncology pharmacy services, West Cancer Center, Germantown, Tenn.

Shortages and allocations are growing at an alarming rate, Ms. Oubre said. In her 15 years of working in the industry, “I don’t recall it ever being this challenging.” During a Zoom interview, she held up a lengthy list of drugs on allocation or unavailable that her pharmacy group purchasing organization sent her the previous week. “I don’t ever recall getting this kind of list. Every 3 days, I’m getting this. If it were just that one product, I can live with that. We figure it out. But it’s bigger than that.”

Worker shortages are exacerbating the issue. Ms. Oubre received a letter from a drug company describing its employee issues, which included chemists, plant workers, and loading dock staff. On top of that, delivery companies are experiencing staff shortages, which can result in more delays and complicate matters further. “It’s just compounding. These things can get really difficult very quickly. I don’t want to say we’re in crisis, and we’re not rationing care. We’re not in those buckets yet. But I would say that if these things don’t get better, it’s the first time in my work career that we are having those conversations of: ‘How we are going to plan for that it does come to that?’ ” she said.

“In general, with the pandemic, we have seen all sorts of just disruptions to the supply chain. So, I think you just do your best, you find alternatives for those patients that you can, and you come up with strategies. I don’t know that for Abraxane, or any other product, that I’d be particularly confident that we may not see another shortage,” Dr. Hill said.

Abraxane, a chemotherapy treatment for advanced pancreatic cancer, advanced non–small cell lung cancer and metastatic breast cancer, is on allocation through early March because of manufacturing delays, forcing physicians to find alternatives for a drug once lauded for being easier to tolerate.

Abraxane (Bristol-Myers Squibb) is a paclitaxel albumin-bound injectable. It is different from alternative chemotherapy treatments like Taxol (paclitaxel) because it doesn’t use the solvents that can make Taxol difficult to tolerate. It was described as a “next-generation taxane” because it didn’t rely on solvents. It was approved in 2005 for metastatic breast cancer, then in 2012 for advanced non–small cell lung cancer, in 2013 for late-stage pancreatic cancer and in 2019 for people with PD-L1–positive metastatic triple-negative breast cancer.

The shortage, which was announced on Oct. 5, 2021, by the Food and Drug Administration, has led to some difficult decisions for patients and physicians. How long the shortage will last isn’t clear.

“I printed out [an] allotment sheet 2 days ago, and all it says [for Abraxane] is allocated,” said Kathy Oubre, MS, CEO of Pontchartrain Cancer Center, Hammond, La. “Everyone is keeping what they’ve got for their own patients, so there really isn’t anything available.”

The Pontchartrain Cancer Center sent two patients to the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, for continued treatment with Abraxane, but that option is costly and time consuming for patients. The two patients had the means to travel, but Ms. Oubre said that many others cannot afford to travel for treatment. “Everyone has patients who are living paycheck to paycheck who certainly couldn’t afford to do that. There are going to be patients across the nation that are not going to be able to have care as a result of these things.”

The supply problems are causing difficult decisions for physicians, who may have to switch a patient from an unavailable drug to an alternative that isn’t as effective, Ms. Oubre said. “I can’t imagine the stress and the sadness that the physicians have to feel when they have to go explain that to a patient. That runs counter to everything they are as physicians.”

Other strategies include chemo holidays and rounding down doses in patients with metastatic cancer, according to Camille Hill, PharmD, vice president of oncology pharmacy services, West Cancer Center, Germantown, Tenn.

Shortages and allocations are growing at an alarming rate, Ms. Oubre said. In her 15 years of working in the industry, “I don’t recall it ever being this challenging.” During a Zoom interview, she held up a lengthy list of drugs on allocation or unavailable that her pharmacy group purchasing organization sent her the previous week. “I don’t ever recall getting this kind of list. Every 3 days, I’m getting this. If it were just that one product, I can live with that. We figure it out. But it’s bigger than that.”

Worker shortages are exacerbating the issue. Ms. Oubre received a letter from a drug company describing its employee issues, which included chemists, plant workers, and loading dock staff. On top of that, delivery companies are experiencing staff shortages, which can result in more delays and complicate matters further. “It’s just compounding. These things can get really difficult very quickly. I don’t want to say we’re in crisis, and we’re not rationing care. We’re not in those buckets yet. But I would say that if these things don’t get better, it’s the first time in my work career that we are having those conversations of: ‘How we are going to plan for that it does come to that?’ ” she said.

“In general, with the pandemic, we have seen all sorts of just disruptions to the supply chain. So, I think you just do your best, you find alternatives for those patients that you can, and you come up with strategies. I don’t know that for Abraxane, or any other product, that I’d be particularly confident that we may not see another shortage,” Dr. Hill said.

Two close colleagues at New York’s Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, world leaders in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) who were both promoted days after COVID-19 locked down the city in 2020, were too busy battling the pandemic’s impact on patients in the summer of 2021 to notice their latest shared career milestone.

On July 29, 2021, Sergio Giralt, MD, deputy division head of the division of hematologic malignancies and Miguel-Angel Perales, MD, chief of the adult bone marrow transplant service at MSKCC, published their 100th peer-reviewed paper as coauthors. Listing hundreds of such articles on a CV is standard for top-tier physicians, but the pair had gone one better: 100 publications written together in 10 years.

Their centenary article hit scientific newsstands almost exactly a decade after their first joint paper, which appeared in September 2011, not long after they met.

Born in Cuba, Dr. Giralt grew up in Venezuela. From the age of 14, he knew that medicine was his path, and in 1984 he earned a medical degree from the Universidad Central de Venezuela, Caracas. Next came a research position at Harvard Medical School, a residency at the Good Samaritan Hospital, Cincinnati, and a fellowship at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. Dr. Giralt arrived at MSKCC in 2010 as the new chief of the adult bone marrow transplant service. There he was introduced to a new colleague, Dr. Perales. They soon learned that in addition to expertise in hematology, they had second language in common: Spanish.

Dr. Giralt said: “We both have a Spanish background and in a certain sense, there was an affinity there. ... We both have shared experiences.”

Dr. Perales was brought up in Belgium, a European nation with three official languages: French, Dutch, and German. He speaks five tongues in all and learned Spanish from his father, who came from Spain.

Courtesy MSKCC

Fluency in Spanish enables both physicians to take care of the many New Yorkers who are more comfortable in that language – especially when navigating cancer treatment. However, both Dr. Giralt and Dr. Perales said that a second language is more than a professional tool. They described the enjoyable change of persona that happens when they switch to Spanish.

“People who are multilingual have different roles [as much as] different languages,” said Dr. Perales. “When I’m in Spanish, part of my brain is [thinking back to] summer vacations and hanging out with my cousins.”

When it comes to clinical science, however, English is the language of choice.
 

Global leaders in HSCT

Dr. Giralt and Dr. Perales are known worldwide in the field of allogeneic HSCT, a potentially curative treatment for an elongating list of both malignant and nonmalignant diseases.

In 1973, MSKCC conducted the first bone-marrow transplant from an unrelated donor. Fifty years on, medical oncologists in the United States conduct approximately 8,500 allogeneic transplants each year, 72% to treat acute leukemias or myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS).

However, stripping the immune system with intensive chemotherapy ‘conditioning,’ then rebuilding it with non-diseased donor hematopoietic cells is a hazardous undertaking. Older patients are less likely to survive the intensive conditioning, so historically have missed out. Also, even with a good human leukocyte antigen (HLA) match, the recipient needs often brutal immunosuppression.

Since Dr. Giralt and Dr. Perales began their partnership in 2010, the goals of their work have not changed: to develop safer, lower-intensity transplantation suitable for older, more vulnerable patients and reduce fearsome posttransplant sequelae such as graft-versus-host disease (GVHD).

Dr. Giralt’s publication list spans more than 600 peer-reviewed papers, articles and book chapters, almost exclusively on HSCT. Dr. Perales has more than 300 publication credits on the topic.

The two paired up on their first paper just months after Dr. Giralt arrived at MSKCC. That article, published in Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation, compared umbilical cord blood for HSCT with donor blood in 367 people with a variety of hematologic malignancies, including acute and chronic leukemias, MDS, and lymphoma.

Courtesy MSKCC

The MSKCC team found that transplant-related mortality in the first 180 days was higher for the cord blood (21%), but thereafter mortality and relapse were much lower than for donated blood, with the result that 2-year progression-free survival of 55% was similar. Dr. Perales, Dr. Giralt and their coauthors concluded that the data provided “strong support” for further work on cord blood as an alternative stem-cell source.

During their first decade of collaboration, Dr. Giralt and Dr. Perales worked on any promising avenue that could improve outcomes and the experience of HSCT recipients, including reduced-intensity conditioning regimens to allow older adults to benefit from curative HSCT and donor T-cell depletion by CD34 selection, to reduce graft-versus-host disease (GVHD).

The CD34 protein is typically found on the surface of early stage and highly active stem cell types. Selecting these cell types using a range of techniques can eliminate many other potentially interfering or inactive cells. This enriches the transplant population with the most effective cells and can lower the risk of GVHD.

The 100th paper on which Dr. Giralt and Dr. Perales were coauthors was published in Blood Advances on July 27, 2021. The retrospective study examined the fate of 58 MSKCC patients with a rare form of chronic lymphocytic leukemia, CLL with Richter’s transformation (CLL-RT). It was the largest such study to date of this rare disease.
M.D. Anderson Cancer Center had shown in 2006 that, despite chemotherapy, overall survival in patients with CLL-RT was approximately 8 months. HSCT improved survival dramatically (75% at 3 years; n = 7). However, with the advent of novel targeted drugs for CLL such as ibrutinib (Imbruvica), venetoclax (Venclexta), or idelalisib (Zydelig), the MSKCC team asked themselves: What was the role of reduced-intensive conditioning HSCT? Was it even safe? Among other findings, Dr. Giralt and Dr. Perales’ 100th paper showed that reduced-intensity HSCT remained a viable alternative after a CLL-RT patient progressed on a novel agent.

Impact of the pandemic

When COVID-19 hit, the team lost many research staff and developed a huge backlog, said Dr. Giralt. He and Dr. Perales realized that they needed to be “thoughtful and careful” about which studies to continue. “For example, the CD-34 selection trials we did not close because these are our workhorse trials,” Dr. Giralt said. “We have people we need to treat, and some of the patients that we need to treat can only be treated on trial.”

The team was also able to pivot some of their work into COVID 19 itself, and they collected crucial information on HSCT in recovered COVID-19 patients, as an example.

“We were living through a critical time, but that doesn’t mean we [aren’t] obligated to continue our mission, our research mission,” said Dr. Giralt. “It really is team science. The way we look at it ... there’s a common thread: We both like to do allogeneic transplant, and we both believe in trying to make CD-34 selection better. So we’re both very much [working on] how can we improve what we call ‘the Memorial way’ of doing transplants. Where we separate is, Miguel does primarily lymphoma. He doesn’t do myeloma [like me]. So in those two areas, we’re helping develop the junior faculty in a different way.”
 

Something more in common

Right from the start, Dr. Perales and Dr. Giralt also shared a commitment to mentoring. Since 2010, Dr. Perales has mentored 22 up-and-coming junior faculty, including 10 from Europe (8 from Spain) and 2 from Latin America.

