Federal Practitioner

Long COVID symptoms may differ depending on which SARS-CoV-2 variant is behind a person’s infection, a new study shows.

The data from Italy compared long COVID symptoms reported by patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 from March to December 2020 (when the original, or “Wuhan,” variant was dominant) with those reported by patients infected from January to April 2021 (B.1.1.7-, or Alpha variant-dominant). It showed a substantial change in the pattern of neurological and cognitive/emotional problems – the latter mostly seen with the Alpha variant.

Infectious disease specialist Michele Spinicci, MD, from the University of Florence and Careggi University Hospital, Italy, led the work. “Many of the symptoms reported in this study have been measured [before], but this is the first time they have been linked to different COVID-19 variants,” he told this news organization. “Findings in patients with long COVID were focused on neurological and psychological difficulties.”

However, he pointed out that much remains to be understood about long COVID in terms of symptoms, diagnosis, and treatment. 

“Long COVID is a huge area that involves many different fields of medicine, so there is not one single piece of advice to give on management. There’s lots to consider when evaluating a long COVID patient,” he said.

Results showed that when the Alpha variant was the dominant variant, the prevalence of myalgia (10%), dyspnea (42%), brain fog/mental confusion (17%), and anxiety/depression (13%) significantly increased relative to the wild-type (original, Wuhan) variant, while anosmia (2%), dysgeusia (4%), and impaired hearing (1%) were less common.

When the wild-type (original, Wuhan) variant was dominant, fatigue (37%), insomnia (16%), dysgeusia (11%), and impaired hearing (5%) were all more common than with the Alpha variant. Dyspnea (33%), brain fog (10%), myalgia (4%), and anxiety/depression (6%) were less common. 

Overall, 76% of the patients in the trial reported at least one persistent symptom, while the most common reported symptoms were dyspnea (37%) and chronic fatigue (36%), followed by insomnia (16%), visual disorders (13%), and brain fog (13%).

The findings come from an early-release abstract that will be presented at the European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases (ECCMID) 2022, in Lisbon, Portugal, in a few weeks’ time.
 

‘The take-home point’  

Michael A. Horberg, MD, associate medical director, Kaiser Permanente – Mid-Atlantic Permanente Medical Group, Rockville, Maryland, has recently presented data on symptoms seen with long COVID in over 28,000 people, as reported by this news organization, at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections 2022. These people were infected with the wild-type virus.

Commenting on the study by Dr. Spinicci, he said: “The issue is that as we go along the COVID lifespan from acute to long COVID, what prompts patients to seek medical attention may change. If symptoms are not severe or were not well publicized previously, patients may not see the need to seek care or evaluation. As such, it doesn’t surprise me to find these changes over time, independent of any potential biological activity of the virus or its consequences.”

Dr. Horberg noted that their own study results are consistent with those of Dr. Spinicci et al. from March to December 2020 (original, Wuhan variant). “To me, the take-home point is long COVID is real, and physicians need to be on the lookout for it. However, not all symptoms are due to long COVID, and we need to keep the time course of symptoms during evaluation of such patients.”

Also providing comment on the findings was Debby Bogaert, MD, chair of Pediatric Medicine, University of Edinburgh. Reflecting on whether the symptoms were due to long COVID or another underlying disease, she said: “The number of patients with ongoing symptoms is very high, therefore [it is] unlikely that all of this is re-emergence of underlying or previous health problems. The type of symptoms reported are also as reported by other cohorts, so not unexpected. And irrespective of the root cause, they require care.”

Dr. Bogaert also noted that the data reiterate that COVID-19 is a new disease, and that “new variants might show shifting clinical pictures, not only regarding severity and symptoms of acute disease, but possibly also regarding sequela,” and that this, “underlines the importance of ongoing surveillance of variants, and ongoing evaluation of the acute and long-term clinical picture accompanying these, to ensure we adapt our public health approaches, clinical treatment plans, and long-term follow-up when and where needed.”

Dr. Bogaert stressed that only by keeping track of the changes in symptoms both acute and long-term – by patients and doctors – would the best patient care be provided.

“Patients need to know so they can report these back to their doctors, and doctors need to know over time that the picture of sequela might shift, so sequela are recognized early, and these patients receive the appropriate follow-up treatment,” she said. These shifting patterns might also apply to community patients as well as those hospitalized with COVID-19.
 

Study details

The retrospective, observational study included 428 patients, 59% men, with a mean age of 64 years, who had been treated at the Careggi University Hospital’s post-COVID outpatient service between June 2020 and June 2021, when the original form of SARS-CoV-2, and later the Alpha variant, were circulating, with some overlap.

All patients had been hospitalized with COVID-19 and discharged 4-12 weeks prior to attending the outpatient post-COVID service. They were asked to complete a questionnaire on persistent symptoms at the median of 53 days after being discharged from the hospital. In addition, data on medical history, microbiological and clinical COVID-19 course, self-reported symptoms (at the point of the follow-up visit), and patient demographics were obtained from electronic medical records.
 

Newer variants being studied

Upon analysis of long COVID symptoms according to treatment given during the acute phase using multivariate analysis, increasing oxygen support (odds ratio, 1.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-1.8), use of immunosuppressant drugs (OR, 6.4; 95% CI, 1.5-28), and female sex (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1-2.9) were associated with a higher risk for long COVID symptoms, while patients with type 2 diabetes (OR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2-0.7) had a lower risk of developing long COVID symptoms.

When asked whether the increased anxiety and depression seen with the Alpha variant might be also linked to the fact that people are living through hard times, with lockdowns, economic difficulties, possible illness, and even fatalities among family and friends due to COVID, Dr. Spinicci pointed out that “it’s a preliminary study, and there are lots of factors that we didn’t explore. It’s difficult to arrive at definite conclusions about long COVID because so much remains unknown. There are lots of external and environmental factors in the general population that might contribute to these findings.”

Dr. Spinicci has continued to enroll patients from later periods of the pandemic, including patients who were infected with the Delta and Omicron variants of SARS-CoV-2.

“We’re interested in finding out if these other variants are also associated with different phenotypes of long COVID. This study is part of our follow-up program here in the hospital where lots of different specialties are following patients for 20 months,” he said.

Dr. Horberg noted that one criticism of this study is that it was unclear whether the researchers accounted for pre-existing conditions. “They note the co-morbidities in the table 1, but don’t say how they accounted for that in their analyses. We found a lot of what patients were calling ‘long COVID’ were exacerbations of co-morbidities but not a new condition.” 

Dr. Spinicci and his coauthors acknowledged that the study was observational. And, as such, it does not prove cause and effect, and they could not confirm which variant of the virus caused the infection in different patients, which may limit the conclusions that can be drawn.

“Future research should focus on the potential impacts of variants of concern and vaccination status on ongoing symptoms,” Spinicci said.

Early release of an abstract will be presented at the European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases (ECCMID) 2022, in Lisbon, Portugal, April 23-26, 2022. Abstract 02768.

Dr. Spinicci and Dr. Horberg have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Bogaert declared that she is on the program committee of ECCMID; she has been a member of SIGN/NICE COVID-19 rapid guideline: managing the long-term effects of COVID-19; and she is involved in multiple ongoing COVID-related studies, both acute and long-term sequela (funding MRC, CSO, ZonMw).

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

Long COVID symptoms may differ depending on which SARS-CoV-2 variant is behind a person’s infection, a new study shows.

The data from Italy compared long COVID symptoms reported by patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 from March to December 2020 (when the original, or “Wuhan,” variant was dominant) with those reported by patients infected from January to April 2021 (B.1.1.7-, or Alpha variant-dominant). It showed a substantial change in the pattern of neurological and cognitive/emotional problems – the latter mostly seen with the Alpha variant.

Infectious disease specialist Michele Spinicci, MD, from the University of Florence and Careggi University Hospital, Italy, led the work. “Many of the symptoms reported in this study have been measured [before], but this is the first time they have been linked to different COVID-19 variants,” he told this news organization. “Findings in patients with long COVID were focused on neurological and psychological difficulties.”

However, he pointed out that much remains to be understood about long COVID in terms of symptoms, diagnosis, and treatment. 

“Long COVID is a huge area that involves many different fields of medicine, so there is not one single piece of advice to give on management. There’s lots to consider when evaluating a long COVID patient,” he said.

Results showed that when the Alpha variant was the dominant variant, the prevalence of myalgia (10%), dyspnea (42%), brain fog/mental confusion (17%), and anxiety/depression (13%) significantly increased relative to the wild-type (original, Wuhan) variant, while anosmia (2%), dysgeusia (4%), and impaired hearing (1%) were less common.

When the wild-type (original, Wuhan) variant was dominant, fatigue (37%), insomnia (16%), dysgeusia (11%), and impaired hearing (5%) were all more common than with the Alpha variant. Dyspnea (33%), brain fog (10%), myalgia (4%), and anxiety/depression (6%) were less common. 

Overall, 76% of the patients in the trial reported at least one persistent symptom, while the most common reported symptoms were dyspnea (37%) and chronic fatigue (36%), followed by insomnia (16%), visual disorders (13%), and brain fog (13%).

The findings come from an early-release abstract that will be presented at the European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases (ECCMID) 2022, in Lisbon, Portugal, in a few weeks’ time.
 

‘The take-home point’  

Michael A. Horberg, MD, associate medical director, Kaiser Permanente – Mid-Atlantic Permanente Medical Group, Rockville, Maryland, has recently presented data on symptoms seen with long COVID in over 28,000 people, as reported by this news organization, at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections 2022. These people were infected with the wild-type virus.

Commenting on the study by Dr. Spinicci, he said: “The issue is that as we go along the COVID lifespan from acute to long COVID, what prompts patients to seek medical attention may change. If symptoms are not severe or were not well publicized previously, patients may not see the need to seek care or evaluation. As such, it doesn’t surprise me to find these changes over time, independent of any potential biological activity of the virus or its consequences.”

Dr. Horberg noted that their own study results are consistent with those of Dr. Spinicci et al. from March to December 2020 (original, Wuhan variant). “To me, the take-home point is long COVID is real, and physicians need to be on the lookout for it. However, not all symptoms are due to long COVID, and we need to keep the time course of symptoms during evaluation of such patients.”

Also providing comment on the findings was Debby Bogaert, MD, chair of Pediatric Medicine, University of Edinburgh. Reflecting on whether the symptoms were due to long COVID or another underlying disease, she said: “The number of patients with ongoing symptoms is very high, therefore [it is] unlikely that all of this is re-emergence of underlying or previous health problems. The type of symptoms reported are also as reported by other cohorts, so not unexpected. And irrespective of the root cause, they require care.”

Dr. Bogaert also noted that the data reiterate that COVID-19 is a new disease, and that “new variants might show shifting clinical pictures, not only regarding severity and symptoms of acute disease, but possibly also regarding sequela,” and that this, “underlines the importance of ongoing surveillance of variants, and ongoing evaluation of the acute and long-term clinical picture accompanying these, to ensure we adapt our public health approaches, clinical treatment plans, and long-term follow-up when and where needed.”

Dr. Bogaert stressed that only by keeping track of the changes in symptoms both acute and long-term – by patients and doctors – would the best patient care be provided.

“Patients need to know so they can report these back to their doctors, and doctors need to know over time that the picture of sequela might shift, so sequela are recognized early, and these patients receive the appropriate follow-up treatment,” she said. These shifting patterns might also apply to community patients as well as those hospitalized with COVID-19.
 

Study details

The retrospective, observational study included 428 patients, 59% men, with a mean age of 64 years, who had been treated at the Careggi University Hospital’s post-COVID outpatient service between June 2020 and June 2021, when the original form of SARS-CoV-2, and later the Alpha variant, were circulating, with some overlap.

All patients had been hospitalized with COVID-19 and discharged 4-12 weeks prior to attending the outpatient post-COVID service. They were asked to complete a questionnaire on persistent symptoms at the median of 53 days after being discharged from the hospital. In addition, data on medical history, microbiological and clinical COVID-19 course, self-reported symptoms (at the point of the follow-up visit), and patient demographics were obtained from electronic medical records.
 

Newer variants being studied

Upon analysis of long COVID symptoms according to treatment given during the acute phase using multivariate analysis, increasing oxygen support (odds ratio, 1.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-1.8), use of immunosuppressant drugs (OR, 6.4; 95% CI, 1.5-28), and female sex (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1-2.9) were associated with a higher risk for long COVID symptoms, while patients with type 2 diabetes (OR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2-0.7) had a lower risk of developing long COVID symptoms.

When asked whether the increased anxiety and depression seen with the Alpha variant might be also linked to the fact that people are living through hard times, with lockdowns, economic difficulties, possible illness, and even fatalities among family and friends due to COVID, Dr. Spinicci pointed out that “it’s a preliminary study, and there are lots of factors that we didn’t explore. It’s difficult to arrive at definite conclusions about long COVID because so much remains unknown. There are lots of external and environmental factors in the general population that might contribute to these findings.”

Dr. Spinicci has continued to enroll patients from later periods of the pandemic, including patients who were infected with the Delta and Omicron variants of SARS-CoV-2.

“We’re interested in finding out if these other variants are also associated with different phenotypes of long COVID. This study is part of our follow-up program here in the hospital where lots of different specialties are following patients for 20 months,” he said.

Dr. Horberg noted that one criticism of this study is that it was unclear whether the researchers accounted for pre-existing conditions. “They note the co-morbidities in the table 1, but don’t say how they accounted for that in their analyses. We found a lot of what patients were calling ‘long COVID’ were exacerbations of co-morbidities but not a new condition.” 

Dr. Spinicci and his coauthors acknowledged that the study was observational. And, as such, it does not prove cause and effect, and they could not confirm which variant of the virus caused the infection in different patients, which may limit the conclusions that can be drawn.

“Future research should focus on the potential impacts of variants of concern and vaccination status on ongoing symptoms,” Spinicci said.

Early release of an abstract will be presented at the European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases (ECCMID) 2022, in Lisbon, Portugal, April 23-26, 2022. Abstract 02768.

Dr. Spinicci and Dr. Horberg have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Bogaert declared that she is on the program committee of ECCMID; she has been a member of SIGN/NICE COVID-19 rapid guideline: managing the long-term effects of COVID-19; and she is involved in multiple ongoing COVID-related studies, both acute and long-term sequela (funding MRC, CSO, ZonMw).

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

Long COVID symptoms may differ depending on which SARS-CoV-2 variant is behind a person’s infection, a new study shows.

The data from Italy compared long COVID symptoms reported by patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 from March to December 2020 (when the original, or “Wuhan,” variant was dominant) with those reported by patients infected from January to April 2021 (B.1.1.7-, or Alpha variant-dominant). It showed a substantial change in the pattern of neurological and cognitive/emotional problems – the latter mostly seen with the Alpha variant.

Infectious disease specialist Michele Spinicci, MD, from the University of Florence and Careggi University Hospital, Italy, led the work. “Many of the symptoms reported in this study have been measured [before], but this is the first time they have been linked to different COVID-19 variants,” he told this news organization. “Findings in patients with long COVID were focused on neurological and psychological difficulties.”

However, he pointed out that much remains to be understood about long COVID in terms of symptoms, diagnosis, and treatment. 

“Long COVID is a huge area that involves many different fields of medicine, so there is not one single piece of advice to give on management. There’s lots to consider when evaluating a long COVID patient,” he said.

Results showed that when the Alpha variant was the dominant variant, the prevalence of myalgia (10%), dyspnea (42%), brain fog/mental confusion (17%), and anxiety/depression (13%) significantly increased relative to the wild-type (original, Wuhan) variant, while anosmia (2%), dysgeusia (4%), and impaired hearing (1%) were less common.

When the wild-type (original, Wuhan) variant was dominant, fatigue (37%), insomnia (16%), dysgeusia (11%), and impaired hearing (5%) were all more common than with the Alpha variant. Dyspnea (33%), brain fog (10%), myalgia (4%), and anxiety/depression (6%) were less common. 

Overall, 76% of the patients in the trial reported at least one persistent symptom, while the most common reported symptoms were dyspnea (37%) and chronic fatigue (36%), followed by insomnia (16%), visual disorders (13%), and brain fog (13%).