“[It makes] the research enterprise much more productive but [these young scientists] really increase the visibility of the program,” said Dr. Giralt.

He cited Dr. Perales’ track record of mentoring as one of the reasons for his promotion to chief of the adult bone marrow transplant service. In March 2020, Dr. Perales seamlessly stepped into Dr. Giralt’s shoes, while Dr. Giralt moved on to his present role as deputy division head of the division of hematologic malignancies.

Dr. Perales said: “The key aspect [of these promotions] is the fantastic working relationship that we’ve had over the years. ... I consider Sergio my mentor, but also a good friend and colleague. And so I think it’s this ability that we’ve had to work together and that relationship of trust, which has been key.”

“Sergio is somebody who lifts people up,” Dr. Perales added. “Many people will tell you that Sergio has helped them in their career. ... And I think that’s a lesson I’ve learned from him: training the next generation. And [that’s] not just in the U.S., but outside. I think that’s a key role that we have. And our responsibility.”

Asked to comment on their 100th-paper milestone, Dr. Perales firmly turned the spotlight from himself and Dr. Giralt to the junior investigators who have passed through the doors of the bone-marrow transplant program: “This body of work represents not just our collaboration but also the many contributions of our team at MSK ... and beyond MSK.”

This article was updated 1/26/22.

Two close colleagues at New York’s Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, world leaders in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) who were both promoted days after COVID-19 locked down the city in 2020, were too busy battling the pandemic’s impact on patients in the summer of 2021 to notice their latest shared career milestone.

On July 29, 2021, Sergio Giralt, MD, deputy division head of the division of hematologic malignancies and Miguel-Angel Perales, MD, chief of the adult bone marrow transplant service at MSKCC, published their 100th peer-reviewed paper as coauthors. Listing hundreds of such articles on a CV is standard for top-tier physicians, but the pair had gone one better: 100 publications written together in 10 years.

Their centenary article hit scientific newsstands almost exactly a decade after their first joint paper, which appeared in September 2011, not long after they met.

Born in Cuba, Dr. Giralt grew up in Venezuela. From the age of 14, he knew that medicine was his path, and in 1984 he earned a medical degree from the Universidad Central de Venezuela, Caracas. Next came a research position at Harvard Medical School, a residency at the Good Samaritan Hospital, Cincinnati, and a fellowship at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. Dr. Giralt arrived at MSKCC in 2010 as the new chief of the adult bone marrow transplant service. There he was introduced to a new colleague, Dr. Perales. They soon learned that in addition to expertise in hematology, they had second language in common: Spanish.

Dr. Giralt said: “We both have a Spanish background and in a certain sense, there was an affinity there. ... We both have shared experiences.”

Dr. Perales was brought up in Belgium, a European nation with three official languages: French, Dutch, and German. He speaks five tongues in all and learned Spanish from his father, who came from Spain.

Courtesy MSKCC

Fluency in Spanish enables both physicians to take care of the many New Yorkers who are more comfortable in that language – especially when navigating cancer treatment. However, both Dr. Giralt and Dr. Perales said that a second language is more than a professional tool. They described the enjoyable change of persona that happens when they switch to Spanish.

“People who are multilingual have different roles [as much as] different languages,” said Dr. Perales. “When I’m in Spanish, part of my brain is [thinking back to] summer vacations and hanging out with my cousins.”

When it comes to clinical science, however, English is the language of choice.
 

Global leaders in HSCT

Dr. Giralt and Dr. Perales are known worldwide in the field of allogeneic HSCT, a potentially curative treatment for an elongating list of both malignant and nonmalignant diseases.

In 1973, MSKCC conducted the first bone-marrow transplant from an unrelated donor. Fifty years on, medical oncologists in the United States conduct approximately 8,500 allogeneic transplants each year, 72% to treat acute leukemias or myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS).

However, stripping the immune system with intensive chemotherapy ‘conditioning,’ then rebuilding it with non-diseased donor hematopoietic cells is a hazardous undertaking. Older patients are less likely to survive the intensive conditioning, so historically have missed out. Also, even with a good human leukocyte antigen (HLA) match, the recipient needs often brutal immunosuppression.

Since Dr. Giralt and Dr. Perales began their partnership in 2010, the goals of their work have not changed: to develop safer, lower-intensity transplantation suitable for older, more vulnerable patients and reduce fearsome posttransplant sequelae such as graft-versus-host disease (GVHD).

Dr. Giralt’s publication list spans more than 600 peer-reviewed papers, articles and book chapters, almost exclusively on HSCT. Dr. Perales has more than 300 publication credits on the topic.

The two paired up on their first paper just months after Dr. Giralt arrived at MSKCC. That article, published in Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation, compared umbilical cord blood for HSCT with donor blood in 367 people with a variety of hematologic malignancies, including acute and chronic leukemias, MDS, and lymphoma.

Courtesy MSKCC

The MSKCC team found that transplant-related mortality in the first 180 days was higher for the cord blood (21%), but thereafter mortality and relapse were much lower than for donated blood, with the result that 2-year progression-free survival of 55% was similar. Dr. Perales, Dr. Giralt and their coauthors concluded that the data provided “strong support” for further work on cord blood as an alternative stem-cell source.

During their first decade of collaboration, Dr. Giralt and Dr. Perales worked on any promising avenue that could improve outcomes and the experience of HSCT recipients, including reduced-intensity conditioning regimens to allow older adults to benefit from curative HSCT and donor T-cell depletion by CD34 selection, to reduce graft-versus-host disease (GVHD).

The CD34 protein is typically found on the surface of early stage and highly active stem cell types. Selecting these cell types using a range of techniques can eliminate many other potentially interfering or inactive cells. This enriches the transplant population with the most effective cells and can lower the risk of GVHD.

The 100th paper on which Dr. Giralt and Dr. Perales were coauthors was published in Blood Advances on July 27, 2021. The retrospective study examined the fate of 58 MSKCC patients with a rare form of chronic lymphocytic leukemia, CLL with Richter’s transformation (CLL-RT). It was the largest such study to date of this rare disease.
M.D. Anderson Cancer Center had shown in 2006 that, despite chemotherapy, overall survival in patients with CLL-RT was approximately 8 months. HSCT improved survival dramatically (75% at 3 years; n = 7). However, with the advent of novel targeted drugs for CLL such as ibrutinib (Imbruvica), venetoclax (Venclexta), or idelalisib (Zydelig), the MSKCC team asked themselves: What was the role of reduced-intensive conditioning HSCT? Was it even safe? Among other findings, Dr. Giralt and Dr. Perales’ 100th paper showed that reduced-intensity HSCT remained a viable alternative after a CLL-RT patient progressed on a novel agent.

Impact of the pandemic

When COVID-19 hit, the team lost many research staff and developed a huge backlog, said Dr. Giralt. He and Dr. Perales realized that they needed to be “thoughtful and careful” about which studies to continue. “For example, the CD-34 selection trials we did not close because these are our workhorse trials,” Dr. Giralt said. “We have people we need to treat, and some of the patients that we need to treat can only be treated on trial.”

The team was also able to pivot some of their work into COVID 19 itself, and they collected crucial information on HSCT in recovered COVID-19 patients, as an example.

“We were living through a critical time, but that doesn’t mean we [aren’t] obligated to continue our mission, our research mission,” said Dr. Giralt. “It really is team science. The way we look at it ... there’s a common thread: We both like to do allogeneic transplant, and we both believe in trying to make CD-34 selection better. So we’re both very much [working on] how can we improve what we call ‘the Memorial way’ of doing transplants. Where we separate is, Miguel does primarily lymphoma. He doesn’t do myeloma [like me]. So in those two areas, we’re helping develop the junior faculty in a different way.”
 

Something more in common

Right from the start, Dr. Perales and Dr. Giralt also shared a commitment to mentoring. Since 2010, Dr. Perales has mentored 22 up-and-coming junior faculty, including 10 from Europe (8 from Spain) and 2 from Latin America.

“[It makes] the research enterprise much more productive but [these young scientists] really increase the visibility of the program,” said Dr. Giralt.

He cited Dr. Perales’ track record of mentoring as one of the reasons for his promotion to chief of the adult bone marrow transplant service. In March 2020, Dr. Perales seamlessly stepped into Dr. Giralt’s shoes, while Dr. Giralt moved on to his present role as deputy division head of the division of hematologic malignancies.

Dr. Perales said: “The key aspect [of these promotions] is the fantastic working relationship that we’ve had over the years. ... I consider Sergio my mentor, but also a good friend and colleague. And so I think it’s this ability that we’ve had to work together and that relationship of trust, which has been key.”

“Sergio is somebody who lifts people up,” Dr. Perales added. “Many people will tell you that Sergio has helped them in their career. ... And I think that’s a lesson I’ve learned from him: training the next generation. And [that’s] not just in the U.S., but outside. I think that’s a key role that we have. And our responsibility.”

Asked to comment on their 100th-paper milestone, Dr. Perales firmly turned the spotlight from himself and Dr. Giralt to the junior investigators who have passed through the doors of the bone-marrow transplant program: “This body of work represents not just our collaboration but also the many contributions of our team at MSK ... and beyond MSK.”

This article was updated 1/26/22.

Two close colleagues at New York’s Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, world leaders in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) who were both promoted days after COVID-19 locked down the city in 2020, were too busy battling the pandemic’s impact on patients in the summer of 2021 to notice their latest shared career milestone.

On July 29, 2021, Sergio Giralt, MD, deputy division head of the division of hematologic malignancies and Miguel-Angel Perales, MD, chief of the adult bone marrow transplant service at MSKCC, published their 100th peer-reviewed paper as coauthors. Listing hundreds of such articles on a CV is standard for top-tier physicians, but the pair had gone one better: 100 publications written together in 10 years.

Their centenary article hit scientific newsstands almost exactly a decade after their first joint paper, which appeared in September 2011, not long after they met.

Born in Cuba, Dr. Giralt grew up in Venezuela. From the age of 14, he knew that medicine was his path, and in 1984 he earned a medical degree from the Universidad Central de Venezuela, Caracas. Next came a research position at Harvard Medical School, a residency at the Good Samaritan Hospital, Cincinnati, and a fellowship at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. Dr. Giralt arrived at MSKCC in 2010 as the new chief of the adult bone marrow transplant service. There he was introduced to a new colleague, Dr. Perales. They soon learned that in addition to expertise in hematology, they had second language in common: Spanish.

Dr. Giralt said: “We both have a Spanish background and in a certain sense, there was an affinity there. ... We both have shared experiences.”

Dr. Perales was brought up in Belgium, a European nation with three official languages: French, Dutch, and German. He speaks five tongues in all and learned Spanish from his father, who came from Spain.

Courtesy MSKCC

Fluency in Spanish enables both physicians to take care of the many New Yorkers who are more comfortable in that language – especially when navigating cancer treatment. However, both Dr. Giralt and Dr. Perales said that a second language is more than a professional tool. They described the enjoyable change of persona that happens when they switch to Spanish.

“People who are multilingual have different roles [as much as] different languages,” said Dr. Perales. “When I’m in Spanish, part of my brain is [thinking back to] summer vacations and hanging out with my cousins.”

When it comes to clinical science, however, English is the language of choice.
 

Global leaders in HSCT

Dr. Giralt and Dr. Perales are known worldwide in the field of allogeneic HSCT, a potentially curative treatment for an elongating list of both malignant and nonmalignant diseases.

In 1973, MSKCC conducted the first bone-marrow transplant from an unrelated donor. Fifty years on, medical oncologists in the United States conduct approximately 8,500 allogeneic transplants each year, 72% to treat acute leukemias or myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS).

However, stripping the immune system with intensive chemotherapy ‘conditioning,’ then rebuilding it with non-diseased donor hematopoietic cells is a hazardous undertaking. Older patients are less likely to survive the intensive conditioning, so historically have missed out. Also, even with a good human leukocyte antigen (HLA) match, the recipient needs often brutal immunosuppression.

Since Dr. Giralt and Dr. Perales began their partnership in 2010, the goals of their work have not changed: to develop safer, lower-intensity transplantation suitable for older, more vulnerable patients and reduce fearsome posttransplant sequelae such as graft-versus-host disease (GVHD).

Dr. Giralt’s publication list spans more than 600 peer-reviewed papers, articles and book chapters, almost exclusively on HSCT. Dr. Perales has more than 300 publication credits on the topic.

The two paired up on their first paper just months after Dr. Giralt arrived at MSKCC. That article, published in Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation, compared umbilical cord blood for HSCT with donor blood in 367 people with a variety of hematologic malignancies, including acute and chronic leukemias, MDS, and lymphoma.

Courtesy MSKCC

The MSKCC team found that transplant-related mortality in the first 180 days was higher for the cord blood (21%), but thereafter mortality and relapse were much lower than for donated blood, with the result that 2-year progression-free survival of 55% was similar. Dr. Perales, Dr. Giralt and their coauthors concluded that the data provided “strong support” for further work on cord blood as an alternative stem-cell source.

During their first decade of collaboration, Dr. Giralt and Dr. Perales worked on any promising avenue that could improve outcomes and the experience of HSCT recipients, including reduced-intensity conditioning regimens to allow older adults to benefit from curative HSCT and donor T-cell depletion by CD34 selection, to reduce graft-versus-host disease (GVHD).

The CD34 protein is typically found on the surface of early stage and highly active stem cell types. Selecting these cell types using a range of techniques can eliminate many other potentially interfering or inactive cells. This enriches the transplant population with the most effective cells and can lower the risk of GVHD.

The 100th paper on which Dr. Giralt and Dr. Perales were coauthors was published in Blood Advances on July 27, 2021. The retrospective study examined the fate of 58 MSKCC patients with a rare form of chronic lymphocytic leukemia, CLL with Richter’s transformation (CLL-RT). It was the largest such study to date of this rare disease.
M.D. Anderson Cancer Center had shown in 2006 that, despite chemotherapy, overall survival in patients with CLL-RT was approximately 8 months. HSCT improved survival dramatically (75% at 3 years; n = 7). However, with the advent of novel targeted drugs for CLL such as ibrutinib (Imbruvica), venetoclax (Venclexta), or idelalisib (Zydelig), the MSKCC team asked themselves: What was the role of reduced-intensive conditioning HSCT? Was it even safe? Among other findings, Dr. Giralt and Dr. Perales’ 100th paper showed that reduced-intensity HSCT remained a viable alternative after a CLL-RT patient progressed on a novel agent.

Impact of the pandemic

When COVID-19 hit, the team lost many research staff and developed a huge backlog, said Dr. Giralt. He and Dr. Perales realized that they needed to be “thoughtful and careful” about which studies to continue. “For example, the CD-34 selection trials we did not close because these are our workhorse trials,” Dr. Giralt said. “We have people we need to treat, and some of the patients that we need to treat can only be treated on trial.”

The team was also able to pivot some of their work into COVID 19 itself, and they collected crucial information on HSCT in recovered COVID-19 patients, as an example.

“We were living through a critical time, but that doesn’t mean we [aren’t] obligated to continue our mission, our research mission,” said Dr. Giralt. “It really is team science. The way we look at it ... there’s a common thread: We both like to do allogeneic transplant, and we both believe in trying to make CD-34 selection better. So we’re both very much [working on] how can we improve what we call ‘the Memorial way’ of doing transplants. Where we separate is, Miguel does primarily lymphoma. He doesn’t do myeloma [like me]. So in those two areas, we’re helping develop the junior faculty in a different way.”
 

Something more in common

Right from the start, Dr. Perales and Dr. Giralt also shared a commitment to mentoring. Since 2010, Dr. Perales has mentored 22 up-and-coming junior faculty, including 10 from Europe (8 from Spain) and 2 from Latin America.

“[It makes] the research enterprise much more productive but [these young scientists] really increase the visibility of the program,” said Dr. Giralt.

He cited Dr. Perales’ track record of mentoring as one of the reasons for his promotion to chief of the adult bone marrow transplant service. In March 2020, Dr. Perales seamlessly stepped into Dr. Giralt’s shoes, while Dr. Giralt moved on to his present role as deputy division head of the division of hematologic malignancies.

Dr. Perales said: “The key aspect [of these promotions] is the fantastic working relationship that we’ve had over the years. ... I consider Sergio my mentor, but also a good friend and colleague. And so I think it’s this ability that we’ve had to work together and that relationship of trust, which has been key.”

“Sergio is somebody who lifts people up,” Dr. Perales added. “Many people will tell you that Sergio has helped them in their career. ... And I think that’s a lesson I’ve learned from him: training the next generation. And [that’s] not just in the U.S., but outside. I think that’s a key role that we have. And our responsibility.”

Asked to comment on their 100th-paper milestone, Dr. Perales firmly turned the spotlight from himself and Dr. Giralt to the junior investigators who have passed through the doors of the bone-marrow transplant program: “This body of work represents not just our collaboration but also the many contributions of our team at MSK ... and beyond MSK.”

This article was updated 1/26/22.

Rituximab has presented something of a conundrum for patients taking the monoclonal antibody during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Used to manage a variety of autoimmune diseases and cancers, rituximab acts against CD20 proteins expressed on the surface of B cells, causing B-cell depletion. However, it is this B-cell depletion that may put these patients at greater risk of COVID-19 development, progression to more severe disease, and in-hospital mortality. Evidence for this appears to be mixed, with studies showing both that patients using rituximab to manage various diseases are and are not at increased risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19 progression, and mortality.

peterschreiber_media/iStock/Getty Images

As COVID-19 vaccine rollouts take place across the world, more questions have been raised about the relationship between B-cell depletion from anti-CD20 therapies and COVID-19 vaccines. Do rituximab and other anti-CD20 therapies affect a patient’s response to COVID-19 vaccines? If this is the case, does the timing of anti-CD20 treatment matter to maximize B-cell levels and improve the vaccine’s effectiveness? And how do COVID-19 vaccine booster doses factor into the equation?

This article aims to summarize the latest research on how rituximab affects humoral and cell-mediated response following a COVID-19 vaccine primary series, and whether the addition of a COVID-19 vaccine booster dose changes patient response.
 

Humoral and cell-mediated responses following COVID-19 vaccination

First, the bad news: The vaccine is unquestionably safe to administer in patients taking rituximab, but one thing that has been well established is that antibody response to COVID-19 vaccination in these individuals does is reduced. This isn’t entirely unprecedented, as previous studies have shown a weakened immune response to pneumococcal polysaccharide and keyhole limpet hemocyanin vaccines among patients taking rituximab.

“Compromised immunogenicity to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines has been demonstrated in rituximab-treated patients, which is of particular concern given the observation that B-cell–depleting therapies may be associated with worse COVID outcomes,” Robert F. Spiera, MD, director of the Scleroderma, Vasculitis, and Myositis Center at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, said in an interview.

For example, in a recent study from the Medical University of Vienna, 29 (39%) of 74 patients receiving rituximab (43% as monotherapy, 57% with conventional-synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs) who were vaccinated with either the Comirnaty (Pfizer-BioNTech) or Spikevax (Moderna) COVID-19 vaccine achieved seroconversion, compared with 100% of patients in a healthy control group, and all but 1 patient without detectable CD19+ peripheral B cells did not develop anti–SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain antibodies.

“There is an increasing number of studies in this field, and they confirm that patients treated with rituximab and other anti-CD20 agents have severely reduced serological responses to COVID-19 vaccines,” Ingrid Jyssum, MD, of the division of rheumatology and research at Diakonhjemmet Hospital in Oslo, said in an interview.

One silver lining is that patients treated with anti-CD20 therapies appear to have a cell-mediated response following vaccination even if they don’t develop SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. “Studies that also investigate T-cell responses are starting to emerge, and so far, they show that, even if the patients do not have antibodies, they may have T-cell responses,” Dr. Jyssum said.

One study of 24 patients with autoimmune diseases taking rituximab that evaluated humoral and T-cell responses following vaccination with the Comirnaty vaccine found that none had a humoral response to the vaccine, but the T-cell response from that group did not significantly differ from 35 patients receiving other immunosuppressants and 26 patients in a healthy control group. In another study of rituximab- or ocrelizumab-treated patients who received mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines, 69.4% developed SARS-CoV-2–specific antibodies, compared with a control group, but 96.2% of patients taking ocrelizumab and 81.8% of patients taking rituximab mounted a spike-specific CD8+ T-cell response, compared with 66.7% in the control group, and there were comparable rates (85%-90%) of spike-specific CD4+ T cells in all groups. In the study from the Medical University of Vienna, T-cell response was detected in rituximab-treated patients who both did and did not mount an antibody response.

The clinical relevance of how a blunted humoral immune response but a respectable T-cell response to COVID-19 vaccines affects patients treated with anti-CD20 therapies isn’t currently known, Dr. Jyssum said.

While these data are reassuring, they’re also incomplete, Dr. Spiera noted. “The ultimate outcome of relevance to assess vaccine efficacy is protection from COVID and from severe outcomes of COVID infection (i.e., hospitalization, mechanical ventilation, death). That data will require assessment of very large numbers of rituximab-treated vaccinated patients to be compared with rituximab-treated unvaccinated patients, and is unlikely to be forthcoming in the very near future.

“In the meantime, however, achieving serologic positivity, meaning having evidence of serologic as well as cellular immunity following vaccination, is a desired outcome, and likely implies more robust immunity.”
 

Does treatment timing impact COVID-19 vaccine response?

Given enough time, B-cell reconstitution will occur in patients taking rituximab. With that in mind, is it beneficial to wait a certain amount of time after a patient has stopped rituximab therapy or time since their last dose before giving them a COVID-19 vaccine? In their guidance on COVID-19 vaccines for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases, the American College of Rheumatology said there is moderate evidence to consider “optimal timing of dosing and vaccination with the rheumatology provider before proceeding.”

“Guidelines and preliminary studies of serologic response to COVID vaccine in rituximab-treated patients have suggested that longer time from last rituximab exposure is associated with a greater likelihood of a serologic response,” Dr. Spiera said.

In a brief report published in Arthritis & Rheumatology, Dr. Spiera and colleagues performed a retrospective chart review of 56 patients with varying levels of last exposure to rituximab who received a COVID-19 vaccine. Their results showed that, when patients were vaccinated 6-12 months after the last rituximab dose, 55% were seronegative, and when this was more than 12 months, only 13% were seronegative, compared with seronegativity in 86% who were vaccinated less than 6 months after their last rituximab dose.