The findings come from an early-release abstract that will be presented at the European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases (ECCMID) 2022, in Lisbon, Portugal, in a few weeks’ time.
 

‘The take-home point’  

Michael A. Horberg, MD, associate medical director, Kaiser Permanente – Mid-Atlantic Permanente Medical Group, Rockville, Maryland, has recently presented data on symptoms seen with long COVID in over 28,000 people, as reported by this news organization, at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections 2022. These people were infected with the wild-type virus.

Commenting on the study by Dr. Spinicci, he said: “The issue is that as we go along the COVID lifespan from acute to long COVID, what prompts patients to seek medical attention may change. If symptoms are not severe or were not well publicized previously, patients may not see the need to seek care or evaluation. As such, it doesn’t surprise me to find these changes over time, independent of any potential biological activity of the virus or its consequences.”

Dr. Horberg noted that their own study results are consistent with those of Dr. Spinicci et al. from March to December 2020 (original, Wuhan variant). “To me, the take-home point is long COVID is real, and physicians need to be on the lookout for it. However, not all symptoms are due to long COVID, and we need to keep the time course of symptoms during evaluation of such patients.”

Also providing comment on the findings was Debby Bogaert, MD, chair of Pediatric Medicine, University of Edinburgh. Reflecting on whether the symptoms were due to long COVID or another underlying disease, she said: “The number of patients with ongoing symptoms is very high, therefore [it is] unlikely that all of this is re-emergence of underlying or previous health problems. The type of symptoms reported are also as reported by other cohorts, so not unexpected. And irrespective of the root cause, they require care.”

Dr. Bogaert also noted that the data reiterate that COVID-19 is a new disease, and that “new variants might show shifting clinical pictures, not only regarding severity and symptoms of acute disease, but possibly also regarding sequela,” and that this, “underlines the importance of ongoing surveillance of variants, and ongoing evaluation of the acute and long-term clinical picture accompanying these, to ensure we adapt our public health approaches, clinical treatment plans, and long-term follow-up when and where needed.”

Dr. Bogaert stressed that only by keeping track of the changes in symptoms both acute and long-term – by patients and doctors – would the best patient care be provided.

“Patients need to know so they can report these back to their doctors, and doctors need to know over time that the picture of sequela might shift, so sequela are recognized early, and these patients receive the appropriate follow-up treatment,” she said. These shifting patterns might also apply to community patients as well as those hospitalized with COVID-19.
 

Study details

The retrospective, observational study included 428 patients, 59% men, with a mean age of 64 years, who had been treated at the Careggi University Hospital’s post-COVID outpatient service between June 2020 and June 2021, when the original form of SARS-CoV-2, and later the Alpha variant, were circulating, with some overlap.

All patients had been hospitalized with COVID-19 and discharged 4-12 weeks prior to attending the outpatient post-COVID service. They were asked to complete a questionnaire on persistent symptoms at the median of 53 days after being discharged from the hospital. In addition, data on medical history, microbiological and clinical COVID-19 course, self-reported symptoms (at the point of the follow-up visit), and patient demographics were obtained from electronic medical records.
 

Newer variants being studied

Upon analysis of long COVID symptoms according to treatment given during the acute phase using multivariate analysis, increasing oxygen support (odds ratio, 1.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-1.8), use of immunosuppressant drugs (OR, 6.4; 95% CI, 1.5-28), and female sex (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1-2.9) were associated with a higher risk for long COVID symptoms, while patients with type 2 diabetes (OR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2-0.7) had a lower risk of developing long COVID symptoms.

When asked whether the increased anxiety and depression seen with the Alpha variant might be also linked to the fact that people are living through hard times, with lockdowns, economic difficulties, possible illness, and even fatalities among family and friends due to COVID, Dr. Spinicci pointed out that “it’s a preliminary study, and there are lots of factors that we didn’t explore. It’s difficult to arrive at definite conclusions about long COVID because so much remains unknown. There are lots of external and environmental factors in the general population that might contribute to these findings.”

Dr. Spinicci has continued to enroll patients from later periods of the pandemic, including patients who were infected with the Delta and Omicron variants of SARS-CoV-2.

“We’re interested in finding out if these other variants are also associated with different phenotypes of long COVID. This study is part of our follow-up program here in the hospital where lots of different specialties are following patients for 20 months,” he said.

Dr. Horberg noted that one criticism of this study is that it was unclear whether the researchers accounted for pre-existing conditions. “They note the co-morbidities in the table 1, but don’t say how they accounted for that in their analyses. We found a lot of what patients were calling ‘long COVID’ were exacerbations of co-morbidities but not a new condition.” 

Dr. Spinicci and his coauthors acknowledged that the study was observational. And, as such, it does not prove cause and effect, and they could not confirm which variant of the virus caused the infection in different patients, which may limit the conclusions that can be drawn.

“Future research should focus on the potential impacts of variants of concern and vaccination status on ongoing symptoms,” Spinicci said.

Early release of an abstract will be presented at the European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases (ECCMID) 2022, in Lisbon, Portugal, April 23-26, 2022. Abstract 02768.

Dr. Spinicci and Dr. Horberg have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Bogaert declared that she is on the program committee of ECCMID; she has been a member of SIGN/NICE COVID-19 rapid guideline: managing the long-term effects of COVID-19; and she is involved in multiple ongoing COVID-related studies, both acute and long-term sequela (funding MRC, CSO, ZonMw).

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

Is this the most controversial topic in breast oncology? Quite likely: the results of a recent online poll show split votes and no consensus.

The topic is the use of chemotherapy for premenopausal women with early-stage hormone receptor–positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative (HER2-) breast cancer.

Is the use of chemo in this patient population merely a “graceless” means of achieving ovarian function suppression, as one expert argued in a recent debate?

Or does it offer a distinct cytotoxic benefit, as the other expert countered?

The debate was held during the recent San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS), at which new results were presented that increased the controversy.

The controversy had arisen the previous year over results from the RxPONDER trial.

Five-year follow-up data from RxPONDER showed that adding chemotherapy to endocrine therapy did not improve outcomes over endocrine therapy alone for postmenopausal women with low-risk, node-positive HR+, HER2- breast cancer. This suggests that older women with early-stage breast cancer may safely forgo chemotherapy.

However, the same trial included premenopausal women with the same disease profile, and the results in this subgroup showed that there was benefit from chemotherapy, with a 5-year invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) rate of 94.2%, versus 89.0% for endocrine therapy alone (P = .0004).

The results were immediately controversial.

Some experts suggested the effect was due to the chemotherapy incidentally causing ovarian suppression, not the cytotoxic effect of the drugs on cancer cells. These experts were skeptical about the suggestion that chemotherapy works differently in premenopausal women than it does in postmenopausal women.

Some clinicians feel the lack of clarity creates an opportunity for greater discussion with women when making the treatment decision.

“When I have this conversation with patients, it’s really nuanced,” Stephanie L. Graff, MD, director of breast oncology, Lifespan Cancer Institute, Providence, R.I., told this news organization.

“I would choose chemotherapy for myself, but I’m a chemotherapy doctor, so I’m very comfortable with these medications and their side effects, and I am also very familiar with the slow burn of the side effects of endocrine therapy,” she said.

But for patients who are hearing their options for the first time, the idea of chemotherapy “feels scary,” and there is “a lot of stigma” associated with it, she commented.

Ultimately, she believes in offering patients as much information as possible, inasmuch as “knowledge is power.”

For Dr. Graff, the message from RxPONDER was that, in premenopausal patients with lymph node positive, HR+ breast cancer, “all comers benefited from chemotherapy.”

“And so if the goal is to be maximally aggressive and optimally lower your risk of distant recurrence, which is a life-threatening event, chemotherapy should offered.”

But chemotherapy comes with side effects, so it’s an important conversation to have with patients; RxPONDER showed that the absolute difference in the rate of distant recurrence with chemotherapy was relatively minor, she added.
 

Debate rages on

The debate at SABCS was moderated by Harold J. Burstein, MD, PhD, from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, who commented that if this was “a compelling question last week in clinic, it has now become red hot.”

At the meeting, held in December 2021, new longer-term data from the SOFT and TEXT clinical trials were presented, showing that ovarian suppression with tamoxifen plus an aromatase inhibitor provides a greater reduction in long-term risk of recurrence than tamoxifen alone.

Moreover, updated results from RxPONDER presented at the same session revealed that chemoendocrine therapy was associated with longer IDFS and distant relapse-free survival than endocrine therapy alone for women with one to three positive lymph nodes and a recurrence score of 25 or lower on the Oncotype DX (Genomic Health) 21-gene breast cancer assay.

Dr. Burstein said the debate over the use of chemotherapy in premenopausal women “is the most interesting question right now in early-stage breast cancer.”

The debate focused on the effect of chemotherapy in these patients – was it all down to ovarian function suppression?

Yes, argued Michael Gnant, MD, from the Medical University of Vienna.

Data from “modern adjuvant chemotherapy trials” suggest that chemo offers a 2%-3% benefit in distant disease-free survival at 5 years for premenopausal women, he noted. But the effect is much larger with ovarian function suppression via endocrine therapy, which provides 5-year disease-free and overall survival benefits of 9%-13%.

Older studies have shown that the benefit with chemotherapy is seen only in women who experience amenorrhea with the cytotoxic drugs, Dr. Gnant noted.

“In short, if you give adjuvant chemotherapy and you induce amenorrhea, then there is going to be a survival difference,” he said. “But if you give adjuvant chemotherapy and there is no amenorrhea, there won’t be an outcome difference.”

The ABSCG-05 trial, which compared endocrine therapy with chemotherapy, showed that “in the presence of optimal endocrine adjuvant treatment, adjuvant chemotherapy doesn’t add anything, because you have already achieved the effect of treatment-induced amenorrhea.”

So Dr. Gnant argued that the effect of chemotherapy in RxPONDER was due to ovarian function suppression.

But the real question is: “What does it mean for clinical practice?”

Dr. Gnant asserted that for the “large group of lower-risk premenopausal patients, tamoxifen will be good enough,” while those at moderate or intermediate risk should receive ovarian function suppression with either tamoxifen or an aromatase inhibitor, with the choice dictated by their adverse effects.

Chemotherapy “is just a graceless method of ovarian function suppression and should only be given to high-risk patients and to patients with endocrine nonresponsive disease,” he argued.

On the other side of the debate, Sibylle Loibl, MD, PhD, from the Centre of Hematology and Oncology, Bethanien, Frankfurt, argued that the effect is not all due to ovarian function suppression and that chemotherapy also has a cytotoxic effect in these patients.

“We need chemotherapy” because “cancer in young women is biologically different,” she asserted.

Dr. Loibl pointed to data currently awaiting publication in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute that suggest that younger women have “higher immune gene expression” that may make them more chemotherapy sensitive, and lower expression of hormone receptor genes, which “could make them less endocrine sensitive.”

She also cited data from a study from her own group that showed that pathologic complete response rates to neoadjuvant chemotherapy were higher in younger women with HR+, HER2- breast cancer, indicating a direct effect of chemotherapy on the disease and that age was an important prognostic factor.

The data on the induction of amenorrhea by chemotherapy is also not as clearcut as it seems, she commented. Chemotherapy does not achieve 100% amenorrhea, and gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues are unable to suppress ovarian function in 20% of women.

Dr. Loibl concluded that the “chemotherapy effect is there, it is higher in young women with HR+, HER2- breast cancer,” and that the effect has two components.

“There is a direct cytotoxic effect which cannot be neglected, and there is an endocrine effect on the ovarian function suppression,” she argued.

“I think both are needed in young premenopausal patients,” she added.
 

Audience responses

After the debate, the audience was polled on what effect they thought chemotherapy was having in lower-risk HR+, HER2- breast cancer patients. About two-thirds responded that it was all or mostly due to ovarian function suppression.

However, the next question split the audience. They were presented with a clinical scenario: a 43-year-old woman with a mammographically detected 1.4-cm, intermediate grade, HR+, HER2- breast cancer who also had metastatic disease in one of three sentinel lymph nodes and whose recurrence score was 13.

When asked about the treatment plan they would choose for this patient, the audience was split over whether to opt for chemoendocrine therapy or endocrine therapy alone.

A similar clinical question was posited recently on Twitter, when Angela Toss, MD, PhD, from the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Italy, asked respondents which they would chose from among three options.

From the 815 votes that were cast, 46% chose Oncotype DX testing to determine the likely benefit of chemotherapy, 48% chose chemotherapy, and 6% picked ovarian function suppression and an aromatase inhibitor.

In response, Paolo Tarantino, MD, from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, commented: “If you had any doubt of which is the most controversial topic in breast oncology, doubt no more. 815 votes, no consensus.”

Approached for comment, Eric Winer, MD, director of the Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., said that the data from RxPONDER “in many ways was helpful, but ... it created about as many questions as it answered, if not more.”

Because the results showed a benefit from chemotherapy for premenopausal women but not for postmenopausal women with breast cancer, Dr. Winer told this news organization that one of the outstanding questions is “whether premenopausal women are fundamentally different from postmenopausal women ... and my answer to that is that is very unlikely.”

Dr. Winer added that the “real tragedy” of this trial was that it did not include women with more than three positive nodes, particularly those who have a low recurrence score, he said.

Clinicians are therefore left either “extrapolating” data from those with fewer nodes or “marching down a path that we’ve taken for years of just giving those people chemotherapy routinely,” even though there may be no benefit, Dr. Winer commented.

Another expert who was approached for comment had a different take on the data. Matteo Lambertini, MD, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genoa, Italy, agreed with Loibl’s argument that chemotherapy has a cytotoxic effect in premenopausal women with HR+, HER2- breast cancer in addition to its effect on ovarian function suppression.

He did not agree, however, that there is a question mark over what to do for patients with more than three positive lymph nodes.

Dr. Lambertini said in an interview that he thinks “too much” trust is placed in genomic testing and that there is a “risk of forgetting about all the other factors that we normally use to make our treatment choices.”

A patient with five positive nodes will benefit from chemotherapy, “even if she had a very low recurrence score,” he said, “because there is a very high clinical risk of disease recurrence,” and chemotherapy “is of benefit” in these situations, he asserted.

Dr. Lambertini said that the RxPONDER results – and also studies such as TAILORx, which demonstrated the ability of Oncotype DX to identify which patients with early breast cancer could skip chemotherapy – show that “chemotherapy has a role to play” and that most patients should receive it.

He suggested, however, that “probably the benefit of chemotherapy is smaller” in real life than was seen in these trials, because in the trials, they did not use optimal adjuvant endocrine therapy.
 

Treating individual patients

When it comes to making treatment decisions for individual patients, Dr. Winer said he has a “conversation with people about what the results of the study showed and what [he believes] that they need.”

For patients whose Oncotype DX score is in the “very low range, I do not recommend chemotherapy,” he said, preferring instead to use endocrine therapy for ovarian function suppression.

For women with a more intermediate score, “I explain that I don’t think we have an answer and that, if they would want to take the most traditional and conservative path, it would be to get chemotherapy.

“But I’m certainly not rigid about my recommendations, and I’m particularly open” to ovarian function suppression for a premenopausal woman with an Onctyope DX score of 20 and two positive nodes who does not have “other adverse features.”

“Ultimately, what pushes me in one direction or another,” Dr. Winer said, aside from number of positive nodes or the size of the tumor, “is the patient’s preferences.”

This was a theme taken up by Kim Sabelko, PhD, vice-president of scientific strategy and programs at Susan G. Komen, Dallas.

The results from RxPONDER and similar studies are “really interesting,” as researchers are “working out how to individualize treatment,” and that it is not a matter of “one size fits all.”

“We need to understand when to use chemotherapy and other drugs, and more importantly, when not to, because we don’t want to overtreat people who don’t necessarily need these drugs,” she commented.

Dr. Sabelko emphasized that treatment decisions “should be shared” between the patient and their doctor, and she noted that there “will be some people who are going to refuse chemotherapy for different reasons.”

These clinical trial results help clinicians to explain the risks and benefits of treatment options, but the treatment decision should be taken “together” with the patient, she emphasized.

Dr. Gnant has relationships with Sandoz, Amge, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Nanostring, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, TLC Pharmaceuticals, and Life Brain. Dr. Loibl has relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eirgenix, GSK, Gilead, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Medscape, Puma, Roche, Samsung, Seagen, VM Scope, and GBG Forschungs.

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

Is this the most controversial topic in breast oncology? Quite likely: the results of a recent online poll show split votes and no consensus.

The topic is the use of chemotherapy for premenopausal women with early-stage hormone receptor–positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative (HER2-) breast cancer.

Is the use of chemo in this patient population merely a “graceless” means of achieving ovarian function suppression, as one expert argued in a recent debate?

Or does it offer a distinct cytotoxic benefit, as the other expert countered?

The debate was held during the recent San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS), at which new results were presented that increased the controversy.

The controversy had arisen the previous year over results from the RxPONDER trial.

Five-year follow-up data from RxPONDER showed that adding chemotherapy to endocrine therapy did not improve outcomes over endocrine therapy alone for postmenopausal women with low-risk, node-positive HR+, HER2- breast cancer. This suggests that older women with early-stage breast cancer may safely forgo chemotherapy.

However, the same trial included premenopausal women with the same disease profile, and the results in this subgroup showed that there was benefit from chemotherapy, with a 5-year invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) rate of 94.2%, versus 89.0% for endocrine therapy alone (P = .0004).

The results were immediately controversial.

Some experts suggested the effect was due to the chemotherapy incidentally causing ovarian suppression, not the cytotoxic effect of the drugs on cancer cells. These experts were skeptical about the suggestion that chemotherapy works differently in premenopausal women than it does in postmenopausal women.

Some clinicians feel the lack of clarity creates an opportunity for greater discussion with women when making the treatment decision.

“When I have this conversation with patients, it’s really nuanced,” Stephanie L. Graff, MD, director of breast oncology, Lifespan Cancer Institute, Providence, R.I., told this news organization.

“I would choose chemotherapy for myself, but I’m a chemotherapy doctor, so I’m very comfortable with these medications and their side effects, and I am also very familiar with the slow burn of the side effects of endocrine therapy,” she said.

But for patients who are hearing their options for the first time, the idea of chemotherapy “feels scary,” and there is “a lot of stigma” associated with it, she commented.

Ultimately, she believes in offering patients as much information as possible, inasmuch as “knowledge is power.”

For Dr. Graff, the message from RxPONDER was that, in premenopausal patients with lymph node positive, HR+ breast cancer, “all comers benefited from chemotherapy.”

“And so if the goal is to be maximally aggressive and optimally lower your risk of distant recurrence, which is a life-threatening event, chemotherapy should offered.”

But chemotherapy comes with side effects, so it’s an important conversation to have with patients; RxPONDER showed that the absolute difference in the rate of distant recurrence with chemotherapy was relatively minor, she added.
 

Debate rages on

The debate at SABCS was moderated by Harold J. Burstein, MD, PhD, from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, who commented that if this was “a compelling question last week in clinic, it has now become red hot.”

At the meeting, held in December 2021, new longer-term data from the SOFT and TEXT clinical trials were presented, showing that ovarian suppression with tamoxifen plus an aromatase inhibitor provides a greater reduction in long-term risk of recurrence than tamoxifen alone.

Moreover, updated results from RxPONDER presented at the same session revealed that chemoendocrine therapy was associated with longer IDFS and distant relapse-free survival than endocrine therapy alone for women with one to three positive lymph nodes and a recurrence score of 25 or lower on the Oncotype DX (Genomic Health) 21-gene breast cancer assay.

Dr. Burstein said the debate over the use of chemotherapy in premenopausal women “is the most interesting question right now in early-stage breast cancer.”

The debate focused on the effect of chemotherapy in these patients – was it all down to ovarian function suppression?

Yes, argued Michael Gnant, MD, from the Medical University of Vienna.

Data from “modern adjuvant chemotherapy trials” suggest that chemo offers a 2%-3% benefit in distant disease-free survival at 5 years for premenopausal women, he noted. But the effect is much larger with ovarian function suppression via endocrine therapy, which provides 5-year disease-free and overall survival benefits of 9%-13%.

Older studies have shown that the benefit with chemotherapy is seen only in women who experience amenorrhea with the cytotoxic drugs, Dr. Gnant noted.

“In short, if you give adjuvant chemotherapy and you induce amenorrhea, then there is going to be a survival difference,” he said. “But if you give adjuvant chemotherapy and there is no amenorrhea, there won’t be an outcome difference.”

The ABSCG-05 trial, which compared endocrine therapy with chemotherapy, showed that “in the presence of optimal endocrine adjuvant treatment, adjuvant chemotherapy doesn’t add anything, because you have already achieved the effect of treatment-induced amenorrhea.”

So Dr. Gnant argued that the effect of chemotherapy in RxPONDER was due to ovarian function suppression.

But the real question is: “What does it mean for clinical practice?”

Dr. Gnant asserted that for the “large group of lower-risk premenopausal patients, tamoxifen will be good enough,” while those at moderate or intermediate risk should receive ovarian function suppression with either tamoxifen or an aromatase inhibitor, with the choice dictated by their adverse effects.

Chemotherapy “is just a graceless method of ovarian function suppression and should only be given to high-risk patients and to patients with endocrine nonresponsive disease,” he argued.

On the other side of the debate, Sibylle Loibl, MD, PhD, from the Centre of Hematology and Oncology, Bethanien, Frankfurt, argued that the effect is not all due to ovarian function suppression and that chemotherapy also has a cytotoxic effect in these patients.

“We need chemotherapy” because “cancer in young women is biologically different,” she asserted.

Dr. Loibl pointed to data currently awaiting publication in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute that suggest that younger women have “higher immune gene expression” that may make them more chemotherapy sensitive, and lower expression of hormone receptor genes, which “could make them less endocrine sensitive.”

She also cited data from a study from her own group that showed that pathologic complete response rates to neoadjuvant chemotherapy were higher in younger women with HR+, HER2- breast cancer, indicating a direct effect of chemotherapy on the disease and that age was an important prognostic factor.

The data on the induction of amenorrhea by chemotherapy is also not as clearcut as it seems, she commented. Chemotherapy does not achieve 100% amenorrhea, and gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues are unable to suppress ovarian function in 20% of women.

Dr. Loibl concluded that the “chemotherapy effect is there, it is higher in young women with HR+, HER2- breast cancer,” and that the effect has two components.

“There is a direct cytotoxic effect which cannot be neglected, and there is an endocrine effect on the ovarian function suppression,” she argued.

“I think both are needed in young premenopausal patients,” she added.
 

Audience responses

After the debate, the audience was polled on what effect they thought chemotherapy was having in lower-risk HR+, HER2- breast cancer patients. About two-thirds responded that it was all or mostly due to ovarian function suppression.

However, the next question split the audience. They were presented with a clinical scenario: a 43-year-old woman with a mammographically detected 1.4-cm, intermediate grade, HR+, HER2- breast cancer who also had metastatic disease in one of three sentinel lymph nodes and whose recurrence score was 13.

When asked about the treatment plan they would choose for this patient, the audience was split over whether to opt for chemoendocrine therapy or endocrine therapy alone.

A similar clinical question was posited recently on Twitter, when Angela Toss, MD, PhD, from the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Italy, asked respondents which they would chose from among three options.

From the 815 votes that were cast, 46% chose Oncotype DX testing to determine the likely benefit of chemotherapy, 48% chose chemotherapy, and 6% picked ovarian function suppression and an aromatase inhibitor.

In response, Paolo Tarantino, MD, from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, commented: “If you had any doubt of which is the most controversial topic in breast oncology, doubt no more. 815 votes, no consensus.”

Approached for comment, Eric Winer, MD, director of the Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., said that the data from RxPONDER “in many ways was helpful, but ... it created about as many questions as it answered, if not more.”

Because the results showed a benefit from chemotherapy for premenopausal women but not for postmenopausal women with breast cancer, Dr. Winer told this news organization that one of the outstanding questions is “whether premenopausal women are fundamentally different from postmenopausal women ... and my answer to that is that is very unlikely.”

Dr. Winer added that the “real tragedy” of this trial was that it did not include women with more than three positive nodes, particularly those who have a low recurrence score, he said.

Clinicians are therefore left either “extrapolating” data from those with fewer nodes or “marching down a path that we’ve taken for years of just giving those people chemotherapy routinely,” even though there may be no benefit, Dr. Winer commented.

Another expert who was approached for comment had a different take on the data. Matteo Lambertini, MD, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genoa, Italy, agreed with Loibl’s argument that chemotherapy has a cytotoxic effect in premenopausal women with HR+, HER2- breast cancer in addition to its effect on ovarian function suppression.

He did not agree, however, that there is a question mark over what to do for patients with more than three positive lymph nodes.

Dr. Lambertini said in an interview that he thinks “too much” trust is placed in genomic testing and that there is a “risk of forgetting about all the other factors that we normally use to make our treatment choices.”

A patient with five positive nodes will benefit from chemotherapy, “even if she had a very low recurrence score,” he said, “because there is a very high clinical risk of disease recurrence,” and chemotherapy “is of benefit” in these situations, he asserted.

Dr. Lambertini said that the RxPONDER results – and also studies such as TAILORx, which demonstrated the ability of Oncotype DX to identify which patients with early breast cancer could skip chemotherapy – show that “chemotherapy has a role to play” and that most patients should receive it.

He suggested, however, that “probably the benefit of chemotherapy is smaller” in real life than was seen in these trials, because in the trials, they did not use optimal adjuvant endocrine therapy.
 

Treating individual patients

When it comes to making treatment decisions for individual patients, Dr. Winer said he has a “conversation with people about what the results of the study showed and what [he believes] that they need.”

For patients whose Oncotype DX score is in the “very low range, I do not recommend chemotherapy,” he said, preferring instead to use endocrine therapy for ovarian function suppression.

For women with a more intermediate score, “I explain that I don’t think we have an answer and that, if they would want to take the most traditional and conservative path, it would be to get chemotherapy.

“But I’m certainly not rigid about my recommendations, and I’m particularly open” to ovarian function suppression for a premenopausal woman with an Onctyope DX score of 20 and two positive nodes who does not have “other adverse features.”

“Ultimately, what pushes me in one direction or another,” Dr. Winer said, aside from number of positive nodes or the size of the tumor, “is the patient’s preferences.”

This was a theme taken up by Kim Sabelko, PhD, vice-president of scientific strategy and programs at Susan G. Komen, Dallas.

The results from RxPONDER and similar studies are “really interesting,” as researchers are “working out how to individualize treatment,” and that it is not a matter of “one size fits all.”

“We need to understand when to use chemotherapy and other drugs, and more importantly, when not to, because we don’t want to overtreat people who don’t necessarily need these drugs,” she commented.

Dr. Sabelko emphasized that treatment decisions “should be shared” between the patient and their doctor, and she noted that there “will be some people who are going to refuse chemotherapy for different reasons.”

These clinical trial results help clinicians to explain the risks and benefits of treatment options, but the treatment decision should be taken “together” with the patient, she emphasized.

Dr. Gnant has relationships with Sandoz, Amge, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Nanostring, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, TLC Pharmaceuticals, and Life Brain. Dr. Loibl has relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eirgenix, GSK, Gilead, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Medscape, Puma, Roche, Samsung, Seagen, VM Scope, and GBG Forschungs.

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

Is this the most controversial topic in breast oncology? Quite likely: the results of a recent online poll show split votes and no consensus.

The topic is the use of chemotherapy for premenopausal women with early-stage hormone receptor–positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative (HER2-) breast cancer.

Is the use of chemo in this patient population merely a “graceless” means of achieving ovarian function suppression, as one expert argued in a recent debate?

Or does it offer a distinct cytotoxic benefit, as the other expert countered?

The debate was held during the recent San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS), at which new results were presented that increased the controversy.

The controversy had arisen the previous year over results from the RxPONDER trial.

Five-year follow-up data from RxPONDER showed that adding chemotherapy to endocrine therapy did not improve outcomes over endocrine therapy alone for postmenopausal women with low-risk, node-positive HR+, HER2- breast cancer. This suggests that older women with early-stage breast cancer may safely forgo chemotherapy.

However, the same trial included premenopausal women with the same disease profile, and the results in this subgroup showed that there was benefit from chemotherapy, with a 5-year invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) rate of 94.2%, versus 89.0% for endocrine therapy alone (P = .0004).

The results were immediately controversial.

Some experts suggested the effect was due to the chemotherapy incidentally causing ovarian suppression, not the cytotoxic effect of the drugs on cancer cells. These experts were skeptical about the suggestion that chemotherapy works differently in premenopausal women than it does in postmenopausal women.

Some clinicians feel the lack of clarity creates an opportunity for greater discussion with women when making the treatment decision.

“When I have this conversation with patients, it’s really nuanced,” Stephanie L. Graff, MD, director of breast oncology, Lifespan Cancer Institute, Providence, R.I., told this news organization.

“I would choose chemotherapy for myself, but I’m a chemotherapy doctor, so I’m very comfortable with these medications and their side effects, and I am also very familiar with the slow burn of the side effects of endocrine therapy,” she said.

But for patients who are hearing their options for the first time, the idea of chemotherapy “feels scary,” and there is “a lot of stigma” associated with it, she commented.

Ultimately, she believes in offering patients as much information as possible, inasmuch as “knowledge is power.”

For Dr. Graff, the message from RxPONDER was that, in premenopausal patients with lymph node positive, HR+ breast cancer, “all comers benefited from chemotherapy.”

“And so if the goal is to be maximally aggressive and optimally lower your risk of distant recurrence, which is a life-threatening event, chemotherapy should offered.”

But chemotherapy comes with side effects, so it’s an important conversation to have with patients; RxPONDER showed that the absolute difference in the rate of distant recurrence with chemotherapy was relatively minor, she added.
 

Debate rages on

The debate at SABCS was moderated by Harold J. Burstein, MD, PhD, from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, who commented that if this was “a compelling question last week in clinic, it has now become red hot.”

At the meeting, held in December 2021, new longer-term data from the SOFT and TEXT clinical trials were presented, showing that ovarian suppression with tamoxifen plus an aromatase inhibitor provides a greater reduction in long-term risk of recurrence than tamoxifen alone.

Moreover, updated results from RxPONDER presented at the same session revealed that chemoendocrine therapy was associated with longer IDFS and distant relapse-free survival than endocrine therapy alone for women with one to three positive lymph nodes and a recurrence score of 25 or lower on the Oncotype DX (Genomic Health) 21-gene breast cancer assay.

Dr. Burstein said the debate over the use of chemotherapy in premenopausal women “is the most interesting question right now in early-stage breast cancer.”

The debate focused on the effect of chemotherapy in these patients – was it all down to ovarian function suppression?

Yes, argued Michael Gnant, MD, from the Medical University of Vienna.

Data from “modern adjuvant chemotherapy trials” suggest that chemo offers a 2%-3% benefit in distant disease-free survival at 5 years for premenopausal women, he noted. But the effect is much larger with ovarian function suppression via endocrine therapy, which provides 5-year disease-free and overall survival benefits of 9%-13%.

Older studies have shown that the benefit with chemotherapy is seen only in women who experience amenorrhea with the cytotoxic drugs, Dr. Gnant noted.

“In short, if you give adjuvant chemotherapy and you induce amenorrhea, then there is going to be a survival difference,” he said. “But if you give adjuvant chemotherapy and there is no amenorrhea, there won’t be an outcome difference.”

The ABSCG-05 trial, which compared endocrine therapy with chemotherapy, showed that “in the presence of optimal endocrine adjuvant treatment, adjuvant chemotherapy doesn’t add anything, because you have already achieved the effect of treatment-induced amenorrhea.”

So Dr. Gnant argued that the effect of chemotherapy in RxPONDER was due to ovarian function suppression.

But the real question is: “What does it mean for clinical practice?”