The RituxiVac trial, conducted by researchers in Switzerland, also examined vaccine responses of 96 rituximab-treated patients who received Comirnaty or Spikevax; results recently published in The Lancet Rheumatology showed findings similar to other studies, with reduced humoral and cell-mediated responses. In the RituxiVac trial, the median time to last anti-CD20 treatment was 1.07 years.

“The typical interval between rituximab doses [for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, as well as for remission maintenance in antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis] is typically 6 months, and this has become widely used as the interval from last rituximab to time of COVID vaccination, with a recommendation to wait 4 weeks (if possible) from time of vaccination until the next rituximab administration,” Dr. Spiera explained. However, this window seems to vary depending on the study.

Recent research published in Arthritis & Rheumatology indicates B-cell levels could be a relevant indicator for humoral and cell-mediated response in patients with rheumatic diseases treated with rituximab, with a level of 10 B cells/mcL (0.4% of lymphocytes) identified as one potential marker for likely seroconversion following COVID-19 vaccination.

“In some smaller case series, it has been further recognized that rituximab-treated patients who were beginning to reconstitute peripheral B cells were most likely to respond serologically. Our present study confirmed those findings, demonstrating that the presence of detectable B cells was strongly associated with vaccine responsiveness, and affords complementary information to time from last [rituximab dose] in informing the likelihood of a vaccine response,” Dr. Spiera said.

However, the literature is limited in this area, and an exact cutoff for B-cell counts in these patients isn’t currently known, Dr. Jyssum said. A better metric is time away from anti-CD20 therapies, with CD19 cell count being highly correlated with last infusion.

Dr. Spiera agreed that there is no consistent B-cell percentage that works as a cutoff. “In our study, we looked at it as a binary variable, although we did find that a higher percentage of B cells in the peripheral lymphocyte population was associated with a higher likelihood of seroconversion. We did not, however, identify a ‘threshold’ for vaccine serologic responsiveness.”

Should clinicians measure antibodies?

The Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have recommended that health care providers and the public not use COVID-19 antibody tests as a way to gauge immunity after exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and after receiving a COVID-19 vaccination. The ACR’s guidance on COVID-19 vaccination for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases strongly recommends against ordering antibody tests for patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases as a way to measure immunity.

“Generally, such measurements are not recommended as the clinical correlate of various antibody levels are not known,” Dr. Jyssum said. “With regular infusions of rituximab or other anti-CD20 agents, one cannot expect that these patients will develop significant levels of antibodies.”

However, she said there might be situations where it’s useful to know whether a patient has developed antibodies at all. “Assessing the significance of specific antibody levels is difficult, and the subject of scientific studies. Patients lacking a humoral vaccine response are left to rely on their T-cell responses and on infectious control measures to prevent disease.”

Dr. Spiera said he disagreed with guidelines recommending against checking antibody levels after vaccination, “particularly in patients treated with immunosuppressive medications that might be expected to blunt their serologic response to the vaccines.

“Although we cannot be sure what level of measurable antibodies offer what level of protection, most clinicians would agree that patients who demonstrate no detectable antibodies (which is a common finding in rituximab-treated patients) should be considered at higher risk,” he said. “Indeed, recommendations regarding booster vaccine administration in general was initially based on the observation of declining antibody levels with longer time from vaccination.”

Do COVID-19 vaccine boosters help patients on anti-CD20 therapy?

As of January 2022, the FDA and CDC have recommended a third primary series shot of COVID-19 vaccines for some moderately to severely immunocompromised patients as young as 5 years old (for Comirnaty vaccine) or a booster shot of either Comirnaty or Spikevax for everyone aged 12 years and older, including immunocompromised people, while the ACR goes into more detail and recommends clinicians time a patient’s booster shot with temporary treatment interruption.

In The Lancet Rheumatology, Dr. Jyssum and colleagues recently published results from the prospective Nor-vaC study examining the humoral and cell-mediated immune responses of 87 patients with RA being treated with rituximab who received the Comirnaty, Spikevax, or Vaxzevria (AstraZeneca) COVID-19 vaccines; of these, 49 patients received a booster dose at a median of 70 days after completing their primary series. The results showed 19 patients (28.1%) had a serologic response after their primary series, while 8 of 49 patients (16.3%) who received their booster dose had a serologic response.

All patients who received a third dose in the study had a T-cell response, Dr. Jyssum said. “This is reassuring for patients and clinicians. T cells have been found to be important in countering COVID-19 disease, but whether we can rely on the T-cell response alone in the absence of antibodies to protect patients from infection or from serious COVID disease is still not determined,” she said.

When asked if she would recommend COVID-19 vaccine booster doses for patients on rituximab, Dr. Jyssum replied: “Absolutely.”

Another study, recently published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, examined heterologous and homologous booster doses for 60 patients receiving rituximab without seroconversion after their COVID-19 vaccine primary series. The results showed no significant difference in new seroconversion at 4 weeks based on whether the patient received a vector or mRNA vaccine (22% vs. 32%), but all patients who received a booster dose with a vector vaccine had specific T-cell responses, compared with 81% of patients who received an mRNA vaccine booster. There was a new humoral and/or cellular response in 9 of 11 patients (82%), and most patients with peripheral B cells (12 of 18 patients; 67%) achieved seroconversion.

“Our data show that a cellular and/or humoral immune response can be achieved on a third COVID-19 vaccination in most of the patients who initially developed neither a humoral nor a cellular immune response,” the researchers concluded. “The efficacy data together with the safety data seen in our trial provide a favorable risk/benefit ratio and support the implementation of a third vaccination for nonseroconverted high-risk autoimmune disease patients treated with B-cell–depleting agents.”

Dr. Spiera said booster doses are an important part of the equation, and “it is important to consider factors that would be associated with a greater likelihood of achieving a serologic response, particularly in those patients who did not demonstrate a serologic response to the initial vaccines series.

“Preliminary data shows that the beginnings of B-cell reconstitution is also associated with a positive serologic response following a booster of the COVID-19 vaccine,” he said.

The authors of the cited studies reported numerous relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Spiera and Dr. Jyssum reported no relevant financial disclosures.

Rituximab has presented something of a conundrum for patients taking the monoclonal antibody during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Used to manage a variety of autoimmune diseases and cancers, rituximab acts against CD20 proteins expressed on the surface of B cells, causing B-cell depletion. However, it is this B-cell depletion that may put these patients at greater risk of COVID-19 development, progression to more severe disease, and in-hospital mortality. Evidence for this appears to be mixed, with studies showing both that patients using rituximab to manage various diseases are and are not at increased risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19 progression, and mortality.

peterschreiber_media/iStock/Getty Images

As COVID-19 vaccine rollouts take place across the world, more questions have been raised about the relationship between B-cell depletion from anti-CD20 therapies and COVID-19 vaccines. Do rituximab and other anti-CD20 therapies affect a patient’s response to COVID-19 vaccines? If this is the case, does the timing of anti-CD20 treatment matter to maximize B-cell levels and improve the vaccine’s effectiveness? And how do COVID-19 vaccine booster doses factor into the equation?

This article aims to summarize the latest research on how rituximab affects humoral and cell-mediated response following a COVID-19 vaccine primary series, and whether the addition of a COVID-19 vaccine booster dose changes patient response.
 

Humoral and cell-mediated responses following COVID-19 vaccination

First, the bad news: The vaccine is unquestionably safe to administer in patients taking rituximab, but one thing that has been well established is that antibody response to COVID-19 vaccination in these individuals does is reduced. This isn’t entirely unprecedented, as previous studies have shown a weakened immune response to pneumococcal polysaccharide and keyhole limpet hemocyanin vaccines among patients taking rituximab.

“Compromised immunogenicity to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines has been demonstrated in rituximab-treated patients, which is of particular concern given the observation that B-cell–depleting therapies may be associated with worse COVID outcomes,” Robert F. Spiera, MD, director of the Scleroderma, Vasculitis, and Myositis Center at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, said in an interview.

For example, in a recent study from the Medical University of Vienna, 29 (39%) of 74 patients receiving rituximab (43% as monotherapy, 57% with conventional-synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs) who were vaccinated with either the Comirnaty (Pfizer-BioNTech) or Spikevax (Moderna) COVID-19 vaccine achieved seroconversion, compared with 100% of patients in a healthy control group, and all but 1 patient without detectable CD19+ peripheral B cells did not develop anti–SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain antibodies.

“There is an increasing number of studies in this field, and they confirm that patients treated with rituximab and other anti-CD20 agents have severely reduced serological responses to COVID-19 vaccines,” Ingrid Jyssum, MD, of the division of rheumatology and research at Diakonhjemmet Hospital in Oslo, said in an interview.

One silver lining is that patients treated with anti-CD20 therapies appear to have a cell-mediated response following vaccination even if they don’t develop SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. “Studies that also investigate T-cell responses are starting to emerge, and so far, they show that, even if the patients do not have antibodies, they may have T-cell responses,” Dr. Jyssum said.

One study of 24 patients with autoimmune diseases taking rituximab that evaluated humoral and T-cell responses following vaccination with the Comirnaty vaccine found that none had a humoral response to the vaccine, but the T-cell response from that group did not significantly differ from 35 patients receiving other immunosuppressants and 26 patients in a healthy control group. In another study of rituximab- or ocrelizumab-treated patients who received mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines, 69.4% developed SARS-CoV-2–specific antibodies, compared with a control group, but 96.2% of patients taking ocrelizumab and 81.8% of patients taking rituximab mounted a spike-specific CD8+ T-cell response, compared with 66.7% in the control group, and there were comparable rates (85%-90%) of spike-specific CD4+ T cells in all groups. In the study from the Medical University of Vienna, T-cell response was detected in rituximab-treated patients who both did and did not mount an antibody response.

The clinical relevance of how a blunted humoral immune response but a respectable T-cell response to COVID-19 vaccines affects patients treated with anti-CD20 therapies isn’t currently known, Dr. Jyssum said.

While these data are reassuring, they’re also incomplete, Dr. Spiera noted. “The ultimate outcome of relevance to assess vaccine efficacy is protection from COVID and from severe outcomes of COVID infection (i.e., hospitalization, mechanical ventilation, death). That data will require assessment of very large numbers of rituximab-treated vaccinated patients to be compared with rituximab-treated unvaccinated patients, and is unlikely to be forthcoming in the very near future.

“In the meantime, however, achieving serologic positivity, meaning having evidence of serologic as well as cellular immunity following vaccination, is a desired outcome, and likely implies more robust immunity.”
 

Does treatment timing impact COVID-19 vaccine response?

Given enough time, B-cell reconstitution will occur in patients taking rituximab. With that in mind, is it beneficial to wait a certain amount of time after a patient has stopped rituximab therapy or time since their last dose before giving them a COVID-19 vaccine? In their guidance on COVID-19 vaccines for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases, the American College of Rheumatology said there is moderate evidence to consider “optimal timing of dosing and vaccination with the rheumatology provider before proceeding.”

“Guidelines and preliminary studies of serologic response to COVID vaccine in rituximab-treated patients have suggested that longer time from last rituximab exposure is associated with a greater likelihood of a serologic response,” Dr. Spiera said.

In a brief report published in Arthritis & Rheumatology, Dr. Spiera and colleagues performed a retrospective chart review of 56 patients with varying levels of last exposure to rituximab who received a COVID-19 vaccine. Their results showed that, when patients were vaccinated 6-12 months after the last rituximab dose, 55% were seronegative, and when this was more than 12 months, only 13% were seronegative, compared with seronegativity in 86% who were vaccinated less than 6 months after their last rituximab dose.

The RituxiVac trial, conducted by researchers in Switzerland, also examined vaccine responses of 96 rituximab-treated patients who received Comirnaty or Spikevax; results recently published in The Lancet Rheumatology showed findings similar to other studies, with reduced humoral and cell-mediated responses. In the RituxiVac trial, the median time to last anti-CD20 treatment was 1.07 years.

“The typical interval between rituximab doses [for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, as well as for remission maintenance in antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis] is typically 6 months, and this has become widely used as the interval from last rituximab to time of COVID vaccination, with a recommendation to wait 4 weeks (if possible) from time of vaccination until the next rituximab administration,” Dr. Spiera explained. However, this window seems to vary depending on the study.

Recent research published in Arthritis & Rheumatology indicates B-cell levels could be a relevant indicator for humoral and cell-mediated response in patients with rheumatic diseases treated with rituximab, with a level of 10 B cells/mcL (0.4% of lymphocytes) identified as one potential marker for likely seroconversion following COVID-19 vaccination.

“In some smaller case series, it has been further recognized that rituximab-treated patients who were beginning to reconstitute peripheral B cells were most likely to respond serologically. Our present study confirmed those findings, demonstrating that the presence of detectable B cells was strongly associated with vaccine responsiveness, and affords complementary information to time from last [rituximab dose] in informing the likelihood of a vaccine response,” Dr. Spiera said.

However, the literature is limited in this area, and an exact cutoff for B-cell counts in these patients isn’t currently known, Dr. Jyssum said. A better metric is time away from anti-CD20 therapies, with CD19 cell count being highly correlated with last infusion.

Dr. Spiera agreed that there is no consistent B-cell percentage that works as a cutoff. “In our study, we looked at it as a binary variable, although we did find that a higher percentage of B cells in the peripheral lymphocyte population was associated with a higher likelihood of seroconversion. We did not, however, identify a ‘threshold’ for vaccine serologic responsiveness.”

Should clinicians measure antibodies?

The Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have recommended that health care providers and the public not use COVID-19 antibody tests as a way to gauge immunity after exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and after receiving a COVID-19 vaccination. The ACR’s guidance on COVID-19 vaccination for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases strongly recommends against ordering antibody tests for patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases as a way to measure immunity.

“Generally, such measurements are not recommended as the clinical correlate of various antibody levels are not known,” Dr. Jyssum said. “With regular infusions of rituximab or other anti-CD20 agents, one cannot expect that these patients will develop significant levels of antibodies.”

However, she said there might be situations where it’s useful to know whether a patient has developed antibodies at all. “Assessing the significance of specific antibody levels is difficult, and the subject of scientific studies. Patients lacking a humoral vaccine response are left to rely on their T-cell responses and on infectious control measures to prevent disease.”

Dr. Spiera said he disagreed with guidelines recommending against checking antibody levels after vaccination, “particularly in patients treated with immunosuppressive medications that might be expected to blunt their serologic response to the vaccines.

“Although we cannot be sure what level of measurable antibodies offer what level of protection, most clinicians would agree that patients who demonstrate no detectable antibodies (which is a common finding in rituximab-treated patients) should be considered at higher risk,” he said. “Indeed, recommendations regarding booster vaccine administration in general was initially based on the observation of declining antibody levels with longer time from vaccination.”

Do COVID-19 vaccine boosters help patients on anti-CD20 therapy?

As of January 2022, the FDA and CDC have recommended a third primary series shot of COVID-19 vaccines for some moderately to severely immunocompromised patients as young as 5 years old (for Comirnaty vaccine) or a booster shot of either Comirnaty or Spikevax for everyone aged 12 years and older, including immunocompromised people, while the ACR goes into more detail and recommends clinicians time a patient’s booster shot with temporary treatment interruption.

In The Lancet Rheumatology, Dr. Jyssum and colleagues recently published results from the prospective Nor-vaC study examining the humoral and cell-mediated immune responses of 87 patients with RA being treated with rituximab who received the Comirnaty, Spikevax, or Vaxzevria (AstraZeneca) COVID-19 vaccines; of these, 49 patients received a booster dose at a median of 70 days after completing their primary series. The results showed 19 patients (28.1%) had a serologic response after their primary series, while 8 of 49 patients (16.3%) who received their booster dose had a serologic response.

All patients who received a third dose in the study had a T-cell response, Dr. Jyssum said. “This is reassuring for patients and clinicians. T cells have been found to be important in countering COVID-19 disease, but whether we can rely on the T-cell response alone in the absence of antibodies to protect patients from infection or from serious COVID disease is still not determined,” she said.

When asked if she would recommend COVID-19 vaccine booster doses for patients on rituximab, Dr. Jyssum replied: “Absolutely.”

Another study, recently published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, examined heterologous and homologous booster doses for 60 patients receiving rituximab without seroconversion after their COVID-19 vaccine primary series. The results showed no significant difference in new seroconversion at 4 weeks based on whether the patient received a vector or mRNA vaccine (22% vs. 32%), but all patients who received a booster dose with a vector vaccine had specific T-cell responses, compared with 81% of patients who received an mRNA vaccine booster. There was a new humoral and/or cellular response in 9 of 11 patients (82%), and most patients with peripheral B cells (12 of 18 patients; 67%) achieved seroconversion.

“Our data show that a cellular and/or humoral immune response can be achieved on a third COVID-19 vaccination in most of the patients who initially developed neither a humoral nor a cellular immune response,” the researchers concluded. “The efficacy data together with the safety data seen in our trial provide a favorable risk/benefit ratio and support the implementation of a third vaccination for nonseroconverted high-risk autoimmune disease patients treated with B-cell–depleting agents.”

Dr. Spiera said booster doses are an important part of the equation, and “it is important to consider factors that would be associated with a greater likelihood of achieving a serologic response, particularly in those patients who did not demonstrate a serologic response to the initial vaccines series.

“Preliminary data shows that the beginnings of B-cell reconstitution is also associated with a positive serologic response following a booster of the COVID-19 vaccine,” he said.

The authors of the cited studies reported numerous relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Spiera and Dr. Jyssum reported no relevant financial disclosures.

Rituximab has presented something of a conundrum for patients taking the monoclonal antibody during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Used to manage a variety of autoimmune diseases and cancers, rituximab acts against CD20 proteins expressed on the surface of B cells, causing B-cell depletion. However, it is this B-cell depletion that may put these patients at greater risk of COVID-19 development, progression to more severe disease, and in-hospital mortality. Evidence for this appears to be mixed, with studies showing both that patients using rituximab to manage various diseases are and are not at increased risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19 progression, and mortality.

peterschreiber_media/iStock/Getty Images

As COVID-19 vaccine rollouts take place across the world, more questions have been raised about the relationship between B-cell depletion from anti-CD20 therapies and COVID-19 vaccines. Do rituximab and other anti-CD20 therapies affect a patient’s response to COVID-19 vaccines? If this is the case, does the timing of anti-CD20 treatment matter to maximize B-cell levels and improve the vaccine’s effectiveness? And how do COVID-19 vaccine booster doses factor into the equation?

This article aims to summarize the latest research on how rituximab affects humoral and cell-mediated response following a COVID-19 vaccine primary series, and whether the addition of a COVID-19 vaccine booster dose changes patient response.
 

Humoral and cell-mediated responses following COVID-19 vaccination

First, the bad news: The vaccine is unquestionably safe to administer in patients taking rituximab, but one thing that has been well established is that antibody response to COVID-19 vaccination in these individuals does is reduced. This isn’t entirely unprecedented, as previous studies have shown a weakened immune response to pneumococcal polysaccharide and keyhole limpet hemocyanin vaccines among patients taking rituximab.

“Compromised immunogenicity to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines has been demonstrated in rituximab-treated patients, which is of particular concern given the observation that B-cell–depleting therapies may be associated with worse COVID outcomes,” Robert F. Spiera, MD, director of the Scleroderma, Vasculitis, and Myositis Center at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, said in an interview.

For example, in a recent study from the Medical University of Vienna, 29 (39%) of 74 patients receiving rituximab (43% as monotherapy, 57% with conventional-synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs) who were vaccinated with either the Comirnaty (Pfizer-BioNTech) or Spikevax (Moderna) COVID-19 vaccine achieved seroconversion, compared with 100% of patients in a healthy control group, and all but 1 patient without detectable CD19+ peripheral B cells did not develop anti–SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain antibodies.

“There is an increasing number of studies in this field, and they confirm that patients treated with rituximab and other anti-CD20 agents have severely reduced serological responses to COVID-19 vaccines,” Ingrid Jyssum, MD, of the division of rheumatology and research at Diakonhjemmet Hospital in Oslo, said in an interview.

One silver lining is that patients treated with anti-CD20 therapies appear to have a cell-mediated response following vaccination even if they don’t develop SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. “Studies that also investigate T-cell responses are starting to emerge, and so far, they show that, even if the patients do not have antibodies, they may have T-cell responses,” Dr. Jyssum said.

One study of 24 patients with autoimmune diseases taking rituximab that evaluated humoral and T-cell responses following vaccination with the Comirnaty vaccine found that none had a humoral response to the vaccine, but the T-cell response from that group did not significantly differ from 35 patients receiving other immunosuppressants and 26 patients in a healthy control group. In another study of rituximab- or ocrelizumab-treated patients who received mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines, 69.4% developed SARS-CoV-2–specific antibodies, compared with a control group, but 96.2% of patients taking ocrelizumab and 81.8% of patients taking rituximab mounted a spike-specific CD8+ T-cell response, compared with 66.7% in the control group, and there were comparable rates (85%-90%) of spike-specific CD4+ T cells in all groups. In the study from the Medical University of Vienna, T-cell response was detected in rituximab-treated patients who both did and did not mount an antibody response.

The clinical relevance of how a blunted humoral immune response but a respectable T-cell response to COVID-19 vaccines affects patients treated with anti-CD20 therapies isn’t currently known, Dr. Jyssum said.

While these data are reassuring, they’re also incomplete, Dr. Spiera noted. “The ultimate outcome of relevance to assess vaccine efficacy is protection from COVID and from severe outcomes of COVID infection (i.e., hospitalization, mechanical ventilation, death). That data will require assessment of very large numbers of rituximab-treated vaccinated patients to be compared with rituximab-treated unvaccinated patients, and is unlikely to be forthcoming in the very near future.

“In the meantime, however, achieving serologic positivity, meaning having evidence of serologic as well as cellular immunity following vaccination, is a desired outcome, and likely implies more robust immunity.”
 

Does treatment timing impact COVID-19 vaccine response?