Dr. Gnant asserted that for the “large group of lower-risk premenopausal patients, tamoxifen will be good enough,” while those at moderate or intermediate risk should receive ovarian function suppression with either tamoxifen or an aromatase inhibitor, with the choice dictated by their adverse effects.

Chemotherapy “is just a graceless method of ovarian function suppression and should only be given to high-risk patients and to patients with endocrine nonresponsive disease,” he argued.

On the other side of the debate, Sibylle Loibl, MD, PhD, from the Centre of Hematology and Oncology, Bethanien, Frankfurt, argued that the effect is not all due to ovarian function suppression and that chemotherapy also has a cytotoxic effect in these patients.

“We need chemotherapy” because “cancer in young women is biologically different,” she asserted.

Dr. Loibl pointed to data currently awaiting publication in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute that suggest that younger women have “higher immune gene expression” that may make them more chemotherapy sensitive, and lower expression of hormone receptor genes, which “could make them less endocrine sensitive.”

She also cited data from a study from her own group that showed that pathologic complete response rates to neoadjuvant chemotherapy were higher in younger women with HR+, HER2- breast cancer, indicating a direct effect of chemotherapy on the disease and that age was an important prognostic factor.

The data on the induction of amenorrhea by chemotherapy is also not as clearcut as it seems, she commented. Chemotherapy does not achieve 100% amenorrhea, and gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues are unable to suppress ovarian function in 20% of women.

Dr. Loibl concluded that the “chemotherapy effect is there, it is higher in young women with HR+, HER2- breast cancer,” and that the effect has two components.

“There is a direct cytotoxic effect which cannot be neglected, and there is an endocrine effect on the ovarian function suppression,” she argued.

“I think both are needed in young premenopausal patients,” she added.
 

Audience responses

After the debate, the audience was polled on what effect they thought chemotherapy was having in lower-risk HR+, HER2- breast cancer patients. About two-thirds responded that it was all or mostly due to ovarian function suppression.

However, the next question split the audience. They were presented with a clinical scenario: a 43-year-old woman with a mammographically detected 1.4-cm, intermediate grade, HR+, HER2- breast cancer who also had metastatic disease in one of three sentinel lymph nodes and whose recurrence score was 13.

When asked about the treatment plan they would choose for this patient, the audience was split over whether to opt for chemoendocrine therapy or endocrine therapy alone.

A similar clinical question was posited recently on Twitter, when Angela Toss, MD, PhD, from the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Italy, asked respondents which they would chose from among three options.

From the 815 votes that were cast, 46% chose Oncotype DX testing to determine the likely benefit of chemotherapy, 48% chose chemotherapy, and 6% picked ovarian function suppression and an aromatase inhibitor.

In response, Paolo Tarantino, MD, from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, commented: “If you had any doubt of which is the most controversial topic in breast oncology, doubt no more. 815 votes, no consensus.”

Approached for comment, Eric Winer, MD, director of the Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., said that the data from RxPONDER “in many ways was helpful, but ... it created about as many questions as it answered, if not more.”

Because the results showed a benefit from chemotherapy for premenopausal women but not for postmenopausal women with breast cancer, Dr. Winer told this news organization that one of the outstanding questions is “whether premenopausal women are fundamentally different from postmenopausal women ... and my answer to that is that is very unlikely.”

Dr. Winer added that the “real tragedy” of this trial was that it did not include women with more than three positive nodes, particularly those who have a low recurrence score, he said.

Clinicians are therefore left either “extrapolating” data from those with fewer nodes or “marching down a path that we’ve taken for years of just giving those people chemotherapy routinely,” even though there may be no benefit, Dr. Winer commented.

Another expert who was approached for comment had a different take on the data. Matteo Lambertini, MD, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genoa, Italy, agreed with Loibl’s argument that chemotherapy has a cytotoxic effect in premenopausal women with HR+, HER2- breast cancer in addition to its effect on ovarian function suppression.

He did not agree, however, that there is a question mark over what to do for patients with more than three positive lymph nodes.

Dr. Lambertini said in an interview that he thinks “too much” trust is placed in genomic testing and that there is a “risk of forgetting about all the other factors that we normally use to make our treatment choices.”

A patient with five positive nodes will benefit from chemotherapy, “even if she had a very low recurrence score,” he said, “because there is a very high clinical risk of disease recurrence,” and chemotherapy “is of benefit” in these situations, he asserted.

Dr. Lambertini said that the RxPONDER results – and also studies such as TAILORx, which demonstrated the ability of Oncotype DX to identify which patients with early breast cancer could skip chemotherapy – show that “chemotherapy has a role to play” and that most patients should receive it.

He suggested, however, that “probably the benefit of chemotherapy is smaller” in real life than was seen in these trials, because in the trials, they did not use optimal adjuvant endocrine therapy.
 

Treating individual patients

When it comes to making treatment decisions for individual patients, Dr. Winer said he has a “conversation with people about what the results of the study showed and what [he believes] that they need.”

For patients whose Oncotype DX score is in the “very low range, I do not recommend chemotherapy,” he said, preferring instead to use endocrine therapy for ovarian function suppression.

For women with a more intermediate score, “I explain that I don’t think we have an answer and that, if they would want to take the most traditional and conservative path, it would be to get chemotherapy.

“But I’m certainly not rigid about my recommendations, and I’m particularly open” to ovarian function suppression for a premenopausal woman with an Onctyope DX score of 20 and two positive nodes who does not have “other adverse features.”

“Ultimately, what pushes me in one direction or another,” Dr. Winer said, aside from number of positive nodes or the size of the tumor, “is the patient’s preferences.”

This was a theme taken up by Kim Sabelko, PhD, vice-president of scientific strategy and programs at Susan G. Komen, Dallas.

The results from RxPONDER and similar studies are “really interesting,” as researchers are “working out how to individualize treatment,” and that it is not a matter of “one size fits all.”

“We need to understand when to use chemotherapy and other drugs, and more importantly, when not to, because we don’t want to overtreat people who don’t necessarily need these drugs,” she commented.

Dr. Sabelko emphasized that treatment decisions “should be shared” between the patient and their doctor, and she noted that there “will be some people who are going to refuse chemotherapy for different reasons.”

These clinical trial results help clinicians to explain the risks and benefits of treatment options, but the treatment decision should be taken “together” with the patient, she emphasized.

Dr. Gnant has relationships with Sandoz, Amge, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Nanostring, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, TLC Pharmaceuticals, and Life Brain. Dr. Loibl has relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eirgenix, GSK, Gilead, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Medscape, Puma, Roche, Samsung, Seagen, VM Scope, and GBG Forschungs.

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

A controlled study of sleep-deprived young adults has provided the first causal evidence linking the lack of sleep to abdominal obesity and harmful visceral, or “belly” fat. In what the researchers claim is the first-ever study evaluating the relationship between sleep restriction and body fat distribution, they’ve reported the novel finding that the expansion of abdominal adipose tissue, and especially visceral fat, occurred as a function of shortened sleep.

Naima Covassin, PhD, a researcher in cardiovascular medicine at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., led the randomized, controlled study of 12 healthy, nonobese people randomized to controlled sleep restriction – 2 weeks of 4 hours of sleep a night – or controlled sleep of 9 hours a night, followed by a 3-day recovery period. The study was conducted in the hospital, monitored participants’ caloric intake, and used accelerometry to monitor energy expense. Participants ranged in age from 19 to 39 years.

“What we found was that at the end of 2 weeks these people put on just about a pound, 0.5 kg, of extra weight, which was significant but still very modest,” senior author Virend K. Somers, MD, PhD, said in an interview. “The average person who sleeps 4 hours a night thinks they’re doing OK if they only put on a pound.” Dr. Somers is the Alice Sheets Marriott Professor in Cardiovascular Medicine at Mayo Clinic.

“The problem is,” he said, “that when you do a more specific analysis you find that actually with the 1 pound the significant increase of the fat is in the belly area, particularly inside the belly.”

The study found that the patients on curtailed sleep ate on average an additional 308 calories a day more than their controlled sleep counterparts (95% confidence interval, 59.2-556.8 kcal/day; P = .015), and while that translated into a 0.5-kg weight gain (95% CI, 0.1-0.8 kg; P = .008), it also led to a 7.8-cm² increase visceral adipose tissue (VAT) (95% CI, 0.3-15.3 cm²; P = .042), representing an increase of around 11%. The study used CT on day 1 and day 18 (1 day after the 3-day recovery period) to evaluate the distribution of abdominal fat.

VAT findings post recovery

After the recovery period, however, the study found that VAT in the sleep-curtailed patients kept rising, yet body weight and subcutaneous fat dropped, and the increase in total abdominal fat flattened. “They slept a lot, they ate fewer calories and their weight came down, but, very importantly, their belly fat went up even further,” Dr. Somers said. On average, it increased another 3.125 cm² by day 21.

The findings raised a number of questions that need further exploration, Dr. Somers said. “There’s some biochemical message in the body that’s continuing to send fat to the visceral compartment,” he said. “What we don’t know is whether repetitive episodes of inadequate sleep actually accumulate over the years to give people a preponderance of belly fat.”

The study also showed that the traditional parameters used for evaluating cardiovascular risk are not enough, Dr. Somers said. “If we just did body weight, body mass index, and overall body fat percentage, we’d completely miss this,” he said.

Future investigations should focus on two points, he said: identifying the mechanisms that cause VAT accumulation with less sleep, and whether extending sleep can reverse the process.

“The big worry is obviously the heart,” Dr. Somers said. “Remember, these are not sick people. These are young healthy people who are doing the wrong thing with their body fat; they’re sending the fat to the completely wrong place.”

In an invited editorial, endocrinologist Harold Bays, MD, wrote that the study confirmed the need for evaluating sleep disorders as a potential cause of accumulated VAT. Dr. Bays of the University of Louisville (Ky.) is medical director and president of the Louisville Metabolic and Atherosclerosis Research Center.

“The biggest misconception of many clinicians, and some cardiologists, is that obesity is not a disease,” Dr. Bays said in an interview. “Even when some clinicians believe obesity is a disease, they believe its pathogenic potential is limited to visceral fat.” He noted that subcutaneous fat can lead to accumulation of VAT and epicardial fat, as well as fatty infiltration of the liver and other vital organs, resulting in increased epicardial adipose tissue and indirect adverse effects on the heart.

“Thus, even if disruption of sleep does not increase body weight, if disruption of sleep results in fat dysfunction – “sick fat” or adiposopathy – then this may result in increased CVD risk factors and unhealthy body composition, including an increase in visceral fat,” Dr. Bays said.

The study received funding from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Somers disclosed relationships with Baker Tilly, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Bayer, Sleep Number and Respicardia. Coauthors had no disclosures. Dr. Bays is medical director of Your Body Goal and chief science officer of the Obesity Medical Association.

A controlled study of sleep-deprived young adults has provided the first causal evidence linking the lack of sleep to abdominal obesity and harmful visceral, or “belly” fat. In what the researchers claim is the first-ever study evaluating the relationship between sleep restriction and body fat distribution, they’ve reported the novel finding that the expansion of abdominal adipose tissue, and especially visceral fat, occurred as a function of shortened sleep.

Naima Covassin, PhD, a researcher in cardiovascular medicine at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., led the randomized, controlled study of 12 healthy, nonobese people randomized to controlled sleep restriction – 2 weeks of 4 hours of sleep a night – or controlled sleep of 9 hours a night, followed by a 3-day recovery period. The study was conducted in the hospital, monitored participants’ caloric intake, and used accelerometry to monitor energy expense. Participants ranged in age from 19 to 39 years.

“What we found was that at the end of 2 weeks these people put on just about a pound, 0.5 kg, of extra weight, which was significant but still very modest,” senior author Virend K. Somers, MD, PhD, said in an interview. “The average person who sleeps 4 hours a night thinks they’re doing OK if they only put on a pound.” Dr. Somers is the Alice Sheets Marriott Professor in Cardiovascular Medicine at Mayo Clinic.

“The problem is,” he said, “that when you do a more specific analysis you find that actually with the 1 pound the significant increase of the fat is in the belly area, particularly inside the belly.”

The study found that the patients on curtailed sleep ate on average an additional 308 calories a day more than their controlled sleep counterparts (95% confidence interval, 59.2-556.8 kcal/day; P = .015), and while that translated into a 0.5-kg weight gain (95% CI, 0.1-0.8 kg; P = .008), it also led to a 7.8-cm² increase visceral adipose tissue (VAT) (95% CI, 0.3-15.3 cm²; P = .042), representing an increase of around 11%. The study used CT on day 1 and day 18 (1 day after the 3-day recovery period) to evaluate the distribution of abdominal fat.

VAT findings post recovery

After the recovery period, however, the study found that VAT in the sleep-curtailed patients kept rising, yet body weight and subcutaneous fat dropped, and the increase in total abdominal fat flattened. “They slept a lot, they ate fewer calories and their weight came down, but, very importantly, their belly fat went up even further,” Dr. Somers said. On average, it increased another 3.125 cm² by day 21.

The findings raised a number of questions that need further exploration, Dr. Somers said. “There’s some biochemical message in the body that’s continuing to send fat to the visceral compartment,” he said. “What we don’t know is whether repetitive episodes of inadequate sleep actually accumulate over the years to give people a preponderance of belly fat.”

The study also showed that the traditional parameters used for evaluating cardiovascular risk are not enough, Dr. Somers said. “If we just did body weight, body mass index, and overall body fat percentage, we’d completely miss this,” he said.

Future investigations should focus on two points, he said: identifying the mechanisms that cause VAT accumulation with less sleep, and whether extending sleep can reverse the process.

“The big worry is obviously the heart,” Dr. Somers said. “Remember, these are not sick people. These are young healthy people who are doing the wrong thing with their body fat; they’re sending the fat to the completely wrong place.”

In an invited editorial, endocrinologist Harold Bays, MD, wrote that the study confirmed the need for evaluating sleep disorders as a potential cause of accumulated VAT. Dr. Bays of the University of Louisville (Ky.) is medical director and president of the Louisville Metabolic and Atherosclerosis Research Center.

“The biggest misconception of many clinicians, and some cardiologists, is that obesity is not a disease,” Dr. Bays said in an interview. “Even when some clinicians believe obesity is a disease, they believe its pathogenic potential is limited to visceral fat.” He noted that subcutaneous fat can lead to accumulation of VAT and epicardial fat, as well as fatty infiltration of the liver and other vital organs, resulting in increased epicardial adipose tissue and indirect adverse effects on the heart.

“Thus, even if disruption of sleep does not increase body weight, if disruption of sleep results in fat dysfunction – “sick fat” or adiposopathy – then this may result in increased CVD risk factors and unhealthy body composition, including an increase in visceral fat,” Dr. Bays said.

The study received funding from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Somers disclosed relationships with Baker Tilly, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Bayer, Sleep Number and Respicardia. Coauthors had no disclosures. Dr. Bays is medical director of Your Body Goal and chief science officer of the Obesity Medical Association.

A controlled study of sleep-deprived young adults has provided the first causal evidence linking the lack of sleep to abdominal obesity and harmful visceral, or “belly” fat. In what the researchers claim is the first-ever study evaluating the relationship between sleep restriction and body fat distribution, they’ve reported the novel finding that the expansion of abdominal adipose tissue, and especially visceral fat, occurred as a function of shortened sleep.

Naima Covassin, PhD, a researcher in cardiovascular medicine at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., led the randomized, controlled study of 12 healthy, nonobese people randomized to controlled sleep restriction – 2 weeks of 4 hours of sleep a night – or controlled sleep of 9 hours a night, followed by a 3-day recovery period. The study was conducted in the hospital, monitored participants’ caloric intake, and used accelerometry to monitor energy expense. Participants ranged in age from 19 to 39 years.

“What we found was that at the end of 2 weeks these people put on just about a pound, 0.5 kg, of extra weight, which was significant but still very modest,” senior author Virend K. Somers, MD, PhD, said in an interview. “The average person who sleeps 4 hours a night thinks they’re doing OK if they only put on a pound.” Dr. Somers is the Alice Sheets Marriott Professor in Cardiovascular Medicine at Mayo Clinic.

“The problem is,” he said, “that when you do a more specific analysis you find that actually with the 1 pound the significant increase of the fat is in the belly area, particularly inside the belly.”

The study found that the patients on curtailed sleep ate on average an additional 308 calories a day more than their controlled sleep counterparts (95% confidence interval, 59.2-556.8 kcal/day; P = .015), and while that translated into a 0.5-kg weight gain (95% CI, 0.1-0.8 kg; P = .008), it also led to a 7.8-cm² increase visceral adipose tissue (VAT) (95% CI, 0.3-15.3 cm²; P = .042), representing an increase of around 11%. The study used CT on day 1 and day 18 (1 day after the 3-day recovery period) to evaluate the distribution of abdominal fat.

VAT findings post recovery

After the recovery period, however, the study found that VAT in the sleep-curtailed patients kept rising, yet body weight and subcutaneous fat dropped, and the increase in total abdominal fat flattened. “They slept a lot, they ate fewer calories and their weight came down, but, very importantly, their belly fat went up even further,” Dr. Somers said. On average, it increased another 3.125 cm² by day 21.

The findings raised a number of questions that need further exploration, Dr. Somers said. “There’s some biochemical message in the body that’s continuing to send fat to the visceral compartment,” he said. “What we don’t know is whether repetitive episodes of inadequate sleep actually accumulate over the years to give people a preponderance of belly fat.”

The study also showed that the traditional parameters used for evaluating cardiovascular risk are not enough, Dr. Somers said. “If we just did body weight, body mass index, and overall body fat percentage, we’d completely miss this,” he said.

Future investigations should focus on two points, he said: identifying the mechanisms that cause VAT accumulation with less sleep, and whether extending sleep can reverse the process.

“The big worry is obviously the heart,” Dr. Somers said. “Remember, these are not sick people. These are young healthy people who are doing the wrong thing with their body fat; they’re sending the fat to the completely wrong place.”

In an invited editorial, endocrinologist Harold Bays, MD, wrote that the study confirmed the need for evaluating sleep disorders as a potential cause of accumulated VAT. Dr. Bays of the University of Louisville (Ky.) is medical director and president of the Louisville Metabolic and Atherosclerosis Research Center.

“The biggest misconception of many clinicians, and some cardiologists, is that obesity is not a disease,” Dr. Bays said in an interview. “Even when some clinicians believe obesity is a disease, they believe its pathogenic potential is limited to visceral fat.” He noted that subcutaneous fat can lead to accumulation of VAT and epicardial fat, as well as fatty infiltration of the liver and other vital organs, resulting in increased epicardial adipose tissue and indirect adverse effects on the heart.

“Thus, even if disruption of sleep does not increase body weight, if disruption of sleep results in fat dysfunction – “sick fat” or adiposopathy – then this may result in increased CVD risk factors and unhealthy body composition, including an increase in visceral fat,” Dr. Bays said.

The study received funding from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Somers disclosed relationships with Baker Tilly, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Bayer, Sleep Number and Respicardia. Coauthors had no disclosures. Dr. Bays is medical director of Your Body Goal and chief science officer of the Obesity Medical Association.

 Further support for the benefits of regular exercise in reducing severe COVID-19 outcomes has come from a large study, the first to directly measure physical activity in its participants.

Researchers identified 65,361 members of a South African private health plan who had a COVID-19 diagnosis from March 2020 to June 2021 and matched them with physical activity data during the 2 years prior to the country’s March 2020 lockdown captured by smart devices, and clocked gym attendance and mass event participation in a voluntary healthy lifestyle behavior program linked to the insurer.

UberImages/iStock/Getty Images

In all, 20.4% of participants had engaged in low levels of at least moderate-intensity physical activity per week (0-59 minutes), 34.5% in moderate levels (60-149 minutes), and 45.1% in high levels (150 minutes or more).

Overall, 11.1% were hospitalized as a result of COVID-19, 2.4% were admitted to the ICU, 1.3% required a ventilator, and 1.6% died.

As reported in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, analyses adjusted for demographic and other risk factors showed that, with COVID-19 infection, people with high versus low physical activity had a 34% lower risk for hospitalization (risk ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.70), a 41% lower risk for ICU admission (RR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.52-0.66), a 45% lower risk of requiring ventilation (RR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.47-0.64), and a 42% lower risk for death (RR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.50-0.68).

Even moderate physical exercise, below the recommended guidelines of at least 150 minutes per week, was associated with several benefits, such as a 13% lower risk for hospitalization (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.82-0.91), a 20% lower risk for ICU admission (RR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71-0.89), a 27% lower risk of requiring ventilation (RR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.62-0.84), and a21% lower risk for death (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.69-0.91).

“Should we come across further waves of this pandemic, our advice from a medical point of view should be to promote and facilitate exercise,” senior author Jon Patricios, MD, Wits Sport and Health, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa, said in an interview. “The likelihood is that exercise and vaccination are going to be the two most significant interventions in terms of helping to offload the health care system rather than face the catastrophic events endured a year or so ago.”

The study showed that males are at greater risk than females for severe COVID-19 outcomes, as were patients with essential hypertension, diabetes, and chronic renal disease.

It also suggests that the protective benefit of exercise extends to HIV-positive patients and those with rheumatoid arthritis, two groups previously not evaluated, the authors noted.

The results are comparable with previous reports of self-reported exercise and COVID-19 from the United States and South Korea, although the effect of even moderate exercise was more significant, possibly due to the use of direct measures of exercise rather than self-report, Dr. Patricios suggested.

Previous data suggest that regular physical activity may protect against many viral infections including influenza, rhinovirus, and the reactivation of latent herpes viruses, he noted. However, emerging evidence also points to significant decreases in physical activity during the pandemic.

“Regular physical activity should be a message that is strongly, strongly advocated for, particularly in less well-developed countries where we don’t have access or the resources to afford pharmacological interventions in many of these scenarios,” Dr. Patricios said. “It’s frustrating that the message is not driven strongly enough. It should be part of every government’s agenda.”

The cohort all being members of a medical insurance plan could imply some selection bias based on affordability and limit generalizability of the results, the authors noted. Other limitations include a lack of data on sociodemographic criteria such as education, income, and race, as well as behavioral risk factors such as smoking and diet.

Dr. Patricios and one coauthor are editors of the British Journal of Sports Medicine. Several coauthors are employees of Discovery Health, Johannesburg.

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

 Further support for the benefits of regular exercise in reducing severe COVID-19 outcomes has come from a large study, the first to directly measure physical activity in its participants.

Researchers identified 65,361 members of a South African private health plan who had a COVID-19 diagnosis from March 2020 to June 2021 and matched them with physical activity data during the 2 years prior to the country’s March 2020 lockdown captured by smart devices, and clocked gym attendance and mass event participation in a voluntary healthy lifestyle behavior program linked to the insurer.

UberImages/iStock/Getty Images

In all, 20.4% of participants had engaged in low levels of at least moderate-intensity physical activity per week (0-59 minutes), 34.5% in moderate levels (60-149 minutes), and 45.1% in high levels (150 minutes or more).

Overall, 11.1% were hospitalized as a result of COVID-19, 2.4% were admitted to the ICU, 1.3% required a ventilator, and 1.6% died.

As reported in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, analyses adjusted for demographic and other risk factors showed that, with COVID-19 infection, people with high versus low physical activity had a 34% lower risk for hospitalization (risk ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.70), a 41% lower risk for ICU admission (RR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.52-0.66), a 45% lower risk of requiring ventilation (RR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.47-0.64), and a 42% lower risk for death (RR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.50-0.68).

Even moderate physical exercise, below the recommended guidelines of at least 150 minutes per week, was associated with several benefits, such as a 13% lower risk for hospitalization (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.82-0.91), a 20% lower risk for ICU admission (RR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71-0.89), a 27% lower risk of requiring ventilation (RR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.62-0.84), and a21% lower risk for death (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.69-0.91).

“Should we come across further waves of this pandemic, our advice from a medical point of view should be to promote and facilitate exercise,” senior author Jon Patricios, MD, Wits Sport and Health, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa, said in an interview. “The likelihood is that exercise and vaccination are going to be the two most significant interventions in terms of helping to offload the health care system rather than face the catastrophic events endured a year or so ago.”

The study showed that males are at greater risk than females for severe COVID-19 outcomes, as were patients with essential hypertension, diabetes, and chronic renal disease.

It also suggests that the protective benefit of exercise extends to HIV-positive patients and those with rheumatoid arthritis, two groups previously not evaluated, the authors noted.

The results are comparable with previous reports of self-reported exercise and COVID-19 from the United States and South Korea, although the effect of even moderate exercise was more significant, possibly due to the use of direct measures of exercise rather than self-report, Dr. Patricios suggested.

Previous data suggest that regular physical activity may protect against many viral infections including influenza, rhinovirus, and the reactivation of latent herpes viruses, he noted. However, emerging evidence also points to significant decreases in physical activity during the pandemic.

“Regular physical activity should be a message that is strongly, strongly advocated for, particularly in less well-developed countries where we don’t have access or the resources to afford pharmacological interventions in many of these scenarios,” Dr. Patricios said. “It’s frustrating that the message is not driven strongly enough. It should be part of every government’s agenda.”

The cohort all being members of a medical insurance plan could imply some selection bias based on affordability and limit generalizability of the results, the authors noted. Other limitations include a lack of data on sociodemographic criteria such as education, income, and race, as well as behavioral risk factors such as smoking and diet.

Dr. Patricios and one coauthor are editors of the British Journal of Sports Medicine. Several coauthors are employees of Discovery Health, Johannesburg.

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

 Further support for the benefits of regular exercise in reducing severe COVID-19 outcomes has come from a large study, the first to directly measure physical activity in its participants.

Researchers identified 65,361 members of a South African private health plan who had a COVID-19 diagnosis from March 2020 to June 2021 and matched them with physical activity data during the 2 years prior to the country’s March 2020 lockdown captured by smart devices, and clocked gym attendance and mass event participation in a voluntary healthy lifestyle behavior program linked to the insurer.

UberImages/iStock/Getty Images

In all, 20.4% of participants had engaged in low levels of at least moderate-intensity physical activity per week (0-59 minutes), 34.5% in moderate levels (60-149 minutes), and 45.1% in high levels (150 minutes or more).

Overall, 11.1% were hospitalized as a result of COVID-19, 2.4% were admitted to the ICU, 1.3% required a ventilator, and 1.6% died.

As reported in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, analyses adjusted for demographic and other risk factors showed that, with COVID-19 infection, people with high versus low physical activity had a 34% lower risk for hospitalization (risk ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.70), a 41% lower risk for ICU admission (RR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.52-0.66), a 45% lower risk of requiring ventilation (RR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.47-0.64), and a 42% lower risk for death (RR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.50-0.68).

Even moderate physical exercise, below the recommended guidelines of at least 150 minutes per week, was associated with several benefits, such as a 13% lower risk for hospitalization (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.82-0.91), a 20% lower risk for ICU admission (RR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71-0.89), a 27% lower risk of requiring ventilation (RR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.62-0.84), and a21% lower risk for death (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.69-0.91).

“Should we come across further waves of this pandemic, our advice from a medical point of view should be to promote and facilitate exercise,” senior author Jon Patricios, MD, Wits Sport and Health, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa, said in an interview. “The likelihood is that exercise and vaccination are going to be the two most significant interventions in terms of helping to offload the health care system rather than face the catastrophic events endured a year or so ago.”

The study showed that males are at greater risk than females for severe COVID-19 outcomes, as were patients with essential hypertension, diabetes, and chronic renal disease.

It also suggests that the protective benefit of exercise extends to HIV-positive patients and those with rheumatoid arthritis, two groups previously not evaluated, the authors noted.

The results are comparable with previous reports of self-reported exercise and COVID-19 from the United States and South Korea, although the effect of even moderate exercise was more significant, possibly due to the use of direct measures of exercise rather than self-report, Dr. Patricios suggested.

Previous data suggest that regular physical activity may protect against many viral infections including influenza, rhinovirus, and the reactivation of latent herpes viruses, he noted. However, emerging evidence also points to significant decreases in physical activity during the pandemic.

“Regular physical activity should be a message that is strongly, strongly advocated for, particularly in less well-developed countries where we don’t have access or the resources to afford pharmacological interventions in many of these scenarios,” Dr. Patricios said. “It’s frustrating that the message is not driven strongly enough. It should be part of every government’s agenda.”

The cohort all being members of a medical insurance plan could imply some selection bias based on affordability and limit generalizability of the results, the authors noted. Other limitations include a lack of data on sociodemographic criteria such as education, income, and race, as well as behavioral risk factors such as smoking and diet.

Dr. Patricios and one coauthor are editors of the British Journal of Sports Medicine. Several coauthors are employees of Discovery Health, Johannesburg.

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

BOSTON – Nearly 40% of adults with alopecia areata taking baricitinib, an oral Janus kinase 1 and 2 inhibitor, see significant hair regrowth over 52 weeks, according to updated results from two phase 3 trials presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

The results indicate improved response rates and hair growth among trial participants, said Brett King, MD, PhD, an associate professor of dermatology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He is the lead author of the analyses and presented the research.

Dr. King presented 36-week results from the clinical trials at the 2021 annual meeting of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. The same results were also published March 26, 2022, in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“Every bit of data we’ve had is hugely important,” Dr. King said in an interview. “Every time we add 16 weeks of data across hundreds of patients, we are making a huge step forward toward the goal of [Food and Drug Administration approval for a medication for alopecia areata.”

All patients enrolled in the two trials, called BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2, had severe alopecia areata, defined as a Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) score of at least 50, meaning 50% or less scalp coverage. The score ranges from 0 (no hair loss) to 100 (complete hair loss). The primary endpoint was a SALT score of 20 or less (80% scalp hair coverage).

The researchers pooled data from both clinical trials, with a combined enrollment of 1,200, for the 52-week results presented at the meeting. The placebo group stopped at 36 weeks, and these patients were randomly reassigned to either the 4-mg or 2-mg once-daily baricitinib treatment groups.

At baseline, patients enrolled in the trial had a mean SALT score of 85.5. After 52 weeks, 39.0% of patients who received 4 mg of baricitinib had at least 80% scalp coverage. Of this group, nearly three out of four (74.1%) had at least 90% scalp coverage, or a SALT score of 10 or less.

In patients who received 2 mg of baricitinib, 22.6% had a SALT score of 20 or less 20 (at least 80% scalp hair coverage) at 52 weeks, and two-thirds of that group (67.5%) had at least 90% scalp hair coverage at 52 weeks.

Comparatively, at 36 weeks, 35.2% of participants in BRAVE-AA1 and 32.5% of participants in BRAVE-AA2 receiving 4 mg of baricitinib had at least 80% scalp coverage. In the group taking the lower dose, 21.7% and 17.3% of patients in the BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 trials, respectively, had achieved at least 80% scalp coverage at 36 weeks. (These percentages differ slightly from the NEJM article because of a different analysis of missing data, Dr. King said. For comparison of both 36- and 52-week results, the percentages from the EADV are used above.)

The results indicate that 5% more patients reached the primary endpoint in the additional 16 weeks of the trial, Dr. King said.

Alopecia areata is an autoimmune condition where immune cells attack hair follicles, causing the hair to fall out, and is associated with emotional and psychological distress. Any hair follicle can be attacked, but they are rarely destroyed, so hair can regrow.

"Many underestimate the impact of this autoimmune hair loss condition," Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, told this news organization. He was not involved with the trial. "The burden of the disease, which certainly is an emotional but also a physical one, definitely needs to be addressed with indicated FDA-approved drugs," he noted, which is the goal of these trials. 

The BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 trials focused on scalp hair regrowth.

Eyebrow and eyelash growth, secondary outcomes, also improved between 36 and 52 weeks in both groups, calculated using the proportion of participants who had achieved full regrowth or regrowth with minimal gaps. At 36 weeks, about 31%-35% of patients who received 4 mg of baricitinib regrew eyebrow and eyelash hair. By 52 weeks, more than two out of five patients regrew eyebrow (44.1%) and eyelash (45.3%) hair.