Given enough time, B-cell reconstitution will occur in patients taking rituximab. With that in mind, is it beneficial to wait a certain amount of time after a patient has stopped rituximab therapy or time since their last dose before giving them a COVID-19 vaccine? In their guidance on COVID-19 vaccines for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases, the American College of Rheumatology said there is moderate evidence to consider “optimal timing of dosing and vaccination with the rheumatology provider before proceeding.”

“Guidelines and preliminary studies of serologic response to COVID vaccine in rituximab-treated patients have suggested that longer time from last rituximab exposure is associated with a greater likelihood of a serologic response,” Dr. Spiera said.

In a brief report published in Arthritis & Rheumatology, Dr. Spiera and colleagues performed a retrospective chart review of 56 patients with varying levels of last exposure to rituximab who received a COVID-19 vaccine. Their results showed that, when patients were vaccinated 6-12 months after the last rituximab dose, 55% were seronegative, and when this was more than 12 months, only 13% were seronegative, compared with seronegativity in 86% who were vaccinated less than 6 months after their last rituximab dose.

The RituxiVac trial, conducted by researchers in Switzerland, also examined vaccine responses of 96 rituximab-treated patients who received Comirnaty or Spikevax; results recently published in The Lancet Rheumatology showed findings similar to other studies, with reduced humoral and cell-mediated responses. In the RituxiVac trial, the median time to last anti-CD20 treatment was 1.07 years.

“The typical interval between rituximab doses [for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, as well as for remission maintenance in antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis] is typically 6 months, and this has become widely used as the interval from last rituximab to time of COVID vaccination, with a recommendation to wait 4 weeks (if possible) from time of vaccination until the next rituximab administration,” Dr. Spiera explained. However, this window seems to vary depending on the study.

Recent research published in Arthritis & Rheumatology indicates B-cell levels could be a relevant indicator for humoral and cell-mediated response in patients with rheumatic diseases treated with rituximab, with a level of 10 B cells/mcL (0.4% of lymphocytes) identified as one potential marker for likely seroconversion following COVID-19 vaccination.

“In some smaller case series, it has been further recognized that rituximab-treated patients who were beginning to reconstitute peripheral B cells were most likely to respond serologically. Our present study confirmed those findings, demonstrating that the presence of detectable B cells was strongly associated with vaccine responsiveness, and affords complementary information to time from last [rituximab dose] in informing the likelihood of a vaccine response,” Dr. Spiera said.

However, the literature is limited in this area, and an exact cutoff for B-cell counts in these patients isn’t currently known, Dr. Jyssum said. A better metric is time away from anti-CD20 therapies, with CD19 cell count being highly correlated with last infusion.

Dr. Spiera agreed that there is no consistent B-cell percentage that works as a cutoff. “In our study, we looked at it as a binary variable, although we did find that a higher percentage of B cells in the peripheral lymphocyte population was associated with a higher likelihood of seroconversion. We did not, however, identify a ‘threshold’ for vaccine serologic responsiveness.”

Should clinicians measure antibodies?

The Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have recommended that health care providers and the public not use COVID-19 antibody tests as a way to gauge immunity after exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and after receiving a COVID-19 vaccination. The ACR’s guidance on COVID-19 vaccination for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases strongly recommends against ordering antibody tests for patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases as a way to measure immunity.

“Generally, such measurements are not recommended as the clinical correlate of various antibody levels are not known,” Dr. Jyssum said. “With regular infusions of rituximab or other anti-CD20 agents, one cannot expect that these patients will develop significant levels of antibodies.”

However, she said there might be situations where it’s useful to know whether a patient has developed antibodies at all. “Assessing the significance of specific antibody levels is difficult, and the subject of scientific studies. Patients lacking a humoral vaccine response are left to rely on their T-cell responses and on infectious control measures to prevent disease.”

Dr. Spiera said he disagreed with guidelines recommending against checking antibody levels after vaccination, “particularly in patients treated with immunosuppressive medications that might be expected to blunt their serologic response to the vaccines.

“Although we cannot be sure what level of measurable antibodies offer what level of protection, most clinicians would agree that patients who demonstrate no detectable antibodies (which is a common finding in rituximab-treated patients) should be considered at higher risk,” he said. “Indeed, recommendations regarding booster vaccine administration in general was initially based on the observation of declining antibody levels with longer time from vaccination.”

Do COVID-19 vaccine boosters help patients on anti-CD20 therapy?

As of January 2022, the FDA and CDC have recommended a third primary series shot of COVID-19 vaccines for some moderately to severely immunocompromised patients as young as 5 years old (for Comirnaty vaccine) or a booster shot of either Comirnaty or Spikevax for everyone aged 12 years and older, including immunocompromised people, while the ACR goes into more detail and recommends clinicians time a patient’s booster shot with temporary treatment interruption.

In The Lancet Rheumatology, Dr. Jyssum and colleagues recently published results from the prospective Nor-vaC study examining the humoral and cell-mediated immune responses of 87 patients with RA being treated with rituximab who received the Comirnaty, Spikevax, or Vaxzevria (AstraZeneca) COVID-19 vaccines; of these, 49 patients received a booster dose at a median of 70 days after completing their primary series. The results showed 19 patients (28.1%) had a serologic response after their primary series, while 8 of 49 patients (16.3%) who received their booster dose had a serologic response.

All patients who received a third dose in the study had a T-cell response, Dr. Jyssum said. “This is reassuring for patients and clinicians. T cells have been found to be important in countering COVID-19 disease, but whether we can rely on the T-cell response alone in the absence of antibodies to protect patients from infection or from serious COVID disease is still not determined,” she said.

When asked if she would recommend COVID-19 vaccine booster doses for patients on rituximab, Dr. Jyssum replied: “Absolutely.”

Another study, recently published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, examined heterologous and homologous booster doses for 60 patients receiving rituximab without seroconversion after their COVID-19 vaccine primary series. The results showed no significant difference in new seroconversion at 4 weeks based on whether the patient received a vector or mRNA vaccine (22% vs. 32%), but all patients who received a booster dose with a vector vaccine had specific T-cell responses, compared with 81% of patients who received an mRNA vaccine booster. There was a new humoral and/or cellular response in 9 of 11 patients (82%), and most patients with peripheral B cells (12 of 18 patients; 67%) achieved seroconversion.

“Our data show that a cellular and/or humoral immune response can be achieved on a third COVID-19 vaccination in most of the patients who initially developed neither a humoral nor a cellular immune response,” the researchers concluded. “The efficacy data together with the safety data seen in our trial provide a favorable risk/benefit ratio and support the implementation of a third vaccination for nonseroconverted high-risk autoimmune disease patients treated with B-cell–depleting agents.”

Dr. Spiera said booster doses are an important part of the equation, and “it is important to consider factors that would be associated with a greater likelihood of achieving a serologic response, particularly in those patients who did not demonstrate a serologic response to the initial vaccines series.

“Preliminary data shows that the beginnings of B-cell reconstitution is also associated with a positive serologic response following a booster of the COVID-19 vaccine,” he said.

The authors of the cited studies reported numerous relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Spiera and Dr. Jyssum reported no relevant financial disclosures.

People with bipolar disorder as well as their unaffected siblings appear to be at increased risk for cancer, particularly of the breast, according to new research from Taiwan.

“To our knowledge, our study is the first to report an increased overall cancer risk as well as increased risks of breast and ectodermal cancer among the unaffected siblings aged < 50 years of patients with bipolar disorder,” Ya-Mei Bai, MD, PhD, of National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan, and colleagues write in an article published online in the International Journal of Cancer.

Most, but not all, previous studies have shown a link between bipolar disorder and cancer. Whether the elevated risk of malignancy extends to family members without the mental health condition has not been elucidated.

To investigate, the researchers turned to the National Health Insurance Research Database of Taiwan. They identified 25,356 individuals diagnosed with bipolar disorder by a psychiatrist between 1996 and 2010 and the same number of unaffected siblings, as well as more than 100,000 age-, sex-, income-, and residence-matched controls without severe mental illness.

Compared with the control group, people with bipolar disorder (odds ratio, 1.22) and their unaffected siblings (OR, 1.17) both had a higher risk of developing malignant cancer of any kind. The researchers also found that both groups were at higher risk for breast cancer, with odds ratios of 1.98 in individuals with bipolar disorder and 1.73 in their unaffected siblings.

However, the risk of skin cancer was only high in people with bipolar disorder (OR, 2.70) and not in their siblings (OR, 0.62). And conversely, the risk of kidney cancer was significantly increased in unaffected siblings (OR, 2.45) but not in people with bipolar disorder (OR, 0.47).

When stratified by the embryonic developmental layer from which tumors had originated – ectodermal, mesodermal, or endodermal – the authors observed a significantly increased risk for only ectodermal cancers. In addition, only people under age 50 in both groups (OR, 1.90 for those with bipolar disorder; OR, 1.65 for siblings) were more likely to develop an ectodermal cancer, especially of the breast, compared with the control group. The risks remained elevated after excluding breast cancer but were no longer significant.

When stratified by age, the risk of developing any cancer in both groups also only appeared to be greater for those under age 50 (OR, 1.34 in people with bipolar disorder; OR, 1.32 in siblings) compared with those aged 50 and over (OR, 0.97 and 0.99, respectively). The authors highlighted these figures in the supplemental data set but did not discuss it further in the study beyond a brief mention that “younger patients with bipolar disorder and younger unaffected siblings (< 50 years), but not older ones (≥ 50 years), were more likely to develop any malignancy during the follow-up than matched controls.”

“This paper essentially finds what we have found in our previous work – that people with bipolar disorder have a greater risk of cancer,” said Michael Berk, MBBCh, PhD, a professor of psychiatry at the Deakin University School of Medicine in Geelong, Australia, who published a systematic review and meta-analysis last spring on cancer risk and the role of lithium treatment in bipolar disorder.

“The interesting finding in our work,” Dr. Berk told this news organization, “is that this risk is attenuated by use of lithium but not other agents.”

The Taiwanese researchers propose a “biopsychosocial explanation” for their results, noting that both the nervous system and the breast and skin develop from the ectoderm, and that cancer risk factors such as smoking and obesity are more common in people with bipolar disorder and their unaffected siblings.

“The findings,” they write, “imply a genetic overlap in neurodevelopment and malignancy pathogenesis and may encourage clinicians to closely monitor patients with bipolar disorder and their unaffected siblings for cancer warning signs.”

The authors, however, caution that their study needs validation and had several limitations, including lack of adjustment for drug treatment and lifestyle and environmental factors.

“Our findings may persuade clinicians and researchers to reevaluate the cancer risk among the unaffected siblings of patients with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder because these two severe mental disorders may have a common biopsychosocial pathophysiology,” the team writes.

The study was supported by a grant from Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Yen Tjing Ling Medical Foundation, and the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan.

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

People with bipolar disorder as well as their unaffected siblings appear to be at increased risk for cancer, particularly of the breast, according to new research from Taiwan.

“To our knowledge, our study is the first to report an increased overall cancer risk as well as increased risks of breast and ectodermal cancer among the unaffected siblings aged < 50 years of patients with bipolar disorder,” Ya-Mei Bai, MD, PhD, of National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan, and colleagues write in an article published online in the International Journal of Cancer.