“It’s a fantastic achievement and a major step forward in alopecia areata, especially for patients with the most severe and refractory cases,” said Arash Mostaghimi, MD, MPH, the director of inpatient dermatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. Mostaghimi is on the advisory board for Eli Lilly, which manufactures baricitinib, and Brigham and Women’s was one of the clinical sites of the trial.

While dermatologists have been aware of how JAK inhibitors can affect hair regrowth in alopecia patients, they have been using these drugs off label, Dr. Friedman said. Therefore, these drugs are expensive and more difficult to access. These trials provide "data that proves the efficacy and safety of [baricitinib] under the umbrella of the FDA portal," he added, which will hopefully lead to an approved indication for alopecia areata, so it can be more accessible to patients.

Adverse events at 52 weeks were consistent with data from 36 weeks, which found that none of these adverse events occurred in more than 10% of participants. The most common adverse events were headache, acne, and increases in muscle-related blood markers. The most common infections reported were pneumonia, herpes zoster, and urinary tract infection. 

In February 2022, the FDA granted priority review for baricitinib for the treatment of severe alopecia areata. Lilly expects a regulatory decision by the end of 2022, they said in a press release. 

Lilly provided funding for the BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 trials. Dr. King reported financial relationships with Aclaris, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Concert Pharmaceutics, Dermavant, Lilly, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, and Viela Bio. Dr. Mostaghimi has reported serving on an advisory board for Lilly. Dr. Friedman reported no relevant financial relationships.  

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

*This article was updated on 3/28/2022 to include Dr. Friedman's comments, and on 3/31/2022 to correct the statement regarding adverse events reported in the study 

BOSTON – Nearly 40% of adults with alopecia areata taking baricitinib, an oral Janus kinase 1 and 2 inhibitor, see significant hair regrowth over 52 weeks, according to updated results from two phase 3 trials presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

The results indicate improved response rates and hair growth among trial participants, said Brett King, MD, PhD, an associate professor of dermatology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He is the lead author of the analyses and presented the research.

Dr. King presented 36-week results from the clinical trials at the 2021 annual meeting of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. The same results were also published March 26, 2022, in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“Every bit of data we’ve had is hugely important,” Dr. King said in an interview. “Every time we add 16 weeks of data across hundreds of patients, we are making a huge step forward toward the goal of [Food and Drug Administration approval for a medication for alopecia areata.”

All patients enrolled in the two trials, called BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2, had severe alopecia areata, defined as a Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) score of at least 50, meaning 50% or less scalp coverage. The score ranges from 0 (no hair loss) to 100 (complete hair loss). The primary endpoint was a SALT score of 20 or less (80% scalp hair coverage).

The researchers pooled data from both clinical trials, with a combined enrollment of 1,200, for the 52-week results presented at the meeting. The placebo group stopped at 36 weeks, and these patients were randomly reassigned to either the 4-mg or 2-mg once-daily baricitinib treatment groups.

At baseline, patients enrolled in the trial had a mean SALT score of 85.5. After 52 weeks, 39.0% of patients who received 4 mg of baricitinib had at least 80% scalp coverage. Of this group, nearly three out of four (74.1%) had at least 90% scalp coverage, or a SALT score of 10 or less.

In patients who received 2 mg of baricitinib, 22.6% had a SALT score of 20 or less 20 (at least 80% scalp hair coverage) at 52 weeks, and two-thirds of that group (67.5%) had at least 90% scalp hair coverage at 52 weeks.

Comparatively, at 36 weeks, 35.2% of participants in BRAVE-AA1 and 32.5% of participants in BRAVE-AA2 receiving 4 mg of baricitinib had at least 80% scalp coverage. In the group taking the lower dose, 21.7% and 17.3% of patients in the BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 trials, respectively, had achieved at least 80% scalp coverage at 36 weeks. (These percentages differ slightly from the NEJM article because of a different analysis of missing data, Dr. King said. For comparison of both 36- and 52-week results, the percentages from the EADV are used above.)

The results indicate that 5% more patients reached the primary endpoint in the additional 16 weeks of the trial, Dr. King said.

Alopecia areata is an autoimmune condition where immune cells attack hair follicles, causing the hair to fall out, and is associated with emotional and psychological distress. Any hair follicle can be attacked, but they are rarely destroyed, so hair can regrow.

"Many underestimate the impact of this autoimmune hair loss condition," Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, told this news organization. He was not involved with the trial. "The burden of the disease, which certainly is an emotional but also a physical one, definitely needs to be addressed with indicated FDA-approved drugs," he noted, which is the goal of these trials. 

The BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 trials focused on scalp hair regrowth.

Eyebrow and eyelash growth, secondary outcomes, also improved between 36 and 52 weeks in both groups, calculated using the proportion of participants who had achieved full regrowth or regrowth with minimal gaps. At 36 weeks, about 31%-35% of patients who received 4 mg of baricitinib regrew eyebrow and eyelash hair. By 52 weeks, more than two out of five patients regrew eyebrow (44.1%) and eyelash (45.3%) hair.

“It’s a fantastic achievement and a major step forward in alopecia areata, especially for patients with the most severe and refractory cases,” said Arash Mostaghimi, MD, MPH, the director of inpatient dermatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. Mostaghimi is on the advisory board for Eli Lilly, which manufactures baricitinib, and Brigham and Women’s was one of the clinical sites of the trial.

While dermatologists have been aware of how JAK inhibitors can affect hair regrowth in alopecia patients, they have been using these drugs off label, Dr. Friedman said. Therefore, these drugs are expensive and more difficult to access. These trials provide "data that proves the efficacy and safety of [baricitinib] under the umbrella of the FDA portal," he added, which will hopefully lead to an approved indication for alopecia areata, so it can be more accessible to patients.

Adverse events at 52 weeks were consistent with data from 36 weeks, which found that none of these adverse events occurred in more than 10% of participants. The most common adverse events were headache, acne, and increases in muscle-related blood markers. The most common infections reported were pneumonia, herpes zoster, and urinary tract infection. 

In February 2022, the FDA granted priority review for baricitinib for the treatment of severe alopecia areata. Lilly expects a regulatory decision by the end of 2022, they said in a press release. 

Lilly provided funding for the BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 trials. Dr. King reported financial relationships with Aclaris, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Concert Pharmaceutics, Dermavant, Lilly, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, and Viela Bio. Dr. Mostaghimi has reported serving on an advisory board for Lilly. Dr. Friedman reported no relevant financial relationships.  

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

*This article was updated on 3/28/2022 to include Dr. Friedman's comments, and on 3/31/2022 to correct the statement regarding adverse events reported in the study 

BOSTON – Nearly 40% of adults with alopecia areata taking baricitinib, an oral Janus kinase 1 and 2 inhibitor, see significant hair regrowth over 52 weeks, according to updated results from two phase 3 trials presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

The results indicate improved response rates and hair growth among trial participants, said Brett King, MD, PhD, an associate professor of dermatology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He is the lead author of the analyses and presented the research.

Dr. King presented 36-week results from the clinical trials at the 2021 annual meeting of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. The same results were also published March 26, 2022, in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“Every bit of data we’ve had is hugely important,” Dr. King said in an interview. “Every time we add 16 weeks of data across hundreds of patients, we are making a huge step forward toward the goal of [Food and Drug Administration approval for a medication for alopecia areata.”

All patients enrolled in the two trials, called BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2, had severe alopecia areata, defined as a Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) score of at least 50, meaning 50% or less scalp coverage. The score ranges from 0 (no hair loss) to 100 (complete hair loss). The primary endpoint was a SALT score of 20 or less (80% scalp hair coverage).

The researchers pooled data from both clinical trials, with a combined enrollment of 1,200, for the 52-week results presented at the meeting. The placebo group stopped at 36 weeks, and these patients were randomly reassigned to either the 4-mg or 2-mg once-daily baricitinib treatment groups.

At baseline, patients enrolled in the trial had a mean SALT score of 85.5. After 52 weeks, 39.0% of patients who received 4 mg of baricitinib had at least 80% scalp coverage. Of this group, nearly three out of four (74.1%) had at least 90% scalp coverage, or a SALT score of 10 or less.

In patients who received 2 mg of baricitinib, 22.6% had a SALT score of 20 or less 20 (at least 80% scalp hair coverage) at 52 weeks, and two-thirds of that group (67.5%) had at least 90% scalp hair coverage at 52 weeks.

Comparatively, at 36 weeks, 35.2% of participants in BRAVE-AA1 and 32.5% of participants in BRAVE-AA2 receiving 4 mg of baricitinib had at least 80% scalp coverage. In the group taking the lower dose, 21.7% and 17.3% of patients in the BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 trials, respectively, had achieved at least 80% scalp coverage at 36 weeks. (These percentages differ slightly from the NEJM article because of a different analysis of missing data, Dr. King said. For comparison of both 36- and 52-week results, the percentages from the EADV are used above.)

The results indicate that 5% more patients reached the primary endpoint in the additional 16 weeks of the trial, Dr. King said.

Alopecia areata is an autoimmune condition where immune cells attack hair follicles, causing the hair to fall out, and is associated with emotional and psychological distress. Any hair follicle can be attacked, but they are rarely destroyed, so hair can regrow.

"Many underestimate the impact of this autoimmune hair loss condition," Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, told this news organization. He was not involved with the trial. "The burden of the disease, which certainly is an emotional but also a physical one, definitely needs to be addressed with indicated FDA-approved drugs," he noted, which is the goal of these trials. 

The BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 trials focused on scalp hair regrowth.

Eyebrow and eyelash growth, secondary outcomes, also improved between 36 and 52 weeks in both groups, calculated using the proportion of participants who had achieved full regrowth or regrowth with minimal gaps. At 36 weeks, about 31%-35% of patients who received 4 mg of baricitinib regrew eyebrow and eyelash hair. By 52 weeks, more than two out of five patients regrew eyebrow (44.1%) and eyelash (45.3%) hair.

“It’s a fantastic achievement and a major step forward in alopecia areata, especially for patients with the most severe and refractory cases,” said Arash Mostaghimi, MD, MPH, the director of inpatient dermatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. Mostaghimi is on the advisory board for Eli Lilly, which manufactures baricitinib, and Brigham and Women’s was one of the clinical sites of the trial.

While dermatologists have been aware of how JAK inhibitors can affect hair regrowth in alopecia patients, they have been using these drugs off label, Dr. Friedman said. Therefore, these drugs are expensive and more difficult to access. These trials provide "data that proves the efficacy and safety of [baricitinib] under the umbrella of the FDA portal," he added, which will hopefully lead to an approved indication for alopecia areata, so it can be more accessible to patients.

Adverse events at 52 weeks were consistent with data from 36 weeks, which found that none of these adverse events occurred in more than 10% of participants. The most common adverse events were headache, acne, and increases in muscle-related blood markers. The most common infections reported were pneumonia, herpes zoster, and urinary tract infection. 

In February 2022, the FDA granted priority review for baricitinib for the treatment of severe alopecia areata. Lilly expects a regulatory decision by the end of 2022, they said in a press release. 

Lilly provided funding for the BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 trials. Dr. King reported financial relationships with Aclaris, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Concert Pharmaceutics, Dermavant, Lilly, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, and Viela Bio. Dr. Mostaghimi has reported serving on an advisory board for Lilly. Dr. Friedman reported no relevant financial relationships.  

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

*This article was updated on 3/28/2022 to include Dr. Friedman's comments, and on 3/31/2022 to correct the statement regarding adverse events reported in the study 

A trio of analyses based on the prospective UK Biobank cohort suggest that regular coffee drinking, especially a daily intake of two to three cups, is not only safe for the heart but may be cardioprotective.

People without cardiovascular disease with that level of coffee intake, compared with those who weren’t coffee drinkers, showed significantly reduced risks of death and a range of CVD endpoints, the reductions ranging from 8% to 15% over about 10 years.

S_Bachstroem/Getty Images

In a separate analysis, participants with CVD at baseline also showed significantly improved survival with coffee intake of two to three cups daily, and no increased risk of arrhythmias.

In a third cut of the UK Biobank data, the clinical benefits of the same level of coffee drinking were observed whether the coffee consumed was the “instant” kind for reconstitution with water or brewed from ground whole beans.

Some clinicians advise their patients that coffee drinking may trigger or worsen some types of heart disease, observed Peter M. Kistler, MD, the Alfred Hospital and Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne. But the current analyses suggest that “daily coffee intake should not be discouraged, but rather considered part of a healthy diet.”

Dr. Kistler and colleagues are slated to present the three UK Biobank cohort analyses separately at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology. He presented some of the data and commented on them at a press conference held in advance of the meeting.

UK Biobank study participants, who were on average in their late 50s, reported their level of daily coffee intake and preferred type of coffee on questionnaires. The researchers observed generally U-shaped relationships between daily number of cups of coffee and incident CVD, heart failure, coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, atrial fibrillation, any arrhythmia, and death over 10 years.

“This is music to I think many of our patients’ ears, as well as many in the field of cardiology, as those of us that wake up early and stay up late in the hospital consume a fair amount of coffee,” observed Katie Berlacher, MD, associate chief of cardiology education at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

The analyses were based on a large cohort and saw a consistent pattern for several cardiovascular outcomes, observed Dr. Berlacher, incoming ACC scientific session vice chair.

The findings could have a “profound impact in daily clinical care, as many of us caution patients who have or are at risk for having CV[D] against coffee consumption,” she told this news organization by email.

“These studies suggest that we do not have objective evidence to caution nor ask patients to stop drinking coffee, including patients who have arrhythmias.”

But importantly, “these studies are not causal,” she added. “So we cannot go so far as to recommend coffee consumption, though one could posit that randomized prospective studies should be done to elucidate causation.”

Coffee, Dr. Kistler observed, “is the most common cognitive enhancer. It wakes you up, makes you mentally sharper, and it’s a very important component of many people’s daily lives. The take-home message is that clinicians should NOT advise patients to stop drinking coffee up to three cups per day.”

Also, “in non–coffee drinkers, we do not have the data to suggest they should start drinking coffee,” he said. Moreover, people shouldn’t necessarily increase their coffee intake, particularly if it makes them feel anxious or uncomfortable.
 

Benefits with or without known heart disease

The researchers identified 382,535 participants in the UK Biobank cohort who were free of CVD at baseline. Their median age was 57, and 52% were women.

Those who reported regular daily intake of two to three cups of coffee, compared with those who were not coffee drinkers, showed significantly reduced risks of CVD (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.88-0.94), CHD (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.87-0.93), heart failure (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.81-0.90), arrhythmias (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.88-0.95), and death from any cause over 10 years (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.83-0.90) (P < .01 for all endpoints).

The risk of CVD death hit its lowest point at an intake of one cup per day (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.75-0.93). The risk of stroke was lowest at less than one cup per day (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.75-0.96).

A separate analysis found similar outcomes among a different subset of UK Biobank participants with recognized CVD at baseline. Among 34,279 such persons, those who drank two to three cups of coffee per day, compared with non–coffee drinkers, showed a reduced risk of death over 10 years (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.86-0.99; P = .03).

Among the 24,111 persons diagnosed with arrhythmias at baseline, the lowest mortality risk was observed at one cup per day (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.78-0.94; P < .01). Among those with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter, one cup per day was associated with a mortality HR of 0.82 (95% CI, 0.73-0.93; P < .01).

In still another analysis of UK Biobank cohort, incident CVD and mortality during the 10-year follow-up was similarly reduced among participants who reported consumption of brewed ground coffee and, separately, instant coffee, compared with non–coffee drinkers. Decaffeinated coffee showed a mostly neutral or inconsistent effect on the clinical endpoints.

The lowest CVD risk was observed at two to three cups per day among those regularly drinking ground coffee (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.79-0.87) and those predominantly taking instant coffee (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.88-0.95).

Potential mechanisms, study limitations

“Caffeine blocks adenosine receptors, which may explain its potential mild antiarrhythmic properties,” Dr. Kistler said. “Regular coffee drinkers with supraventricular tachycardia coming to the emergency department often need higher adenosine doses to revert.”

Caffeine has a role in weight loss through inhibition of gut fatty acid absorption and increase in basal metabolic rate, Dr. Kistler added, and coffee has been associated with a significantly reduced risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes.

However, coffee beans contain more than 100 biologically active compounds, he noted. They include antioxidant polyphenols that reduce oxidative stress and modulate metabolism. Better survival with habitual coffee consumption may be related to improved endothelial function, circulating antioxidants, improved insulin sensitivity, or reduced inflammation, the researchers noted.

They acknowledged some limitations to the analyses. Cause and effect can’t be determined from the observational data. Also, a cup of coffee in the United Kingdom means about 200-250 mL of brew, but its actual caffeine content can vary from 90 mg to 250 mg. Also, data regarding added sugar or milk was lacking. And UK Biobank participants are predominantly White, so the findings may not be generalizable to other populations.

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

A trio of analyses based on the prospective UK Biobank cohort suggest that regular coffee drinking, especially a daily intake of two to three cups, is not only safe for the heart but may be cardioprotective.

People without cardiovascular disease with that level of coffee intake, compared with those who weren’t coffee drinkers, showed significantly reduced risks of death and a range of CVD endpoints, the reductions ranging from 8% to 15% over about 10 years.

S_Bachstroem/Getty Images

In a separate analysis, participants with CVD at baseline also showed significantly improved survival with coffee intake of two to three cups daily, and no increased risk of arrhythmias.

In a third cut of the UK Biobank data, the clinical benefits of the same level of coffee drinking were observed whether the coffee consumed was the “instant” kind for reconstitution with water or brewed from ground whole beans.

Some clinicians advise their patients that coffee drinking may trigger or worsen some types of heart disease, observed Peter M. Kistler, MD, the Alfred Hospital and Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne. But the current analyses suggest that “daily coffee intake should not be discouraged, but rather considered part of a healthy diet.”

Dr. Kistler and colleagues are slated to present the three UK Biobank cohort analyses separately at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology. He presented some of the data and commented on them at a press conference held in advance of the meeting.

UK Biobank study participants, who were on average in their late 50s, reported their level of daily coffee intake and preferred type of coffee on questionnaires. The researchers observed generally U-shaped relationships between daily number of cups of coffee and incident CVD, heart failure, coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, atrial fibrillation, any arrhythmia, and death over 10 years.

“This is music to I think many of our patients’ ears, as well as many in the field of cardiology, as those of us that wake up early and stay up late in the hospital consume a fair amount of coffee,” observed Katie Berlacher, MD, associate chief of cardiology education at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

The analyses were based on a large cohort and saw a consistent pattern for several cardiovascular outcomes, observed Dr. Berlacher, incoming ACC scientific session vice chair.

The findings could have a “profound impact in daily clinical care, as many of us caution patients who have or are at risk for having CV[D] against coffee consumption,” she told this news organization by email.

“These studies suggest that we do not have objective evidence to caution nor ask patients to stop drinking coffee, including patients who have arrhythmias.”

But importantly, “these studies are not causal,” she added. “So we cannot go so far as to recommend coffee consumption, though one could posit that randomized prospective studies should be done to elucidate causation.”

Coffee, Dr. Kistler observed, “is the most common cognitive enhancer. It wakes you up, makes you mentally sharper, and it’s a very important component of many people’s daily lives. The take-home message is that clinicians should NOT advise patients to stop drinking coffee up to three cups per day.”

Also, “in non–coffee drinkers, we do not have the data to suggest they should start drinking coffee,” he said. Moreover, people shouldn’t necessarily increase their coffee intake, particularly if it makes them feel anxious or uncomfortable.
 

Benefits with or without known heart disease

The researchers identified 382,535 participants in the UK Biobank cohort who were free of CVD at baseline. Their median age was 57, and 52% were women.

Those who reported regular daily intake of two to three cups of coffee, compared with those who were not coffee drinkers, showed significantly reduced risks of CVD (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.88-0.94), CHD (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.87-0.93), heart failure (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.81-0.90), arrhythmias (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.88-0.95), and death from any cause over 10 years (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.83-0.90) (P < .01 for all endpoints).

The risk of CVD death hit its lowest point at an intake of one cup per day (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.75-0.93). The risk of stroke was lowest at less than one cup per day (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.75-0.96).

A separate analysis found similar outcomes among a different subset of UK Biobank participants with recognized CVD at baseline. Among 34,279 such persons, those who drank two to three cups of coffee per day, compared with non–coffee drinkers, showed a reduced risk of death over 10 years (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.86-0.99; P = .03).

Among the 24,111 persons diagnosed with arrhythmias at baseline, the lowest mortality risk was observed at one cup per day (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.78-0.94; P < .01). Among those with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter, one cup per day was associated with a mortality HR of 0.82 (95% CI, 0.73-0.93; P < .01).

In still another analysis of UK Biobank cohort, incident CVD and mortality during the 10-year follow-up was similarly reduced among participants who reported consumption of brewed ground coffee and, separately, instant coffee, compared with non–coffee drinkers. Decaffeinated coffee showed a mostly neutral or inconsistent effect on the clinical endpoints.

The lowest CVD risk was observed at two to three cups per day among those regularly drinking ground coffee (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.79-0.87) and those predominantly taking instant coffee (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.88-0.95).

Potential mechanisms, study limitations

“Caffeine blocks adenosine receptors, which may explain its potential mild antiarrhythmic properties,” Dr. Kistler said. “Regular coffee drinkers with supraventricular tachycardia coming to the emergency department often need higher adenosine doses to revert.”

Caffeine has a role in weight loss through inhibition of gut fatty acid absorption and increase in basal metabolic rate, Dr. Kistler added, and coffee has been associated with a significantly reduced risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes.

However, coffee beans contain more than 100 biologically active compounds, he noted. They include antioxidant polyphenols that reduce oxidative stress and modulate metabolism. Better survival with habitual coffee consumption may be related to improved endothelial function, circulating antioxidants, improved insulin sensitivity, or reduced inflammation, the researchers noted.

They acknowledged some limitations to the analyses. Cause and effect can’t be determined from the observational data. Also, a cup of coffee in the United Kingdom means about 200-250 mL of brew, but its actual caffeine content can vary from 90 mg to 250 mg. Also, data regarding added sugar or milk was lacking. And UK Biobank participants are predominantly White, so the findings may not be generalizable to other populations.

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

A trio of analyses based on the prospective UK Biobank cohort suggest that regular coffee drinking, especially a daily intake of two to three cups, is not only safe for the heart but may be cardioprotective.

People without cardiovascular disease with that level of coffee intake, compared with those who weren’t coffee drinkers, showed significantly reduced risks of death and a range of CVD endpoints, the reductions ranging from 8% to 15% over about 10 years.

S_Bachstroem/Getty Images

In a separate analysis, participants with CVD at baseline also showed significantly improved survival with coffee intake of two to three cups daily, and no increased risk of arrhythmias.

In a third cut of the UK Biobank data, the clinical benefits of the same level of coffee drinking were observed whether the coffee consumed was the “instant” kind for reconstitution with water or brewed from ground whole beans.

Some clinicians advise their patients that coffee drinking may trigger or worsen some types of heart disease, observed Peter M. Kistler, MD, the Alfred Hospital and Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne. But the current analyses suggest that “daily coffee intake should not be discouraged, but rather considered part of a healthy diet.”

Dr. Kistler and colleagues are slated to present the three UK Biobank cohort analyses separately at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology. He presented some of the data and commented on them at a press conference held in advance of the meeting.

UK Biobank study participants, who were on average in their late 50s, reported their level of daily coffee intake and preferred type of coffee on questionnaires. The researchers observed generally U-shaped relationships between daily number of cups of coffee and incident CVD, heart failure, coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, atrial fibrillation, any arrhythmia, and death over 10 years.

“This is music to I think many of our patients’ ears, as well as many in the field of cardiology, as those of us that wake up early and stay up late in the hospital consume a fair amount of coffee,” observed Katie Berlacher, MD, associate chief of cardiology education at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

The analyses were based on a large cohort and saw a consistent pattern for several cardiovascular outcomes, observed Dr. Berlacher, incoming ACC scientific session vice chair.

The findings could have a “profound impact in daily clinical care, as many of us caution patients who have or are at risk for having CV[D] against coffee consumption,” she told this news organization by email.

“These studies suggest that we do not have objective evidence to caution nor ask patients to stop drinking coffee, including patients who have arrhythmias.”

But importantly, “these studies are not causal,” she added. “So we cannot go so far as to recommend coffee consumption, though one could posit that randomized prospective studies should be done to elucidate causation.”

Coffee, Dr. Kistler observed, “is the most common cognitive enhancer. It wakes you up, makes you mentally sharper, and it’s a very important component of many people’s daily lives. The take-home message is that clinicians should NOT advise patients to stop drinking coffee up to three cups per day.”

Also, “in non–coffee drinkers, we do not have the data to suggest they should start drinking coffee,” he said. Moreover, people shouldn’t necessarily increase their coffee intake, particularly if it makes them feel anxious or uncomfortable.
 

Benefits with or without known heart disease

The researchers identified 382,535 participants in the UK Biobank cohort who were free of CVD at baseline. Their median age was 57, and 52% were women.

Those who reported regular daily intake of two to three cups of coffee, compared with those who were not coffee drinkers, showed significantly reduced risks of CVD (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.88-0.94), CHD (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.87-0.93), heart failure (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.81-0.90), arrhythmias (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.88-0.95), and death from any cause over 10 years (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.83-0.90) (P < .01 for all endpoints).

The risk of CVD death hit its lowest point at an intake of one cup per day (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.75-0.93). The risk of stroke was lowest at less than one cup per day (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.75-0.96).

A separate analysis found similar outcomes among a different subset of UK Biobank participants with recognized CVD at baseline. Among 34,279 such persons, those who drank two to three cups of coffee per day, compared with non–coffee drinkers, showed a reduced risk of death over 10 years (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.86-0.99; P = .03).

Among the 24,111 persons diagnosed with arrhythmias at baseline, the lowest mortality risk was observed at one cup per day (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.78-0.94; P < .01). Among those with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter, one cup per day was associated with a mortality HR of 0.82 (95% CI, 0.73-0.93; P < .01).

In still another analysis of UK Biobank cohort, incident CVD and mortality during the 10-year follow-up was similarly reduced among participants who reported consumption of brewed ground coffee and, separately, instant coffee, compared with non–coffee drinkers. Decaffeinated coffee showed a mostly neutral or inconsistent effect on the clinical endpoints.

The lowest CVD risk was observed at two to three cups per day among those regularly drinking ground coffee (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.79-0.87) and those predominantly taking instant coffee (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.88-0.95).

Potential mechanisms, study limitations

“Caffeine blocks adenosine receptors, which may explain its potential mild antiarrhythmic properties,” Dr. Kistler said. “Regular coffee drinkers with supraventricular tachycardia coming to the emergency department often need higher adenosine doses to revert.”

Caffeine has a role in weight loss through inhibition of gut fatty acid absorption and increase in basal metabolic rate, Dr. Kistler added, and coffee has been associated with a significantly reduced risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes.

However, coffee beans contain more than 100 biologically active compounds, he noted. They include antioxidant polyphenols that reduce oxidative stress and modulate metabolism. Better survival with habitual coffee consumption may be related to improved endothelial function, circulating antioxidants, improved insulin sensitivity, or reduced inflammation, the researchers noted.

They acknowledged some limitations to the analyses. Cause and effect can’t be determined from the observational data. Also, a cup of coffee in the United Kingdom means about 200-250 mL of brew, but its actual caffeine content can vary from 90 mg to 250 mg. Also, data regarding added sugar or milk was lacking. And UK Biobank participants are predominantly White, so the findings may not be generalizable to other populations.

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

Cancer survivors who spend more than 8 hours of the day sitting are five times more likely to die over the ensuing years than their peers who spend less time sitting. Being physically active, on the other hand, lowers the risk of early death, new research shows.

What’s “alarming” is that so many cancer survivors have a sedentary lifestyle, Chao Cao and Lin Yang, PhD, with Alberta Health Services in Calgary, who worked on the study, said in an interview.

The American Cancer Society recommends that cancer survivors follow the same physical activity guidance as the general population. The target is 150-300 minutes of moderate activity or 75-150 minutes of vigorous activity each week (or a combination of these).

“Getting to or exceeding the upper limit of 300 minutes is ideal,” Mr. Cao and Dr. Yang say.

Yet in their study of more than 1,500 cancer survivors, more than half (57%) were inactive, reporting no weekly leisure-time physical activity in the past week.

About 16% were “insufficiently” active, or getting less than 150 minutes per week. Meanwhile, 28% were active, achieving more than 150 minutes of weekly physical activity.

Digging deeper, the researchers found that more than one-third of cancer survivors reported sitting for 6-8 hours each day, and one-quarter reported sitting for more than 8 hours per day.

Over the course of up to 9 years, 293 of the cancer survivors died – 114 from cancer, 41 from heart diseases, and 138 from other causes.

After accounting for things that might influence the results, the risk of dying from any cause or cancer was about 65% lower in cancer survivors who were physically active, relative to their inactive peers.

Sitting for long periods was especially risky, according to the study in JAMA Oncology.

Compared with cancer survivors who sat for less than 4 hours each day, cancer survivors who reported sitting for more than 8 hours a day had nearly twice the risk of dying from any cause and more than twice the risk of dying from cancer.

Cancer survivors who sat for more than 8 hours a day, and were inactive or not active enough, had as much as five times the risk of death from any cause or cancer.

“Be active and sit less, move more, and move frequently,” advise Mr. Cao and Dr. Yang. “Avoiding prolonged sitting is essential for most cancer survivors to reduce excess mortality risks.”

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

Cancer survivors who spend more than 8 hours of the day sitting are five times more likely to die over the ensuing years than their peers who spend less time sitting. Being physically active, on the other hand, lowers the risk of early death, new research shows.

What’s “alarming” is that so many cancer survivors have a sedentary lifestyle, Chao Cao and Lin Yang, PhD, with Alberta Health Services in Calgary, who worked on the study, said in an interview.

The American Cancer Society recommends that cancer survivors follow the same physical activity guidance as the general population. The target is 150-300 minutes of moderate activity or 75-150 minutes of vigorous activity each week (or a combination of these).

“Getting to or exceeding the upper limit of 300 minutes is ideal,” Mr. Cao and Dr. Yang say.

Yet in their study of more than 1,500 cancer survivors, more than half (57%) were inactive, reporting no weekly leisure-time physical activity in the past week.

About 16% were “insufficiently” active, or getting less than 150 minutes per week. Meanwhile, 28% were active, achieving more than 150 minutes of weekly physical activity.

Digging deeper, the researchers found that more than one-third of cancer survivors reported sitting for 6-8 hours each day, and one-quarter reported sitting for more than 8 hours per day.

Over the course of up to 9 years, 293 of the cancer survivors died – 114 from cancer, 41 from heart diseases, and 138 from other causes.

After accounting for things that might influence the results, the risk of dying from any cause or cancer was about 65% lower in cancer survivors who were physically active, relative to their inactive peers.

Sitting for long periods was especially risky, according to the study in JAMA Oncology.

Compared with cancer survivors who sat for less than 4 hours each day, cancer survivors who reported sitting for more than 8 hours a day had nearly twice the risk of dying from any cause and more than twice the risk of dying from cancer.

Cancer survivors who sat for more than 8 hours a day, and were inactive or not active enough, had as much as five times the risk of death from any cause or cancer.

“Be active and sit less, move more, and move frequently,” advise Mr. Cao and Dr. Yang. “Avoiding prolonged sitting is essential for most cancer survivors to reduce excess mortality risks.”

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

Cancer survivors who spend more than 8 hours of the day sitting are five times more likely to die over the ensuing years than their peers who spend less time sitting. Being physically active, on the other hand, lowers the risk of early death, new research shows.

What’s “alarming” is that so many cancer survivors have a sedentary lifestyle, Chao Cao and Lin Yang, PhD, with Alberta Health Services in Calgary, who worked on the study, said in an interview.