Most, but not all, previous studies have shown a link between bipolar disorder and cancer. Whether the elevated risk of malignancy extends to family members without the mental health condition has not been elucidated.

To investigate, the researchers turned to the National Health Insurance Research Database of Taiwan. They identified 25,356 individuals diagnosed with bipolar disorder by a psychiatrist between 1996 and 2010 and the same number of unaffected siblings, as well as more than 100,000 age-, sex-, income-, and residence-matched controls without severe mental illness.

Compared with the control group, people with bipolar disorder (odds ratio, 1.22) and their unaffected siblings (OR, 1.17) both had a higher risk of developing malignant cancer of any kind. The researchers also found that both groups were at higher risk for breast cancer, with odds ratios of 1.98 in individuals with bipolar disorder and 1.73 in their unaffected siblings.

However, the risk of skin cancer was only high in people with bipolar disorder (OR, 2.70) and not in their siblings (OR, 0.62). And conversely, the risk of kidney cancer was significantly increased in unaffected siblings (OR, 2.45) but not in people with bipolar disorder (OR, 0.47).

When stratified by the embryonic developmental layer from which tumors had originated – ectodermal, mesodermal, or endodermal – the authors observed a significantly increased risk for only ectodermal cancers. In addition, only people under age 50 in both groups (OR, 1.90 for those with bipolar disorder; OR, 1.65 for siblings) were more likely to develop an ectodermal cancer, especially of the breast, compared with the control group. The risks remained elevated after excluding breast cancer but were no longer significant.

When stratified by age, the risk of developing any cancer in both groups also only appeared to be greater for those under age 50 (OR, 1.34 in people with bipolar disorder; OR, 1.32 in siblings) compared with those aged 50 and over (OR, 0.97 and 0.99, respectively). The authors highlighted these figures in the supplemental data set but did not discuss it further in the study beyond a brief mention that “younger patients with bipolar disorder and younger unaffected siblings (< 50 years), but not older ones (≥ 50 years), were more likely to develop any malignancy during the follow-up than matched controls.”

“This paper essentially finds what we have found in our previous work – that people with bipolar disorder have a greater risk of cancer,” said Michael Berk, MBBCh, PhD, a professor of psychiatry at the Deakin University School of Medicine in Geelong, Australia, who published a systematic review and meta-analysis last spring on cancer risk and the role of lithium treatment in bipolar disorder.

“The interesting finding in our work,” Dr. Berk told this news organization, “is that this risk is attenuated by use of lithium but not other agents.”

The Taiwanese researchers propose a “biopsychosocial explanation” for their results, noting that both the nervous system and the breast and skin develop from the ectoderm, and that cancer risk factors such as smoking and obesity are more common in people with bipolar disorder and their unaffected siblings.

“The findings,” they write, “imply a genetic overlap in neurodevelopment and malignancy pathogenesis and may encourage clinicians to closely monitor patients with bipolar disorder and their unaffected siblings for cancer warning signs.”

The authors, however, caution that their study needs validation and had several limitations, including lack of adjustment for drug treatment and lifestyle and environmental factors.

“Our findings may persuade clinicians and researchers to reevaluate the cancer risk among the unaffected siblings of patients with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder because these two severe mental disorders may have a common biopsychosocial pathophysiology,” the team writes.

The study was supported by a grant from Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Yen Tjing Ling Medical Foundation, and the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan.

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

People with bipolar disorder as well as their unaffected siblings appear to be at increased risk for cancer, particularly of the breast, according to new research from Taiwan.

“To our knowledge, our study is the first to report an increased overall cancer risk as well as increased risks of breast and ectodermal cancer among the unaffected siblings aged < 50 years of patients with bipolar disorder,” Ya-Mei Bai, MD, PhD, of National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan, and colleagues write in an article published online in the International Journal of Cancer.

Most, but not all, previous studies have shown a link between bipolar disorder and cancer. Whether the elevated risk of malignancy extends to family members without the mental health condition has not been elucidated.

To investigate, the researchers turned to the National Health Insurance Research Database of Taiwan. They identified 25,356 individuals diagnosed with bipolar disorder by a psychiatrist between 1996 and 2010 and the same number of unaffected siblings, as well as more than 100,000 age-, sex-, income-, and residence-matched controls without severe mental illness.

Compared with the control group, people with bipolar disorder (odds ratio, 1.22) and their unaffected siblings (OR, 1.17) both had a higher risk of developing malignant cancer of any kind. The researchers also found that both groups were at higher risk for breast cancer, with odds ratios of 1.98 in individuals with bipolar disorder and 1.73 in their unaffected siblings.

However, the risk of skin cancer was only high in people with bipolar disorder (OR, 2.70) and not in their siblings (OR, 0.62). And conversely, the risk of kidney cancer was significantly increased in unaffected siblings (OR, 2.45) but not in people with bipolar disorder (OR, 0.47).

When stratified by the embryonic developmental layer from which tumors had originated – ectodermal, mesodermal, or endodermal – the authors observed a significantly increased risk for only ectodermal cancers. In addition, only people under age 50 in both groups (OR, 1.90 for those with bipolar disorder; OR, 1.65 for siblings) were more likely to develop an ectodermal cancer, especially of the breast, compared with the control group. The risks remained elevated after excluding breast cancer but were no longer significant.

When stratified by age, the risk of developing any cancer in both groups also only appeared to be greater for those under age 50 (OR, 1.34 in people with bipolar disorder; OR, 1.32 in siblings) compared with those aged 50 and over (OR, 0.97 and 0.99, respectively). The authors highlighted these figures in the supplemental data set but did not discuss it further in the study beyond a brief mention that “younger patients with bipolar disorder and younger unaffected siblings (< 50 years), but not older ones (≥ 50 years), were more likely to develop any malignancy during the follow-up than matched controls.”

“This paper essentially finds what we have found in our previous work – that people with bipolar disorder have a greater risk of cancer,” said Michael Berk, MBBCh, PhD, a professor of psychiatry at the Deakin University School of Medicine in Geelong, Australia, who published a systematic review and meta-analysis last spring on cancer risk and the role of lithium treatment in bipolar disorder.

“The interesting finding in our work,” Dr. Berk told this news organization, “is that this risk is attenuated by use of lithium but not other agents.”

The Taiwanese researchers propose a “biopsychosocial explanation” for their results, noting that both the nervous system and the breast and skin develop from the ectoderm, and that cancer risk factors such as smoking and obesity are more common in people with bipolar disorder and their unaffected siblings.

“The findings,” they write, “imply a genetic overlap in neurodevelopment and malignancy pathogenesis and may encourage clinicians to closely monitor patients with bipolar disorder and their unaffected siblings for cancer warning signs.”

The authors, however, caution that their study needs validation and had several limitations, including lack of adjustment for drug treatment and lifestyle and environmental factors.

“Our findings may persuade clinicians and researchers to reevaluate the cancer risk among the unaffected siblings of patients with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder because these two severe mental disorders may have a common biopsychosocial pathophysiology,” the team writes.

The study was supported by a grant from Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Yen Tjing Ling Medical Foundation, and the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan.

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

Scientists at Newcastle University (England) have identified the mechanism for skin cancer growth.

Their research, published in the British Journal of Dermatology, describes how early-stage melanomas at risk of spreading secrete transforming growth factor beta₂ (TGF-beta₂), which causes the reduction, or down-regulation, of the proteins AMBRA1 and loricrin, both of which are found in the skin overlaying the tumor. TGF-beta₂ also causes the loss of claudin-1, which in turn leads to loss of skin integrity, facilitating ulceration.

Senior author Penny Lovat, PhD, professor of cellular dermatology and oncology at Newcastle University, and chief scientific officer at AMLo Biosciences, explained: “AMBRA1, loricrin, and claudin-1 are all proteins key to maintaining the integrity of the upper layer of the skin,” and that the loss of these proteins causes gaps to develop, allowing the tumor to spread and ulcerate – a process associated with high-risk tumors. Dr. Lovat likened the process to that of “mortar and bricks holding together a wall”, with the loss of these proteins being “like the mortar crumbling away in the wall.”

According to Cancer Research UK, there are over 16,000 new cases of melanoma skin cancer each year in the United Kingdom, with over 2,000 deaths annually. After being surgically removed, primary tumors are histologically staged, with even low-risk cases being followed up for a number of years, a process that can be time-consuming for patients and costly for the NHS.
 

Some reassurance for those with melanoma

The creators of the new test say that it is these low-risk patients that the test is able to identify, offering a degree of reassurance to those diagnosed with the disease, and potentially reducing the number of hospital clinic visits they require.

Dr. Lovat commented: “Our test offers a personalized prognosis as it more accurately predicts if your skin cancer is unlikely to spread.”

She added that the test will aid clinicians to identify genuinely low-risk patients diagnosed with an early-stage melanoma, reducing the number of follow-up appointments for those identified as low risk. It, therefore, offers the opportunity to save the NHS time and money.
 

Excellent news for those with skin cancer

Phil Brady, chief operating officer of the British Skin Foundation, echoed Dr. Lovat’s comments, saying: “The test can alleviate stress and anxiety for patients caused by this potentially deadly skin cancer, whilst increasing efficiency and reducing costs to the NHS.”

Nick Levell, MD, consultant dermatologist & British Skin Foundation spokesperson, who has not been involved in the research, commented how the arrival of the test was “excellent news,” adding that “people at low risk can be reassured and will not have to attend hospital so often for check-ups”.

The development of the new test AMBLor has been led by Dr. Lovat, in association with the university spin-out company AMLo Biosciences, and is accredited by the National Accreditation Body for the United Kingdom. The test involves tissue sections from the standard biopsy being sent in the post to the lab for analysis and costs £293 plus VAT. Currently available through a private referral service, the Newcastle team have applied for the test to be made available on the NHS.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

Scientists at Newcastle University (England) have identified the mechanism for skin cancer growth.

Their research, published in the British Journal of Dermatology, describes how early-stage melanomas at risk of spreading secrete transforming growth factor beta₂ (TGF-beta₂), which causes the reduction, or down-regulation, of the proteins AMBRA1 and loricrin, both of which are found in the skin overlaying the tumor. TGF-beta₂ also causes the loss of claudin-1, which in turn leads to loss of skin integrity, facilitating ulceration.

Senior author Penny Lovat, PhD, professor of cellular dermatology and oncology at Newcastle University, and chief scientific officer at AMLo Biosciences, explained: “AMBRA1, loricrin, and claudin-1 are all proteins key to maintaining the integrity of the upper layer of the skin,” and that the loss of these proteins causes gaps to develop, allowing the tumor to spread and ulcerate – a process associated with high-risk tumors. Dr. Lovat likened the process to that of “mortar and bricks holding together a wall”, with the loss of these proteins being “like the mortar crumbling away in the wall.”

According to Cancer Research UK, there are over 16,000 new cases of melanoma skin cancer each year in the United Kingdom, with over 2,000 deaths annually. After being surgically removed, primary tumors are histologically staged, with even low-risk cases being followed up for a number of years, a process that can be time-consuming for patients and costly for the NHS.
 

Some reassurance for those with melanoma

The creators of the new test say that it is these low-risk patients that the test is able to identify, offering a degree of reassurance to those diagnosed with the disease, and potentially reducing the number of hospital clinic visits they require.

Dr. Lovat commented: “Our test offers a personalized prognosis as it more accurately predicts if your skin cancer is unlikely to spread.”

She added that the test will aid clinicians to identify genuinely low-risk patients diagnosed with an early-stage melanoma, reducing the number of follow-up appointments for those identified as low risk. It, therefore, offers the opportunity to save the NHS time and money.
 

Excellent news for those with skin cancer

Phil Brady, chief operating officer of the British Skin Foundation, echoed Dr. Lovat’s comments, saying: “The test can alleviate stress and anxiety for patients caused by this potentially deadly skin cancer, whilst increasing efficiency and reducing costs to the NHS.”

Nick Levell, MD, consultant dermatologist & British Skin Foundation spokesperson, who has not been involved in the research, commented how the arrival of the test was “excellent news,” adding that “people at low risk can be reassured and will not have to attend hospital so often for check-ups”.

The development of the new test AMBLor has been led by Dr. Lovat, in association with the university spin-out company AMLo Biosciences, and is accredited by the National Accreditation Body for the United Kingdom. The test involves tissue sections from the standard biopsy being sent in the post to the lab for analysis and costs £293 plus VAT. Currently available through a private referral service, the Newcastle team have applied for the test to be made available on the NHS.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

Scientists at Newcastle University (England) have identified the mechanism for skin cancer growth.

Their research, published in the British Journal of Dermatology, describes how early-stage melanomas at risk of spreading secrete transforming growth factor beta₂ (TGF-beta₂), which causes the reduction, or down-regulation, of the proteins AMBRA1 and loricrin, both of which are found in the skin overlaying the tumor. TGF-beta₂ also causes the loss of claudin-1, which in turn leads to loss of skin integrity, facilitating ulceration.

Senior author Penny Lovat, PhD, professor of cellular dermatology and oncology at Newcastle University, and chief scientific officer at AMLo Biosciences, explained: “AMBRA1, loricrin, and claudin-1 are all proteins key to maintaining the integrity of the upper layer of the skin,” and that the loss of these proteins causes gaps to develop, allowing the tumor to spread and ulcerate – a process associated with high-risk tumors. Dr. Lovat likened the process to that of “mortar and bricks holding together a wall”, with the loss of these proteins being “like the mortar crumbling away in the wall.”

According to Cancer Research UK, there are over 16,000 new cases of melanoma skin cancer each year in the United Kingdom, with over 2,000 deaths annually. After being surgically removed, primary tumors are histologically staged, with even low-risk cases being followed up for a number of years, a process that can be time-consuming for patients and costly for the NHS.
 

Some reassurance for those with melanoma

The creators of the new test say that it is these low-risk patients that the test is able to identify, offering a degree of reassurance to those diagnosed with the disease, and potentially reducing the number of hospital clinic visits they require.

Dr. Lovat commented: “Our test offers a personalized prognosis as it more accurately predicts if your skin cancer is unlikely to spread.”

She added that the test will aid clinicians to identify genuinely low-risk patients diagnosed with an early-stage melanoma, reducing the number of follow-up appointments for those identified as low risk. It, therefore, offers the opportunity to save the NHS time and money.
 

Excellent news for those with skin cancer

Phil Brady, chief operating officer of the British Skin Foundation, echoed Dr. Lovat’s comments, saying: “The test can alleviate stress and anxiety for patients caused by this potentially deadly skin cancer, whilst increasing efficiency and reducing costs to the NHS.”

Nick Levell, MD, consultant dermatologist & British Skin Foundation spokesperson, who has not been involved in the research, commented how the arrival of the test was “excellent news,” adding that “people at low risk can be reassured and will not have to attend hospital so often for check-ups”.

The development of the new test AMBLor has been led by Dr. Lovat, in association with the university spin-out company AMLo Biosciences, and is accredited by the National Accreditation Body for the United Kingdom. The test involves tissue sections from the standard biopsy being sent in the post to the lab for analysis and costs £293 plus VAT. Currently available through a private referral service, the Newcastle team have applied for the test to be made available on the NHS.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

Fed up with personal attacks on the nation’s top infectious disease expert, scores of leading scientists and physicians have signed an open letter defending Anthony Fauci, MD, for his years of service to the public and his leadership on the pandemic.

“We deplore the personal attacks on Dr. Fauci. The criticism is inaccurate, unscientific, ill-founded in the facts and, increasingly, motivated by partisan politics,” reads the letter of support, initiated by Ezekiel Emanuel, MD, and signed by almost 300 scientists and public health and medical professionals, including Nobel Laureates, a former Republican senator, and leadership of medical societies and institutions.

Dr. Fauci has led the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases since 1984 and serves as President Biden’s top medical advisor on the pandemic.

“Dr. Anthony Fauci has served the U.S.A. with wisdom and integrity for nearly 40 years. Through HIV, Ebola, and now COVID, he has unswervingly served the United States guiding the country to very successful outcomes. He has our unreserved respect and trust as a scientist and a national leader,” the letter reads.

Dr. Fauci has repeatedly faced harsh criticism from congressional Republicans, especially Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.).

At a particularly contentious congressional hearing earlier this week on the federal government’s response to Omicron, Dr. Fauci fought back, telling Sen. Marshall, “You’re so misinformed, it’s extraordinary.”

Dr. Fauci, who has received death threats and harassment of his family, told Sen. Rand that his “completely untrue” statements and rhetoric “kindles the crazies out there.”
 

‘Sagacious counsel’

The personal attacks on Dr. Fauci are a “distraction from what should be the national focus – working together to finally overcome a pandemic that is killing about 500,000 people a year. We are grateful for Dr. Fauci’s dedication and tireless efforts to help the country through this pandemic and other health crises,” the letter reads.

“Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Fauci has provided the American political leadership and the public with sagacious counsel in these most difficult of times. His advice has been as well informed as data and the rapidly evolving circumstances allowed,” it states.

“Importantly,” Dr. Fauci has given his advice with “humility, being clear about what we know and what is unknown, but requires judgment. He has consistently emphasized the importance of mask-wearing, social distancing, and vaccination. These are standard and necessary public health measures that we all support,” the letter states.

“We are grateful that Dr. Fauci has consistently stated the science in a way that represents the facts as they emerge, without unwarranted speculation.”

“Sadly, in these politically polarized times where misinformation contaminates the United States’ response to the pandemic, routine public health measures have become unnecessarily controversial, undermining the effectiveness of our country’s response,” the letter reads.

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

Fed up with personal attacks on the nation’s top infectious disease expert, scores of leading scientists and physicians have signed an open letter defending Anthony Fauci, MD, for his years of service to the public and his leadership on the pandemic.

“We deplore the personal attacks on Dr. Fauci. The criticism is inaccurate, unscientific, ill-founded in the facts and, increasingly, motivated by partisan politics,” reads the letter of support, initiated by Ezekiel Emanuel, MD, and signed by almost 300 scientists and public health and medical professionals, including Nobel Laureates, a former Republican senator, and leadership of medical societies and institutions.

Dr. Fauci has led the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases since 1984 and serves as President Biden’s top medical advisor on the pandemic.

“Dr. Anthony Fauci has served the U.S.A. with wisdom and integrity for nearly 40 years. Through HIV, Ebola, and now COVID, he has unswervingly served the United States guiding the country to very successful outcomes. He has our unreserved respect and trust as a scientist and a national leader,” the letter reads.

Dr. Fauci has repeatedly faced harsh criticism from congressional Republicans, especially Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.).

At a particularly contentious congressional hearing earlier this week on the federal government’s response to Omicron, Dr. Fauci fought back, telling Sen. Marshall, “You’re so misinformed, it’s extraordinary.”

Dr. Fauci, who has received death threats and harassment of his family, told Sen. Rand that his “completely untrue” statements and rhetoric “kindles the crazies out there.”
 

‘Sagacious counsel’

The personal attacks on Dr. Fauci are a “distraction from what should be the national focus – working together to finally overcome a pandemic that is killing about 500,000 people a year. We are grateful for Dr. Fauci’s dedication and tireless efforts to help the country through this pandemic and other health crises,” the letter reads.

“Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Fauci has provided the American political leadership and the public with sagacious counsel in these most difficult of times. His advice has been as well informed as data and the rapidly evolving circumstances allowed,” it states.

“Importantly,” Dr. Fauci has given his advice with “humility, being clear about what we know and what is unknown, but requires judgment. He has consistently emphasized the importance of mask-wearing, social distancing, and vaccination. These are standard and necessary public health measures that we all support,” the letter states.

“We are grateful that Dr. Fauci has consistently stated the science in a way that represents the facts as they emerge, without unwarranted speculation.”

“Sadly, in these politically polarized times where misinformation contaminates the United States’ response to the pandemic, routine public health measures have become unnecessarily controversial, undermining the effectiveness of our country’s response,” the letter reads.

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

Fed up with personal attacks on the nation’s top infectious disease expert, scores of leading scientists and physicians have signed an open letter defending Anthony Fauci, MD, for his years of service to the public and his leadership on the pandemic.

“We deplore the personal attacks on Dr. Fauci. The criticism is inaccurate, unscientific, ill-founded in the facts and, increasingly, motivated by partisan politics,” reads the letter of support, initiated by Ezekiel Emanuel, MD, and signed by almost 300 scientists and public health and medical professionals, including Nobel Laureates, a former Republican senator, and leadership of medical societies and institutions.

Dr. Fauci has led the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases since 1984 and serves as President Biden’s top medical advisor on the pandemic.

“Dr. Anthony Fauci has served the U.S.A. with wisdom and integrity for nearly 40 years. Through HIV, Ebola, and now COVID, he has unswervingly served the United States guiding the country to very successful outcomes. He has our unreserved respect and trust as a scientist and a national leader,” the letter reads.

Dr. Fauci has repeatedly faced harsh criticism from congressional Republicans, especially Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.).

At a particularly contentious congressional hearing earlier this week on the federal government’s response to Omicron, Dr. Fauci fought back, telling Sen. Marshall, “You’re so misinformed, it’s extraordinary.”

Dr. Fauci, who has received death threats and harassment of his family, told Sen. Rand that his “completely untrue” statements and rhetoric “kindles the crazies out there.”
 

‘Sagacious counsel’

The personal attacks on Dr. Fauci are a “distraction from what should be the national focus – working together to finally overcome a pandemic that is killing about 500,000 people a year. We are grateful for Dr. Fauci’s dedication and tireless efforts to help the country through this pandemic and other health crises,” the letter reads.

“Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Fauci has provided the American political leadership and the public with sagacious counsel in these most difficult of times. His advice has been as well informed as data and the rapidly evolving circumstances allowed,” it states.

“Importantly,” Dr. Fauci has given his advice with “humility, being clear about what we know and what is unknown, but requires judgment. He has consistently emphasized the importance of mask-wearing, social distancing, and vaccination. These are standard and necessary public health measures that we all support,” the letter states.

“We are grateful that Dr. Fauci has consistently stated the science in a way that represents the facts as they emerge, without unwarranted speculation.”

“Sadly, in these politically polarized times where misinformation contaminates the United States’ response to the pandemic, routine public health measures have become unnecessarily controversial, undermining the effectiveness of our country’s response,” the letter reads.

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