The American Cancer Society recommends that cancer survivors follow the same physical activity guidance as the general population. The target is 150-300 minutes of moderate activity or 75-150 minutes of vigorous activity each week (or a combination of these).

“Getting to or exceeding the upper limit of 300 minutes is ideal,” Mr. Cao and Dr. Yang say.

Yet in their study of more than 1,500 cancer survivors, more than half (57%) were inactive, reporting no weekly leisure-time physical activity in the past week.

About 16% were “insufficiently” active, or getting less than 150 minutes per week. Meanwhile, 28% were active, achieving more than 150 minutes of weekly physical activity.

Digging deeper, the researchers found that more than one-third of cancer survivors reported sitting for 6-8 hours each day, and one-quarter reported sitting for more than 8 hours per day.

Over the course of up to 9 years, 293 of the cancer survivors died – 114 from cancer, 41 from heart diseases, and 138 from other causes.

After accounting for things that might influence the results, the risk of dying from any cause or cancer was about 65% lower in cancer survivors who were physically active, relative to their inactive peers.

Sitting for long periods was especially risky, according to the study in JAMA Oncology.

Compared with cancer survivors who sat for less than 4 hours each day, cancer survivors who reported sitting for more than 8 hours a day had nearly twice the risk of dying from any cause and more than twice the risk of dying from cancer.

Cancer survivors who sat for more than 8 hours a day, and were inactive or not active enough, had as much as five times the risk of death from any cause or cancer.

“Be active and sit less, move more, and move frequently,” advise Mr. Cao and Dr. Yang. “Avoiding prolonged sitting is essential for most cancer survivors to reduce excess mortality risks.”

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

The College of American Pathologists (CAP) guidance outperforms the Royal College of Pathologists (RCPath) guidance in predicting recurrence and survival following resection of oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma (OCSCC), according to a retrospective study.

Treatment of OCSCC involves resection of the primary tumor, followed by neck dissection or postoperative radiotherapy when needed, but choice of treatment requires an accurate assessment of resection margins. Previous studies have failed to consistently show a correlation between margin status and clinical outcomes. Tumor size, depth of invasion, and other factors may explain inconsistent findings, but another possibility is the variability in how margin status is defined.

RCPath and CAP are among the most commonly used definitions. RCPath defines a positive margin as invasive tumor within 1 mm of the surgical margin, while CAP defines a positive margin as the presence of primary tumor or high-grade dysplasia at the margin itself. CAP recommends determination of a “final margin status” that also considers separately submitted extra tumor bed margins. Nevertheless, multiple studies have shown that reliance on the main tumor specimen outperformed the combined approach in predicting recurrence and survival.

In a study published online March 7 in Oral Oncology, researchers examined records from 300 patients (33.7% of whom were female) at South Infirmary Victoria University Hospital in Ireland between 2007 and 2020. The researchers found that 28.7% had margins determined by the RCPath definition and 16.7% according to the CAP definition. Forty-nine percent underwent extra tumor bed resections.

The mean follow-up period was 49 months, 64 months for surviving patients. Multivariate analyses accounting for other established prognosticators found that local recurrence was associated with CAP margins (odds ratio [OR], 1.86; 955 confidence interval [CI], 1.02-3.48) and T3/T4 classification (OR, 2.80; 95% CI, 1.53-5.13). CAP margins predicted disease-specific survival (OR, 2.28; 95% CI, 1.53-5.13) and narrowly missed significance in predicting overall survival (OR, 1.65; 95% CI, 0.99-2.75). RCPath margins were not predictive.

The researchers found a significant association between RCPath definition and metastatic nodal disease and extranodal extension, but there was no such relationship between these negative predictors and CAP and final margin status. “This finding may explain the superior independent prognostic ability of CAP margin status over RCPath in our cohort and is consistent with that of previous studies, which concluded that other histological risk factors are more important than margin status in predicting outcome,” the authors wrote.

Studies suggest that margins fewer than 1 mm remain a high-risk group, with worse survival outcomes than those of patients with 1- to 5-mm margins, even if the risk is lower than tumor at margins. “The optimum cut-off between low-risk and high-risk margins in OCSCC remains unresolved,” the authors wrote.

The study was retrospective and relied on data from a single center, and the patients included in the study may not be directly comparable to other OCSCC patients. The study was funded by the Head and Neck Oncology Fund, South Infirmary Victoria University Hospital.

The College of American Pathologists (CAP) guidance outperforms the Royal College of Pathologists (RCPath) guidance in predicting recurrence and survival following resection of oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma (OCSCC), according to a retrospective study.

Treatment of OCSCC involves resection of the primary tumor, followed by neck dissection or postoperative radiotherapy when needed, but choice of treatment requires an accurate assessment of resection margins. Previous studies have failed to consistently show a correlation between margin status and clinical outcomes. Tumor size, depth of invasion, and other factors may explain inconsistent findings, but another possibility is the variability in how margin status is defined.

RCPath and CAP are among the most commonly used definitions. RCPath defines a positive margin as invasive tumor within 1 mm of the surgical margin, while CAP defines a positive margin as the presence of primary tumor or high-grade dysplasia at the margin itself. CAP recommends determination of a “final margin status” that also considers separately submitted extra tumor bed margins. Nevertheless, multiple studies have shown that reliance on the main tumor specimen outperformed the combined approach in predicting recurrence and survival.

In a study published online March 7 in Oral Oncology, researchers examined records from 300 patients (33.7% of whom were female) at South Infirmary Victoria University Hospital in Ireland between 2007 and 2020. The researchers found that 28.7% had margins determined by the RCPath definition and 16.7% according to the CAP definition. Forty-nine percent underwent extra tumor bed resections.

The mean follow-up period was 49 months, 64 months for surviving patients. Multivariate analyses accounting for other established prognosticators found that local recurrence was associated with CAP margins (odds ratio [OR], 1.86; 955 confidence interval [CI], 1.02-3.48) and T3/T4 classification (OR, 2.80; 95% CI, 1.53-5.13). CAP margins predicted disease-specific survival (OR, 2.28; 95% CI, 1.53-5.13) and narrowly missed significance in predicting overall survival (OR, 1.65; 95% CI, 0.99-2.75). RCPath margins were not predictive.

The researchers found a significant association between RCPath definition and metastatic nodal disease and extranodal extension, but there was no such relationship between these negative predictors and CAP and final margin status. “This finding may explain the superior independent prognostic ability of CAP margin status over RCPath in our cohort and is consistent with that of previous studies, which concluded that other histological risk factors are more important than margin status in predicting outcome,” the authors wrote.

Studies suggest that margins fewer than 1 mm remain a high-risk group, with worse survival outcomes than those of patients with 1- to 5-mm margins, even if the risk is lower than tumor at margins. “The optimum cut-off between low-risk and high-risk margins in OCSCC remains unresolved,” the authors wrote.

The study was retrospective and relied on data from a single center, and the patients included in the study may not be directly comparable to other OCSCC patients. The study was funded by the Head and Neck Oncology Fund, South Infirmary Victoria University Hospital.

The College of American Pathologists (CAP) guidance outperforms the Royal College of Pathologists (RCPath) guidance in predicting recurrence and survival following resection of oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma (OCSCC), according to a retrospective study.

Treatment of OCSCC involves resection of the primary tumor, followed by neck dissection or postoperative radiotherapy when needed, but choice of treatment requires an accurate assessment of resection margins. Previous studies have failed to consistently show a correlation between margin status and clinical outcomes. Tumor size, depth of invasion, and other factors may explain inconsistent findings, but another possibility is the variability in how margin status is defined.

RCPath and CAP are among the most commonly used definitions. RCPath defines a positive margin as invasive tumor within 1 mm of the surgical margin, while CAP defines a positive margin as the presence of primary tumor or high-grade dysplasia at the margin itself. CAP recommends determination of a “final margin status” that also considers separately submitted extra tumor bed margins. Nevertheless, multiple studies have shown that reliance on the main tumor specimen outperformed the combined approach in predicting recurrence and survival.

In a study published online March 7 in Oral Oncology, researchers examined records from 300 patients (33.7% of whom were female) at South Infirmary Victoria University Hospital in Ireland between 2007 and 2020. The researchers found that 28.7% had margins determined by the RCPath definition and 16.7% according to the CAP definition. Forty-nine percent underwent extra tumor bed resections.

The mean follow-up period was 49 months, 64 months for surviving patients. Multivariate analyses accounting for other established prognosticators found that local recurrence was associated with CAP margins (odds ratio [OR], 1.86; 955 confidence interval [CI], 1.02-3.48) and T3/T4 classification (OR, 2.80; 95% CI, 1.53-5.13). CAP margins predicted disease-specific survival (OR, 2.28; 95% CI, 1.53-5.13) and narrowly missed significance in predicting overall survival (OR, 1.65; 95% CI, 0.99-2.75). RCPath margins were not predictive.

The researchers found a significant association between RCPath definition and metastatic nodal disease and extranodal extension, but there was no such relationship between these negative predictors and CAP and final margin status. “This finding may explain the superior independent prognostic ability of CAP margin status over RCPath in our cohort and is consistent with that of previous studies, which concluded that other histological risk factors are more important than margin status in predicting outcome,” the authors wrote.

Studies suggest that margins fewer than 1 mm remain a high-risk group, with worse survival outcomes than those of patients with 1- to 5-mm margins, even if the risk is lower than tumor at margins. “The optimum cut-off between low-risk and high-risk margins in OCSCC remains unresolved,” the authors wrote.

The study was retrospective and relied on data from a single center, and the patients included in the study may not be directly comparable to other OCSCC patients. The study was funded by the Head and Neck Oncology Fund, South Infirmary Victoria University Hospital.

Hospitalized COVID-19 survivors showed greater cognitive impairment 6 months later, compared with patients hospitalized for other causes, but the overall disease burden was similar, based on data from 85 adults with COVID-19.

Previous studies have shown that cognitive and neuropsychiatric symptoms can occur from 2-6 months after COVID-19 recovery, and such symptoms are known to be associated with hospitalization for other severe medical conditions, Vardan Nersesjan, MD, of Copenhagen University Hospital, and colleagues wrote.

However, it remains unknown if COVID-19 is associated with a unique pattern of cognitive and mental impairment compared with other similarly severe medical conditions, they said.

In a study published in JAMA Psychiatry (2022 Mar 23. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2022.0284), the researchers identified 85 adult COVID-19 survivors and 61 controls with non-COVID medical conditions who were treated and released between July 2020 and July 2021. The COVID-19 patients and controls were matched for age, sex, and ICU status. Cognitive impairment was assessed using the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), neurologic examination, and a semistructured interview to determine subjective symptoms.

The primary outcomes were the total scores on the MoCA and any new-onset psychiatric diagnoses. Secondary outcomes included specific psychiatric diagnoses such as depression, neurologic examination findings, and self-reported neuropsychiatric and cognitive symptoms. The mean age of the COVID-19 patients was 56.8 years, and 42% were women.

At 6 months’ follow-up, cognitive status was significantly lower in COVID-19 survivors, compared with controls, based on total geometric mean MoCA scores (26.7 vs. 27.5, P = .01). However, cognitive status improved significantly from 19.2 at hospital discharge to 26.1 at 6 months in 15 of the COVID-19 patients (P = .004), the researchers noted.

New-onset psychiatric diagnoses occurred in 16 COVID-19 patients and 12 of the controls (19% vs. 20%); this difference was not significant.

Secondary outcomes were not significantly different at 6 months between the groups, with the exception of anosmia, which was significantly more common in the COVID-19 patients; however, the significance disappeared in adjusted analysis, the researchers said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the inability to prove causality because of the case-control feature and by the inability to detect small differences in neuropsychiatric outcomes, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the use of a prospectively matched control group with similar disease severity admitted to the same hospital in the same time frame. Although the overall burden of neuropsychiatric and neurologic symptoms and diagnoses appeared similar in COVID-19 patients and those with other medical conditions, more research in larger populations is needed to determine smaller differences in neuropsychiatric profiles, the researchers noted.

Study fills research gap

The study is important at this time because, although prolonged neuropsychiatric and cognitive symptoms have been reported after COVID-19, the field lacked prospective case-control studies with well-matched controls to investigate whether these outcomes differed from those seen in other critical illnesses that had also required hospitalization, corresponding author Michael E. Benros, MD, of the Mental Health Center, Copenhagen, said in an interview.

“I was surprised that there was a significant worse cognitive functioning among COVID-19 patients 6 months after symptom onset also when compared to this well-matched control group that had been hospitalized for non–COVID-19 illness, although the absolute difference between the groups in cognition score were small,” said Dr. Benros. “Another notable finding is the large improvement in cognitive functioning from discharge to follow-up,” he added on behalf of himself and fellow corresponding author Daniel Kondziella, MD.

The study results show that cognitive function affected by COVID-19 and critical illness as observed at discharge showed a substantial improvement at 6 months after symptom onset, said Dr. Benros. “However, the cognitive function was significantly worse among severely ill COVID-19 patients 6 months after symptom onset when compared to a matched control group of individuals hospitalized for non–COVID-19 illness, although this difference in cognitive function was rather small in absolute numbers, and smaller than what had been suggested by other studies that lacked control groups. Strikingly, neuropsychiatric disorders were similar across the two groups, which was also the case when looking at neuropsychiatric symptoms.

“Larger prospective case-control studies of neuropsychiatric and cognitive functioning after COVID-19, compared with matched controls are still needed to detect smaller differences, and more detailed cognitive domains, and with longer follow-up time, which we are currently conducting,” Dr. Benros said.  
 

Controlled studies will help planning

“Lingering neuropsychiatric complications are common after COVID-19, but only controlled studies can tell us whether these complications are specific to COVID-19, rather than a general effect of having been medically ill,” Alasdair G. Rooney, MRCPsych MD PhD, of the University of Edinburgh, said in an interview. “The answer matters ultimately because COVID-19 is a new disease; societies and health care services need to be able to plan for its specific consequences.”

The health status of the control group is important as well. “Most previous studies had compared COVID-19 survivors against healthy controls or patients from a historical database. This new study compared COVID-19 survivors against those hospitalized for other medical causes over the same period,” Dr. Rooney said. “This is a more stringent test of whether COVID-19 has specific neurocognitive and neuropsychiatric consequences.

“The study found that new-onset neuropsychiatric diagnoses and symptoms were no more likely to occur after COVID-19 than after similarly severe medical illnesses,” Dr. Rooney said. “This negative finding runs counter to some earlier studies and may surprise some.” The findings need to be replicated in larger samples, but the current study shows the importance of prospectively recruiting active controls.

“In a subgroup analysis, some patients showed good improvement in cognitive scores between discharge and follow-up. While unsurprising, this is encouraging and suggests that the early postdischarge months are an important time for neurocognitive recovery,” Dr. Rooney noted.

“The findings suggest that COVID-19 may impair attention more selectively than other medical causes of hospitalization. COVID-19 survivors may also be at higher risk of significant overall cognitive impairment than survivors of similarly severe medical illnesses, after a similar duration,” said Dr. Rooney. “If the results are replicated by other prospective studies, they would suggest that there is something about COVID-19 that causes clinically significant neurocognitive difficulties in a minority of survivors.

“Larger well-controlled studies are required, with longer follow-up and more detailed neurocognitive testing,” as the duration of impairment and scope for further recovery are not known, Dr. Rooney added. Also unknown is whether COVID-19 affects attention permanently, or whether recovery is simply slower after COVID-19 compared to other medical illnesses.

“Knowing who is at the greatest risk of severe cognitive impairment after COVID-19 is important and likely to allow tailoring of more effective shielding strategies,” said Dr. Rooney. “This study was conducted before the widespread availability of vaccines for COVID-19. Long-term neuropsychiatric outcomes in vaccinated patients remain largely unknown. Arguably, these are now more important to understand, as future COVID-19 waves will occur mainly among vaccinated individuals.”

The study was supported by the Lundbeck Foundation and the Novo Nordisk Foundation. Lead author Dr. Nersesjan had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Benros reported grants from Lundbeck Foundation and Novo Nordisk Foundation during the conduct of the study. Dr. Rooney had no financial conflicts to disclose.

This article was updated 3/25/22.